Talk:Lysosome

message: Is this the best anyone can do to illustrate a lysosome?  Showing a cell with a lysosome in proportion is well and fine, but I'd like to see some detail.  The tiny image of the lysosome is totally lacking in value except to show an approximate scale size in proportion to a cell.  Pmarshal (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cell Illustration

message: I have made a few starting changes (such as rearranging the beginning) but this article needs more changes than one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlashingYoshi (talk • contribs) 15:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs cleanup... 

message: Hi all– as you may have read at the top of this page from the auto-tagged info box, I have identified this article as one that would do well to be revised, polished, and expanded; this is part of a class assignment, and because I plan to make more than a few minor changes, I figured I would sign-post the intended changes. I am by no means well-versed in Wikipedia convention, so I will attempt to modularize my changes as best I can, instead of overhauling the entirety of the content all in one edit. I will explain my intended revisions, and the reasoning I have for them, below:
* Overhaul of the introduction:
→ In its current form, the introduction has several problems in terms of readability, simplicity, and effective framing of the lysosome's nature, in terms of both characteristics & purpose. One example of unnecessary wordiness is "Structurally and chemically, they are spherical vesicles..." In addition, the 'shape' of the intro, or transition from general facts to trivial details, is rather poor. Use of appositives muddle the crucial aim of the introduction, which is to provide general understanding to a general audience. (Examples: "(they are absent in red blood cells)" in the first sentence, and " about pH 4.5 (about the pH of black coffee). Furthermore, it seems the introduction has not been updated past the work of the original author, as it features some idiosyncrasies, like the stacked analogies, "thus," etc. I think it would do this article well to clean up the phrasing, trivia-clutter, and presentation of context. I will post a substantial revision to the intro, though I welcome anyone to change any singular part if a cleaner & more precise phrasing is imagined.
* Inclusion of some visuals (this is the only article linked in the Cell info-box which has 0 visuals)
→ Many of the processes that lysosomes are involved in, or that directly lead to its creation & regulation, are very difficult to understand through just text, as they are contingent upon the spatial organization of many components. That is to say, the acidification of a vesicle (to form a 'lysosome') is dependent simply on the protein composition of its membrane, which is dependent on membrane fusion, which is dependent on budding & directing of these components from the Golgi, etc. Other processes that would do well to be illustrated (or have open-source graphics sourced):
- Viral entry 
- toxin entry (I'm thinking AB5 toxins, like cholera)
- internalization of receptor molecules
- calcium transport, signalling
- accumulation of certain polymers due to null mutations (LSDs)
Also, just the general idea that each polymer-type has an associated protein (cathepsin) that allows it to be degraded)
* Re-sectioning
→ I think the division between structure, function, and formation is poor at the moment. After reading the full article, if I were new to the lysosome, I would not be given a good basic idea of what the thing is. Its formation, structure, and function are inextricably linked; it is not like the mitochondria which has any specific organization. Its protein composition in its membrane & lumen are both its structure & function, and the assembly of those components in its formation exactly manifests its structure & function. That is to say, it does not posses a structure as a quality separate from its composition; they are one in the same.
* Disease section
→ More of a minor note, but I think this section could be beefed-up, refined a bit. In the very least, the relevant proteins & processes could be introduced before-hand, such that the lead-in can make for a more cohesive article.
I'm going to leave alone the Lysomotropism & Discovery section. I think they are rather high quality, though their level of detail outclasses the current manifestations of the core sections. I think after those are brought up, it will be fine & balanced.
Besides the introduction, I think the most important area of improvement is adding images and weaving them seemlessly into the various areas of discussion. I have found a couple, but overall, this has been something I can't quite nail down, so if anyone has any ideas, please do jump-in.
IamtheStudent (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming revision activity for this article 

message: The introduction section of this article could use some major tightening up, as the wording is funny and there is lot of extraneous information that doesn’t need to be included in an introduction.  Also, each paragraph tends to jump around, change topics in the middle, and talk about many completely unrelated aspects, instead of separating into multiple paragraphs.  This makes it hard for a reader to follow.
	Also, some of the title segments should be changed.  For instance, “Discovery” could be something more broad, like “History”, so the section isn’t limited to just just the discovery of the lysosome, and can talk instead about all history concerning the lysosome.  Additionally, the section titled “Formation” should be retitled to something that is more telling of what the section could be about to an unknowing reader.  Also, the section talks about both a lysosome’s formation (origin) and decomposition, but the title doesn’t currently relay that.  Another suggestion concerning the topic of titles is that some sub-titles could possibly be added, to better separate the information within sections, and make specific information easier to find.
	Finally, after checking five or six different sources, they seem for the most part to be relevant and up to date, but many of them still have a significant amount of useful information to add to the article to make it stronger. MEllis12 (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cell Biology Class Review 

