Talk:Microtubule

message: Can  there be some paragraph on this. topic.--69.150.170.49 (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microtubes and Alzheimer's 

message: I strongly object putting a half-cooked theory into a encyclopedia. It has make its way to the textbook first. The molecular or even neuronal nature of consciousness is still a big controversy. Or even the definition of consciousness itself. And I found here stating that it came out of a nanotube? Objection!
11:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone with a 10 year old BSc, but never done biology since high school, I got to this article when a non-scientific friend pointed me to the Hameroff site and asked me if it made sense to me. Being me, I looked him up here and one of the first links in the Hameroff article is to here. I learned 10x more from the explanation that Kablamo2007 wrote than I got from the main page. IOW, yes, lay people come here wondering if the science is credible. I think it would be appropriate to have a section about why microtubules aren't a QC thing. And I think it would be better to put it and mark it citation needed than to have nothing there. Ricky 13:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MT and consciousness?? 

message: Information is being regularly reverted about this subject, even though one editor actually acknowledges the subject is well known. The subject gets 66,900 Google hits from many proper sources, so there is no reason to continually remove the subject entirely. This will have to go to mediation if other parties continue their blanket removal of the subject. wikipediatrix 00:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microtubules and quantum consciousness 

message: Okay, this section currently reads something like "Yeah, it exists, and it's completely wrong". There should be at least a small blurb about what the theory proposes, and any evidence that does in fact support it, if anyone feels qualified to do that.Nathanww 03:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality of the quantum conciousness section

message: I think the point is that the Penrose story is pretty much the only logically coherent story of consciousness that science has so far proposed -- sure it's way beyond the fringes and wacky and very very speculative -- but it is the /only/ story we have.  Surely every living person on the planet is interested in what consciousness is, and unless they walk away from science altogether and sign up for some religious or new-age fiction then this is the best we currently have to offer.  It's wacky, far-fetched, and not accepted by anyone, but its still currently the only, and therefore best, theory we have. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.51.150.211 (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are entirely incorrect. "the Penrose story" is not any sort of explanation of consciousness, and there are in fact good coherent explanations. Also, people being interested in what consciousness is (and no, only a relatively few people actually are) has no relevance to this article on microtubules. Jibal (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Only theory? Whatever happened to intracellular electrical discharge triggering the release of chemicals from brain cells, that are sensed by other brain cells? Doesn't that count as such a theory, especially given the observation that drugs that alter, disrupt, or enhance this process produce observable, frequently repeatable changes in the emotional status of human beings? If microtubules were going to play any role at all, I'd be much more interested in hearing how they serve to alter the propagation of charge down the length of a neuron! 70.162.81.229 19:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep it, but be skeptical

