Talk:Biological membrane

message: I think this entry title is a sensible place to put all the generalities about biological membranes, but right now the cell membrane entry is a lot richer in generalities, which creates the problem that a person seeking to learn about membranes in general would learn more by going to the entry on cell membranes in particular, which he or she will be unlikely to think to do. Thing is, I like having all the generalities in the cell membrane entry (many of which I put there myself). I'm not sure it's justified, but I bet nearly all of the membrane in a cell either belongs to the cell membrane or is continuous with it (e.g. endoplasmic reticulum); so in that sense the cell membrane tops the hierarchy and seems a natural roof under which to shovel stuff. I don't know the best way out of this rut. Incidentally, after I had put a lot of description into the cell membrane entry, I went around and substituted that entry as a link in other biology entries that until then had linked to membrane, which at the time was brief and not specific to biological membranes.
:A lot of generalities might apply equally well to, say, the cis-golgi, which is not connected to the cell membrane... I think your initial suggestion that generalities should go here in biological membrane. Graft
At first, I didn't see the purpose in having two separate entries for membranes, but I guess the cell membrane article is really just for the outer cellular membrane.  Perhaps this page should be merged with lipid bilayer... I mean, aren't all so called biological membranes predominantly (phospho)lipid bilayers?
:Biological membranes are much more complex than simple lipid bilayers, both in their composition and in the interaction with their environment. Perhaps lipid bilayer should be merged to this page. However, it would probably be most sensible to merge lipid bilayer, micelle and vesicle to "lipid bilayer" and leave this page (biological membrane) on its own. --Eleassar777 14:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cell membrane or Biological membranes entry? 

message: Cholesterol is a vital component of the bilayer, with important effects on permeability to various substances and on the phase-transition temperature of the membrane (c.f. impurities causing depression of freezing point). It needs to be specifically mentioned in the opening paragraph because, chemically speaking, it is neither a phospholipid, nor a protein. 
Its derivatives (steroid hormones) are similarly miscible in the bilayer but, being 'functional' rather than 'structural', perhaps these should not be mentioned here, to avoid confusion and leave that fact to the individual articles on each of these substances?
I will refrain from making an edit myself, as I don't have anything to cite, at the moment. EatYerGreens 23:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cholesterol? 

message: The header says this is not about cell membranes, but then includes the content.  Will be fix to fix the heirarchy.TCO (Reviews needed) 15:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Its poor for sure. The reason for the statement probably is, that as biological membrane you can imagine any physiological membranes in the bodies of human or animal or whatever, nevertheless in colloquial speech, if you say biological membrane, for huge community of people (cell biologists, most biologist in general) it would be the common property od cell membranes. Cell membrane should any type of membrane, however in reality in colloquial speech all the people will think of plasma membrane - so it means there already is mess in understanding of the concepts in expectedness of the names for the articles here... Reo + 15:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought was going on.  You also have usage of the term where it is really more related to a film that is  not a selective barrier but a separation (like accoustic membrane on a drum or tympanic membrane in an ear).  I mean a steel drum does not have a selective barriar on the head of the drum!   Anyhow, I am going to mess with the artificial stuff for now.TCO (Reviews needed) 15:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Belatedly, please note, the nomenclature being used above is not standard, and so potentially confuses. The hydrophobic effect statements lack thermodynamic reference, and so may obfuscate simple dipolar (like dissolves like) interactions with this thermodynamic driving force of membrane formation (see summaries by Ken Dill and others). As well, the protein associations described will completely confuse readers, in their use of the term inner and outer membrane, when it appears "leaflet" was intended. Moreover, even with that correction, the points are incorrect, because peripheral is generally defined by single leaflet association and limited penetration of the associated protein with the lipophilic interior of the one leaflet (and not by outer versus inner), while integral is likewise defined not by which leaflet, but by the same penetration/lipophilic association concepts. And as presented, the protein descriptions only begin to touch on the interesting and complex subject (missing how they come to be integral versus peripheral, how the history of the concepts derive from practical, functional (preparative) observations of what procedures separate proteins from membranes, etc. So, I would not proceed with this outline, as presented, and if it has been integrated, I would have an expert carefully review for the misstatements it might have engendered. (a retired scientist second generation in academic lineage to Singer-Nicholson)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:9B0:48A6:82D4:5919:3B87 (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  poor article to article org 

message: Substituted at 09:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do not disagree with the User's point regarding the content need, no high school SAT preparation should be based on Wikipedia content. Remember, we make no claim to reliability of content, and a person sitting for the SAT must rely entirely on reliable content to provide correct answers. Point the User to a better source than this, specifically in this case, but also generally.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:9B0:48A6:82D4:5919:3B87 (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The article does not appear to state, at any point, and in any absolute or relative way, the scale or dimensions of the structures shown and discussed (and so misses the relevance of some of the structures to nanotechnology). At very least, the range of dimensions determined by neutron diffraction and inferred from crystallographic observations should be stated and referenced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:9B0:48A6:82D4:5919:3B87 (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for statements regarding dimensions