message: Overall the article does not seem very coherent as many details seem to be missing. The introduction is easy to understand; however, the wording can be improved. Many problems stem from not explaining things in enough detail. 
The section about lysosome formation is not clear and needs to be expanded. The inclusion of more details about the whole process may alleviate some of the issue. In addition, the  structure section could include more details about the lysosomal membrane such as the fact that it has a carbohydrate coating on the interior to protect it from the hydrolytic enzymes. In the structure and function section the role of calcium in lysosomes needs to be expanded upon. The discovery section although well written is out of proportion in terms of size compared to the sections about the lysosome itself. The pathogen entry section needs to include more details so that the process becomes more clear. The disease section can be expanded to include more information especially in regards to increased interest in lysosomal malfunction and Alzheimer's disease. In addition, I cell disease would be an interesting disease to mention. 
The article seems to have all the facts cited except for one instance. In the function and structure section when explaining how acid hydrolyses are pH sensitive and will not function in the cytosol it appears as though a citation may be necessary. (RaminGarmany (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review  

message: The lead paragraph seems to contain some information that might be plagiarized. The end of the first paragraph in the lead section talks about additional lysosomal functions beyond macromolecule degradation; however, that sentence closely resembles the statement in the introduction of the cited article. It could use re-wording. In addition, that statement, although correct and backed up with a citation, is followed by no further discussion later sections of the article. There is no additional information in the article that addresses the role of lysosomes in secretion, cell signalling, or energy metabolism. The sentence seems sort of tacked onto the end of the paragraph with no further explanation. The only mention of additional functions comes with plasma membrane repair in the Formation section, but it is out of place and doesn't have much to do with lysosome formation anyway.
The Discovery section is lacking citations. The first citation doesn't come until the end of the second paragraph in the section; there are no citations at all in the first paragraph. 
In the Formation section, the first paragraph does not seem to have much to do with the formation of lysosomes. It seems to discuss the role of lysosomes in the replenishment of plasma membranes, as I said earlier, but this is out of place. There is a broad discussion of the role of plasma membranes and how they interact with other organelles, but there is not a clear statement about the membrane formation of lysosomes in particular. 
The Lysosomotropism section uses very technical language. I was not really able to understand what the section was about. Perhaps it could be clearer if someone could explain the consequences of lysosomotropism and what exactly it has to do with types of drugs? I feel like the main point was hidden in the technical language.
Mstanwick1 (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for Improvement 

message: Article Review
The article provides basic and simple information for the organelle without going into too many technical specifics. However the first few paragraphs for a general background of the overall page could use some work. The last two paragraphs in particular seem to jump around a bit when briefing on the synthesis of enzymes within the organelle. For a general info section, the paragraphs could be shortened to a few sentences rather than two paragraphs to avoid confusion. Some of the wording could also be edited. The phrase "the biggest ones can be more than 10 times bigger than the smallest ones." looks to have several grammatical errors and could use some heavy modification. In comparison to the first couple of paragraphs, the rest of the page's sections which focused on different subject of the organelles stayed somewhat concise and to the point. When looking at the page it promptly serves its purpose in answering questions most people might have for visiting the page in the first place. It simply explains it's role in the cell, a bit of its internal composition and a few of the chemical/biological variables that are involved in how it functions. Once again, the article serves it purpose in providing simple info about the organelle which some entry level college and even high school courses may appreciate. However to improve its legitimacy,I would definitely expand on the function of lysosomes, and what other organelles it might interact with withing the cell a lot more. The discovery section is not only the first section,but also the best written section. It would help to focus more on the functions section, expand on it, critique the wording while adding a few more technical terms, and moving it above the discovery section since that's the info most people will often be seeking out.
Jaleniam (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Review 