message: The microtubule/quantum consciousness thing has no place here, I've removed it. It is a wild speculation unsupported by anything. The statement that "the Penrose story is pretty much the only logically coherent story of consciousness that science has so far proposed" is absolutely not true (see the Wikipedia page on consciouscness for logically coherent theories of consciousness that are actually supported by evidence). We may as well say here that unicorn horns are made of microtubules. 137.132.243.141  —Preceding comment was added at 03:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not make a link to quantum mind? --JWSchmidt 03:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, I just re-added the Penrose section. Not to be troublesome, I promise! Actually, I agree that it should NOT be part of this article. The theory is bunk, and at most should get a VERY SKEPTICAL article of its own, or maybe be resigned to a reference in the Penrose article. Before we delete it, I just want to make sure that most of the people CURRENTLY working on this page agree with the decision (since this seems to be the standard way to do things around here). --AaronM 02:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are dozens if not hundreds of fascinating, well-researched things microtubules ACTUALLY DO IN REALITY that are not part of the article (which contains very little on actual microtubule function). Including the most far-fetched and unsupported function for microtubules ever published (though never in a peer reviewed forum) is severely distorting. Having one piece of quackery claiming a function for which there is no evidence is ridiculous. It's like like having an article on radios that says "Radios make sound. Although many are skeptical, the government might be using them to read my mind."137.132.243.141 08:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Penrose/Hameroff take on microtubules lies well within the Wikipedia guidance for inclusion of non-mainstream of fringe theories. This says that the theory should be referenced extensively, in a serious manner and in mainstream publications. In particular debunking or disparaging comments, which are legion for this theory are in fact adequate to establish notability of the theory. The fact that many scientists reject or ridicule the theory is not really relevant in this context, so long as it is made clear that it is speculative. I think a few sentences giving a more detailed explanation of the processes proposed should be added. A paragraph on the various refutations could follow this, but in the interests of neutrality, attempts to reply to these refutations should not, as is common in the popular literature, be totaly ignored, for instance the Hagan, Tuszynski, Hameroff response to the better known Tegmark article on decoherence. Persephone19 21:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is not whether it is allowable, the point is that it makes it a bad article. The entries should strive to accurately and concisely represent what is known and understood about microtubules. This entry is severely unbalanced, because it omits the many things microtubules DO do and gives space to something that a tiny number of people speculate, with no evidence, that they MIGHT do.24.252.32.54 22:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer would seem to be to expand the main part of the article, which does seem skimpy for such an important component of cells. It goes without saying that the article should fully describe the known mechanism and function of the microtubules. However, I can't see that this precludes discussing speculative material. Given the widespread, if mainly critical coverage given to the Penrose'Hameroff proposal, many readers may access the article with the hope of getting more information on the theory. If anything it could do with fuller discussion, for instance the reasons for scepticism, as part of a more comprehensive article. Persephone19 11:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Penrose again

message: I think the article is a bit sparse on describing motor proteins interacting with MT, and should definitely give some space to microtubule associated proteins (MAPS) that can influence the dynamics of microtubules. Such MAPS can favour either a catastrophe or rescue state. Examples of these are numerous, such as XMAP215 (a MT 'polmymerase') and XKCM1 (a MT 'depolymerse'). In general, MT polymerases and depolymerases play important roles in enabling MT dynamics to be altered depending on the requirements of a particular cellular process.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.244.145 (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Motor proteins and MAPS affecting MT dynamics

message: As components of the cytoskeleton, does this mean that microtubules are found only in eukaryotic cells? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: see e.g. Shih YL, Rothfield L (2006). The bacterial cytoskeleton. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 70 (3) 729–54. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Microtubules are found in some bacteria (Prosthecobacter).  I added a description of their structure.Eikosi (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eukaryotes only? 

message: Microtubules are generally referred to as polar. Is this a polarity in the acid/base sense or merely a recognition of the orientation of subunits? Akita86 (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct - the polarity of the microtubule has to do with the subunit orientation. Each subunit is a dimer of alpha and beta tubulin, and all subunits within a microtubule all "face" in the same direction. Thus, one end of the microtubule has the alpha tubulin facing outward, while the other end will have the beta tubulin facing outward.--AaronM (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. In that case, it ought to be pointed out in the page that the MT subunits are not polar in the way water is. Akita86 (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polarity 

message: I would just like to comment that all of the "citations" for the microtubule entry are garbage. They all cite papers from a very narrow faction of microtubule weirdos (outside of mainstream research), and none is actually a citation of the primary research that originally demonstrated experimentally the particular fact being cited.  Citations in scientific articles should cite either the original primary literature or reviews that cite the material, not unrelated primary articles that reference the information in the background or introduction section of the paper.
It appears as if someone from the tribe of "microtubule quantum consciousness" wanted to fool lay readers into believing (1) that they have contributed to the field by discovering some very important basic biological aspects of microtubules (false, these were discovered by others) and (2) their published speculation about quantum consciousness, etc is somehow true and/or commonly accepted (also false).
Just as an example, the microtubule entry correctly states that "the tubulin dimers polymerize end to end in protofilaments," but it cites a 2008 article by Vahid Rezania and Jack A. Tuszynski ("A first principle (3+1) dimensional model for microtubule polymerization"), which is a recent mathematical modeling of microtubule dynamics paper, not the original series of biological experiments that proved this (many years before). The paper cited doesn't prove anything at all, let alone that "tubulin dimers polymerize end to end in protofilaments."
I don't have to continue. The citations are all equally vacuous.  Someone with more patience than me should clean it up.  Better no citations than false attribution of credit, in my opinion.
I'd hate to believe that peer-review and scholarship in the field are so poor that pseudoscientists are even making a living hallucinating about microtubules, but it might be so...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.184.55 (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am worried that the last para. of the May 27 posting could be a bit near the line in terms of libel. Most researchers dislike quantum consciousness theory, but the posting could be taken to imply that Tuszynski & Rezania are themselves hallucinating pseudoscientists, when they are in fact affiliated to the Dept. of Oncology at Alberta University, and Tuszynski has a career stretching back to 1980. Perhaps a slight rewording is in order. Persephone19 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article itself is very informative, which is great! However, more citations are needed if the article itself is going to improve. Each claim needs a verification Kfh123 (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of Citations??

