Talk:Glia

message: It seems citation is a general problem: The reference to modulation of electrophysiology is from 2008, but I know a reference to the "Tripartite synapse", which includes glia a neuromodulator, and is much earlier.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.230.7 (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: A fundamental difference with neurons is their ability to duplicate through mitosis.
That line is found in the Astrocyte article, but contradicted in this article. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
:At least some neuroglia retain mitotic ability for at least several years after development, although I don't know which exactly... --Username132 (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy 2 

message: I propose that the "function of the glial cell" section is turned to bullet points with the main body of information contained within the subsequent sections on individual receptor types. --Username132 (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convert Sections To Bullet Points 

message: i've added some information about glial repair under the functions of glia cells. i think this counts as one of their primary functions that deserves a mention.
the information is from neuroscience 3rd edition purves et all .
not really sure how to put the references on properly yet... --Dylan2106 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  repair after injury 

message: Who added that? Did you try scrolling to the bottom of the page. --IceHunter 17:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever added that, I changed to a "refimprove" tag. There are some references right now but certainly not enough for such an important article in the biology field. Keith Galveston (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No references? 

message: I think the following content is supposed to be integrated into the table. Does everyone agree?
===Astrocytes===
*star shaped with many processes
*connect to neurons; help anchor them to nearby blood capillaries
*control the chemical environment of the neurons
===Ependymal cells===
*range in shape from squamous to columnar; many are ciliated
*line the dorsal body cavity housing the brain and spinal cord
*form a barrier between the neurons and the rest of the body
===Oligodendrocytes===
*have few processes
*line up along neurons and wrap themselves around axons
*form the myelin sheath – an insulating membrane
*form a semi stiff connective tissue around the neurons in CNS
*oligodendrocytes form myelin sheath of neurons in CNS
Keith Galveston (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  integrating into the table 

message: *have few processes
*line up along neurons and wrap themselves around axons
*form the myelin sheath – an insulating membrane
*form a semi stiff connective tissue around the neurons in CNS
*oligodendrocytes form myelin sheath of neurons in CNS</blockquote>
Keith Galveston (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oligodendrocytes

message: Seems like there is evidence for their involvement in information processing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=17202478&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google
May want to add something to the article about this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.151.65 (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glia in Information Processing 

message: I know Discover magazine is not a peer review journal, but this article seems to point to new information about glial cells. i notice that the ratio in the article of glial to neuronal is not consistent with this article (or at least someone is summarizing perhaps more than necessary), and there is some debate in the past about the ratio. is the article accurate, or does it gloss over different ratios in different nervous system structures? I would like to have this referenced, but i have not done much editing of relatively advanced science articles, so im starting with this query.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Glial cells are kind of a hot topic nowadays, and lots of new information has been coming out.  I'm a neuroscientist, but unfortunately glial cells are one of my weakest areas, so there's not a lot I can do to help.  Regarding the numbers, it seems that estimates have been changing recently, but lots of journalism-level articles don't know that and go with the old numbers.  There has been some editing relating to this in the Brain article --  is the reference used to justify the numbers currently given there. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New information? 

message: "However, detailed studies found no evidence that 'mature' glia, such as astrocytes or oligodendrocytes, retain the ability of mitosis."
I don't specialise in glia, but I do know that astrocytes replicate after injury to fill the gap, quite famously so in the field of CNS injury. One famous paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16825202) selectively killed proliferating astrocytes only and left and gaping hole instead of scar tissue after injury. The evidence is pretty conclusive that astrocytes divide, and the current article provides no citation to its claimed study suggesting otherwise. Wee Jimmy (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to fix the article in whatever way seems correct to you. Looie496 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glial Capacity to Replicate 

message: According to the article, the tissue of the human brain is 90% glial cells. That means that neurons, blood vessels etc. make up only 10% of the brain, either by mass or volume. Since the article has already established that the brain has roughly equal numbers of glia and neurons, this also means that glial cells  are >10x the volume or mass of neurons. Neither of these claims seems plausible to me. Can someone confirm these figures. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Most glial cells are in fact a lot smaller than the average neuron, but even so the 90% number is out of date.  The currently most widely accepted value for the human brain is that the numbers of neurons and glial cells are roughly equal -- the brain article gives a reference for that finding. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Okay, I see what you are talking about now.  Unfortunately the reference for those numbers is a "News and Views" piece from Nature that does not specify the sources of its information, so it isn't clear whether the authors were simply using out-of-date figures.  I am not terribly knowledgeable about glia myself, but I agree with you that it looks like there must be a discrepancy somewhere. Looie496 (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

text: But the article states explicitly that the brain has roughly equal numbers of glia and neurons, so the 90% figure can't be referring to numbers of cells. Something about this figure is wrong, since any way we look at it, it contradicts the rest fo the article. I suggest we remove it until someone with access to that article can confirm the figure. I suspect a misunderstanding. Mark Marathon (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The human brain contains <10% neurons? 

message: Have the functions of these two been identified and distinguished? - Be bbes (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Function of fibrous and protoplasmic astrocytes 

message: I don't have time at the moment to find appropriate references, but let me at least flag some issues in the "History" section:
* "Einstein's brain was discovered to contain significantly more glia than normal brains in the left angular gyrus": there is no citation for this observation, and overall, so what? One person and one brain area prove nothing. "Einstein was smart and he had more glia, so he must have been smart because of the glia" is quite a leap of logic.
* "The ratio of glia to neurons increases with our definition of intelligence." Brain size would be perhaps more appropriate, and is far more quantifiable than "intelligence." The correlation of brain size to proportion of glia is strong when comparing species across the animal kingdom, but I'm not aware of evidence that it's a major factor when comparing among different individual human beings.
* The final paragraph contains many myths, and reads more like a polemic. The main source seems to be an article in ScientificBrains, which is not a peer-reviewed journal, and that article contains several inaccuracies.
Also relevant: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/know-your-neurons-what-is-the-ratio-of-glia-to-neurons-in-the-brain/
olfactoryScientist (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section needs work 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neuroglia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927162621/http://www.anioman.com/Profile.php?viewedArtistID=1793201250&gallery=&page=1&back=1 to http://www.anioman.com/Profile.php?viewedArtistID=1793201250&gallery=&page=1&back=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: In the introduction, when it says that the glia help breathing, the word breathing directs to literal breathing, but my guess is that the intention was cellular respiration, or am I wrong? -- Rva24 at June 25, 2021 --Rva24 (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You are most likely correct here. See what is said on this topic further down the article, and follow whatever sourced statements say when you amend he article. Be Bold!--Quisqualis (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cellular respiration? 

message: ahh, the joys of research...
(the technical report very few can follow)
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001444#abstract0
(a news article explaining in better terms)
https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/new-type-of-cell-discovered-in-the-heart/
-m173.75.240.76 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Type Discovered 

message: There is some conflicting information regarding just what is the most numerous macroglial cell present in the CNS.  In the table containing descriptions of various types of macroglia, under row for "astrocyte", it indicates that astrocytes are "The most abundant type of macroglial cell in the CNS,[11]".  Contrary to this, and just past this table in the section titled "Total Number", it indicates that oligodendrocytes are the most abundant type of macroglial cell by far.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.163 (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy 3