message: To start the opening paragraph has a good use of giving an general overview of what this organelle's function is. However there are some section that contain information that is irrelevant to this article such as stating the ways that a cell intakes materials from extracellular areas. Also in the intro there are examples of wordiness which can be omitted to give rise to much better flowing sentences. Last critique on the intro is that it seems to be lacking in available citations for the information attained, and even on the last paragraph there is an outcry for a citation of the materiel claimed but none is given. Also the photo used to give a visual example of the lysosome is just poor the first photo to appear in a google search for a lysosome is the anatomical structure, not saying this is the photo that needs to be changed to but rather one that focuses more in on the lysosome itself.
In the section labeled formation the entire first paragraph is not needed, even though this is giving a reason why the lysosome is created the article already previously states this in above sections and does not need to be restated. Also the heading could be changed from formation production, formation gives a misleading feeling that a lysosome just appears out of a single step, instead of going through an assembly like production ending with packaging. 
The section pathogen entry could just be placed in the above section labeled function and structure, and the section could be broken into its separate parts as function with sub groups like pathogen control and then another sections labeled structure. The section labeled disease should be changed to disorder sure the result is refereed to as a disease but the actual topic is the dis-function of the lysosome not that the lysosome itself has a disease. Also the section Lysosomotropism is a little difficult to follow and it hard to find the point of the section and if it to is a disorder it should be a sub group of the what should be Disorder section. Also if one section of disorder is expanded upon the other should also have a section explaining their relevance as well. Lastly the pronunciation section should be at the top no one wants to read and entire article pronouncing a word incorrectly just to be told they are wrong at the end of the article. AMercer22 (talk) 9/30/2016.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amercer22 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cell Biology Class Review 

message: When talking about organisms that do/ do not have lysosomes it needs to be clarified when talking about plants versus animals . Also would clarify what is a rare instance for an organism to have a lysosome. Another concern for this article is the fluidity of the topics . The topics clash together and aren't very connected to each other especially when talking about the pH of the enzyme activy within the lysosome. It would be a great idea to find different sources for the pH of the enzymatic activity within the lysosomes because there is conflicting ranges of pH according to other sources . Verifying this part of the article would strengthen this section. Kaitlinoxmarie (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lysosome 

message: ===Function and Structure:===
*How do the enzymes in the lysosome break down biomolecules?
This section does a thorough job of explaining the structure of the lysosome; however, when discussing function the reader wonders how the enzymes in the lysosome act to break down molecules.  The article states over and over again that lysosomes break down biomolecules, but it never describes the process.  This section could be edited to describe that process.  After all, that is really the "function" in question the title of the section refers to.  Including it would make the section more thorough and informative.
*How does the organization of this section aid in comprehension of the subject?
This section is slightly jumpy; various information about the pH in the organelle is mentioned separately multiple times in different parts of the section.  To reorganize the section, I would first introduce the function of the lysosome, then explain the structure. The size of the lysosome is also inserted randomly into the middle of the section, when it might make more sense to describe the structure of the lysosome all in one paragraph, including information on size. The next paragraph would be fully devoted to the implications of pH, as opposed to spreading this information out randomly throughout the article.  Finally, the section would conclude with the information on transport of specific enzymes into the lysosome and the implications that can have on what materials are broken down.
===Pathogen Entry:===
*How does this occur?
This section could be expanded upon.  Almost every sentence could be explained further to aid in comprehension.  For example, I would begin by explaining how a lysosome hydrolyzes biomolecules of a pathogen to stop it from entering the cell.  This is a very interesting section; further explaining how the lysosome functions in this process would greatly increase the informative aspect of this article.
*Are there more sources to back up this information?
This section includes information from a total of one source.  At the very least, another source could be added to back up the credibility of the first.  I would search for more sources to make the section more credible and informative.
Yoho14 (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cell Biology Class Review 

message: *How does this occur?
This section could be expanded upon.  Almost every sentence could be explained further to aid in comprehension.  For example, I would begin by explaining how a lysosome hydrolyzes biomolecules of a pathogen to stop it from entering the cell.  This is a very interesting section; further explaining how the lysosome functions in this process would greatly increase the informative aspect of this article.
*Are there more sources to back up this information?
This section includes information from a total of one source.  At the very least, another source could be added to back up the credibility of the first.  I would search for more sources to make the section more credible and informative.
Yoho14 (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Pathogen Entry:

message: They are blue and they are fuond outside if the membrain and they are 4 67.43.24.2 (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  lysosomes are cool