message: Small but expandible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.77.139 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Body 

message: The section on "Dynamic mechanism" is an odd one. First, it is unmotivated, incomplete and off-topic. Furthermore, considering the vast literature on MTs, both experimental and theoretical, including reference to this largely esoteric result is really inappropriate. A look at the talk page of the author of the section is informative. It appears as though the author has a habit of self-citation (see the revision history of Graph theory for a good example).  Web of Science confirms my impression that the referenced paper is a small fish in a very big pond. Of its 37 citations, the only citing papers that are about MTs are from the consciousness crowd (Hameroff, Tuszynski et al.) which, in my view, does not exactly bolster its relevance here. I removed the section once (readded by AaronM) and will do so again shortly unless someone posts a reasonable defense of it's inclusion. -- Cytryn (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Wikipedia is not the place to publicize yourself. I reverted the removal before as a reflex, since I didn't see any discussion on it and figured it might just be a vandal deletion (since it was by an unnamed user at the time). But now having re-read it, I agree that this level of detail does not belong in the article and should be removed. --AaronM (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Dynamic mechanism 

message: I think there's an error here: "This complex acts as a scaffold for α/β tubulin dimers to begin polymerization; it acts as a cap of the (−) end while microtubule growth continues away from the MTOC in the (+) direction."
How come the image shows the cap at the + site, whereas it says it's at the - site?
In the image, the green b-tubulin are at the + site, and it says the 2 b-tubulin subunits shown are the cap site. However, in the quotation, it says that the YtRC acts as a cap of the - site, contradicting, thus, the image explanation. Besides, it says this complex acts as a scaffold for POLYMERIZATION [from + site].
I dont get it  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.106.164.193 (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Error

message: It would be good to have a section on Mercury Amalgam and its effects on microtubulin in the brain at low levels (found in those with amalgam fillings).  This is on youtube which shows the work of the University of Calgary team as relates to microtubulin in the brain.  
AnInformedDude (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mercury Amalgam, Microtubulin, Alzheimer's  AND University of Calgary Team

message: There is a statement in "Postulated role in consciousness" that reads thus:
"While at least one researcher, Michael Persinger, claims otherwise, Jeffrey Gray states ... that tests looking for the influence of electromagnetic fields on brain function have been universally negative in their result."
While I agree that Michael Persinger has shown the influence of magnetic fields on cognition, I am not aware of him making "claims" about consciousness itself. Persinger's experiments have altered the content of consciousness, but as far as I know he does not claim that he is altering the fact that consciousness is present. For this reason, I added a "citation needed" in the text. Timothy Campbell (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Persinger

