Talk:White blood cell

message: The chart that lists the percentages, adds up to 100%. I am sure that it is simply due to rounding, but maybe a disclaimer below the bottom mentioning that should be inserted. I would insert it myself but I will leave it to better people than I to do it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PedroDaGr8 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 100% Total Cells

message: IMO, the contents of Immune cell should be here, and that page should be a redirect.
'Immune' implies the response is specific to something you've experienced before. (e.g. The HepB vaccine will make you immune to hepatitis B)
Neutrophils/Macrophages aren't really thought of as being 'immune cells'.
Neutrophils and macrophages are most definitely thought of as being "immune cells". Have you ever heard of innate "immunity"? --67.160.202.228 (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Immune cell redirect

message: How come white blood cell is called as it is?
Leukocyte is the medical term for white blood cells. Leuko- means "white" and -cyte means "cell". These "white cells" are found in the blood. Hence, "white blood cells". Rdbrd82 20:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's not red. Seriously, it is because the Buffy coat after centrifugation of blood looks white, while the hematocrit looks red. The leukocytes (literally: white cells) hang out in the Buffy coat. JFW | T@lk 13:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  where is the name come from? 

message: This would be clearer if it was replaced by the amount per liter, or the first amount per liter be converted to amount per drop.
a thing 01:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 50 000 cells per drop of blood

message: :Yes, would be nice. But I don't have a photomicroscope and a set of blood smears. If you can find any PD images we'd be grateful. JFW | T@lk 21:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PICTURES FOR WBCs 

message: The photograph of the eosinophil does not look like an eosinophil.
It should have eosinophilic (orange) granules when stained with H&E.
Or it should have an explanation saying what stain has been used.
Does anyone have a better photograph? Snowman 10:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eosinophils 

message: "A leukemia patient may have as many as 50000 white blood cells." When adding this type of information to an article, a reference needs to be included.--DO11.10 23:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Human physiology really does not work in this facile, reductionist manner.  Yahoo questions or a physiology class might be more useful.Lesotho 14:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed random fact 

message: Recently a elderly woman at the age of 65yrs, was diagnosed with pneumonia. When her CBC`s came back the WBC - 4, then after afew days of receiving antibiotics by I.V. her WBC- 7, then after 2 days her WBC- 0. Dr.`s were very alarmed at the decrease. After the DR. talked to a specialist in the city, it was decided that the patient will be taken off her meds. Now at this point i don`t remember what all her medications are. The Dr.`s are saying there is a possiblity of  a certain med. that might be the destroyer of the WBC`s. So  my question is there a few or a lot of medicines out there that will destroy the production of WBCs ? and if so how many? What and how do they destroy the WBC`s? 
 LorraineR
When treating pneumonia a kind of cortisone is sometimes prescribed in order to decrease the inflammation of the lungs. Cortisone will, by hormonal action, decrease the amount of leucocytes formed. This could explain the sudden drop in WBC.
TokeS
The phrase "...produced at the rate of 1,000 million per day..." at the beginning of the article is scientifically awkward.  I propose changing it to "...produced at the rate of 1 billion per day..."Lesotho 19:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  would there be any medications that could cause the decrease in WBC ? 

message: Can someone please make the amounts in this paragraph into the same format so that they can be understood? 
:::There are normally between 4×109 and 1.1×1010 white blood cells in a litre of healthy adult blood. In conditions such as leukemia this may rise to as many as 50,000 white blood cells in a single drop of blood (only 1% of blood on average is a white blood cell). As well as in the blood, white cells are also found in large numbers in the lymphatic system, the spleen, and in other body tissues.
SadanYagci 16:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be, but this is not just for scientists to read. It is for everyone to read. The first numbers are for a litre of blood... the second is for a drop of blood. Can these be made into something more easily understood? In an adult with leukemia what is the amount in a litre of blood, or in a normal adult how much is in a drop of blood? The statement doesn't help much if the person reading it can't see how much of a difference there is between the two. SadanYagci 03:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree, the numbers don't mean much to anyone except a clinician or pathologist, and they don't need Wikipedia to check their facts. Instead a better idea would be to give the relative increase or decrease in the number of leukocytes in order to convey the magnitude of the change. Likewise, percentages are always more useful than raw numbers. -- Serephine ♠ talk - 02:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ha ha, ouch... just keeping the general public's interests at heart here. Personally I think that when aiming to convey an order of change you can't go past using percentages, people not familiar with scientific notation won't immediately be able to grasp that 1x10-3 is 1000 times larger than 1x10-6. But I will retract my use of "always", as it is true that figures written as interpretations of the raw data tend to lose some of their inherent meaning. Just remember though that it's one thing to give the data and another thing to make the data mean something in context. -- Serephine ♠ talk - 01:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data Conversion 

message: In the top part of the article is written: There are normally between 4×109 and 1.1×1010 white blood cells in a litre of blood, making up approximately 1% of blood in a healthy adult.
Is that correct? It is inconsequent with the article about blood, in which is written that leukocytes make up 3% of the blood. Korenwolf 08:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, actually both pages are "right" they are just presenting it differently (as a percentage of blood cells WBC are about 3%, as a percentage of blood it is about 1% (a lot of blood is plasma)). Nevertheless, I changed the "blood" page to reflect the percentage of blood as it is here, and they are now consistent. Thank you for your keen observation.--DO11.10 18:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentage of leukocytes in human blood 

message: Scientists have discovered that torrents of microscopic waves propel white blood cells toward invading microbes. The discovery - recorded on videotape -- holds the potential for better understanding and treatment of cancer and heart disease.  Brian Pearson 14:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  White blood cell and cancer cell metastasis drivers 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: This article should, somehow, point to Leukocytosis.
Just passing through, --Jerome Potts (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing buzzword / wiki-link 

message: The table states that they make up 54-62% of white blood cells. This conflicts with the Neutrophil article which states that thay make up approx 70% of the white blood cell population.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draconeko (talk • contribs) 16:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict with the Neutrophil's section. 

message: Are phagocytes a subset of white blood cells or vice versa ? I can see references to phagocytosis in this article but not phagocytes...GrahamHardy (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  phagocytes 

message: Hey! First time being active in this form on wikipedia.
anyway, the last few sentences of the Neutrophil section...
Most common cell seen in acute inflammation, comes in and kill foreign substance.They make up 60-70% of total leukocyte count.The life span of neutrophil is about 8 days.
It looks as though some one just took bullet points and put them in sentence form.
Some clean would be nice  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasir206 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence of Neutrophil section 

message: This section doesn't seem accurate to me - "B cells produce antibodies to destroy antigen" surely something else has to mediate this?  The grammar is dodgy here as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.128.149 (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CD4+ (helper) section 

message: The overview table in Types lists 7 types, in contrast to the second lede sentence (cited) stating 5 types and to the intro paragraph for the Types section itself which also works out to 5 types (3 granulocytes and 2 agranulocytes).  
Consider indenting or possibly removing macrophage and dendritic cell lines from this table, as they are subtypes rather than primary types? apdshoe (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's refocus this discussion... The question is not about whether macrophages and dendritic cells are monocytes. The aim here is to resolve whether or not the table is causing confusion, and it most certainly is. Therefore, I am going to comment out only these features of the table so as to eliminate the confusion for the time being. If members feel otherwise, let us resolve the table appropriately; I will not delete any information though. Furthermore, I will remove the tag in the text. (Also, please indent new comments for ease of readability) Quod erat demonstrandum 3.14159 (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview table confusion--7 types listed, 5 types stated 

message: I didn't make any edits to the article, as I wish for some other expert to review it first. In the section "Medication causing leukopenia" within the article, no mention is made of drugs used to treat cancer, which are a very important class of drugs that can induce low leukocyte count. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukopenia#Medications_causing_leukopenia mention was made of this, with two references provided: 
<<Chemotherapy targets cells that grow rapidly, such as tumors, but can also impact white blood cells, because they are characterized by bone marrow as rapid growing.[3] A common side effect of cancer treatment is neutropenia, the lowering of neutrophils (a specific type of white blood cell).[4]>>
I believe this should be added in this article as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maslesha (talk • contribs) 06:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medication causing leukopenia 

message: Hi! I have been working on this section in my sandbox and am planning add it to the article soon. Just wanted to run the idea by any watchers to see what you think.  Given that part of the scope of the WBC article is pathology, I think it would be a relevant addition. I would love to hear any feedback you have. Thanks! LaurenSMS4 (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding disorders of white blood cells section 

message: Hi White blood cell page watchers. I was thinking about also adding a section on how white blood cells are counted (referring ppl to flow cytometry, etc) and about absolute counts versus percentages.  Not sure if this will be helpful or information overload.  I think its relevant to refer people visiting the page to lab techniques for how these cells are analyzed, but I am definitely open to not adding it if you think its overkill. Let me know if anyone has any feedback! thanks!! LaurenSMS4 (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a very good idea, but will take work to incorporate smoothly.  -- Scray (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cell counts section? 

message: The word "dysfunction" is used inconsistently and IMHO incorrectly in multiple places.  Dysfunction means abnormal function, whereas in the article it's used to describe aplastic anemia (lack of mature cell production), AIDS (closer to dysfunction, though AIDS includes deficiency as a primary hallmark), and a variety of others. I suggest restricting "dysfunction" to situations in which WBC are present but not functioning properly.  -- Scray (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of term "dysfunction" 

message: The disambiguation section is nothing but an advertisement. It will be relevant to the tiniest fraction of the people landing on the page. It should be removed. 185.47.218.79 (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean the hatnote about the album - I agree. - Rod57 (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert should be removed 

message: Currently, the section on neutrophils at the end reads: "Neutrophils are the most common cell type seen in the early stages of acute inflammation. The life span of a circulating human neutrophil is about 5.4 days.[11]". 
Whilst this is supported by a scientific paper - there is still much ambiguity to the actual lifespan, and many other papers will still support a lifespan closer to 24h https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23625199 and.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31394045 Therefore, I suggest to change to the following:
"Neutrophils are the most common cell type seen in the early stages of acute inflammation. The life span of a circulating human neutrophil is still under debate, but it is generally accepted to be relitively short at around 24h [11][12], possibly reaching as long as 5.4 days.[13]"
Thank you for your consideration Lesadmick (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly done: I've updated the life span figure to reflect the uncertainty in figures by copying the figures at Neutrophil. I did this because your claim about the "generally accepted" lifespan would have to be sourced to a meta analysis, which I couldn't find.  --Trialpears (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2019 

message: The table and subsubheads under major subhead "Types" show five types.  There follows another major subhead, "Fixed leucocytes", with four additional types, including mast cells.  Are these four cell types analogous to the five types under the subhead "Types"?  Or something off to the side or not easily categorizable?  Actually, if you look at the trees at the MeSH and FMA links, it would appear that mast cells are their own category, not a type of leukocyte. This also seems to be implied in the diagram at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hematopoiesis_(human)_diagram_en.svg.  I'll let an expert work this out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:AC08:A600:53:1110:9CBE:AF66 (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification and subheads are sloppy 

message: What is cell 2409:4063:4C8C:E7D1:8FD3:436F:10F6:75EC (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cells