message: Summarizing the consensus opinion, we find that Orch-OR cannot be mentioned in the Microtubule article. Pursuant to this, we hold that the section #Postulated role in consciousness should not be reintroduced. While Orch-OR may turn out to have scientific validitysome basis in reality, that is not for us to judge. We merely document the established views of the scientific community, wherein we note Orch-OR is an unproven minority viewpoint and consequentially the subject matter of WP:FRINGE.
As User:Microtubules and User:Cytryn argued, there are many hypothetical models for microtubules, including Penrose/Hameroff's ideas, cytoskeletal tensegrity, tubulin healing, microtubule luminal transport, and others equally speculative. Models like these are "a dime a dozen". To be mentioned in this article, an independently reviewed secondary or tertiary source must directly connect microtubules to some particular model. (e.g. a review article in Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, a critically reviewed textbook on cell biology, a mention in Nature's cytoskeletal milestones). There exist no such sources for Orch-OR. Thus, it would be a violation of WP:NPOV for Microtubule to include any discussion of Orch-OR, however minor. 
—wing gundam 01:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of "While Orch-OR may have scientific validity, ..." I would write "While Orch-OR may turn out to have some basis in reality,..." It is my impression that "scientific validity", implies that the theory in question is backed by our current scientific understanding. This is not the case for Orch-OR. It remains in the realm of speculation. Microtubules (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Wow quite a long discussion there. May I then just chime in that I also agree with the consensus opinion above. I have searched everywhere for empirical data which supports Orch-OR and found none. As mentioned above, if it is just a model/proposed theory with no experimental (scientific) data to back it up then it is truly WP:FRINGE and should be treated as such until an experiment has been conducted to support it.  Fisman (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus opinion

message: I did a major edit of the section on organization during cell division. I hope I got the centromere/centriole thing correct (had no idea about that before I read the talk page!); feel free to correct that if I got it wrong. Also, I'm not entirely sure I got it right about polar microtubules. From the article on centromeres, it seems like there's a type of microtubule called the polar microtubule which assists in cell division, but there's also the fact that all microtubules are considered to be polar due to the end-to-end orientation of the dimers. And of course both of those definitions have nothing to do with the polarity that exists in some molecules such as water. It's very confusing! Jojojlj (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization during cell division 

message: Unless so few people know about it. Socialistguy (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Added to See also.  Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 22:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why don't we add a section (In Culture?) or "See also" part linking to Orch-OR? 

message: Substituted at 23:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Microtubule. 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/20141022223450/http://www.mechanobio.info/topics/cellular-organization/go-0005874 to http://www.mechanobio.info/topics/cellular-organization/go-0005874
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) 12:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The article begins with this sentence:
Microtubules (micro- + tube + -ule) are a component of the cytoskeleton, found throughout the cytoplasm.
We can assume that whoever came to read this articles wants to know what microtubules are.
So including the etymology of the word in the first sentence is overloading the sentence with too much extraneous information too soon. (Sure, the etymology is a good thing to include, but not before the reader knows what the word means.)
Next we get to the word "component" which most high school students know, but younger children may not. Why use an unnecessarily advanced word when a word like "portion" or "part" will work?
Then we get to the two worst aspects of this sentence by far: two words — "cytoskeleton" and "cytoplasm" — that are highly unlikely to be in any reader's vocabulary. (Unless of course they are in the small fraction of readers who happen to know the word.) 
Such words are entirely inappropriate for an introductory part of an article, and especially the first sentence, above all when simpler words can be used. That is surely true. Do not make the reader click on links in order to know what you are talking about, especially in the very first sentence. There are five links in this first sentence!
I hope the first sentence and paragraph are rewritten by someone knowledgeable about the subject, so that most 9-year-old children can understand it. I see no reason why that could not be the case.108.245.209.39 (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: These are ridiculous objections. Jibal (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A perfect example of the worst kind of writing in Wikipedia 

message: Am I blind, or the information that the diameter of microtubules is 24 nm is not stated in the cited article? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3232192  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vašek Bočan (talk • contribs) 10:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Third sentence of the first paragraph. DMacks (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the third sentence of the first paragraph: "All tubulins evolved from a common ancestor they share with the distantly related bacterial cell division protein FtsZ [5–9], but while eukaryotic a- and b-tubulins evolved into highly conserved tube-forming heterodimers [1,4], bacterial FtsZ presumably continued to function as single homopolymeric protofilaments as it does today [10]." (Not counting the abstract as the first paragraph.) Where is the remark on diameter? Vašek Bočan (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh wait, I misread your question. I was thinking you couldn't find the statement in our article (missing WP content), not that you couldn't find support for the WP content in the cited ref. I tagged the ref as being a problem, will research it when I get a chance. DMacks (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

text: I have identified primary references for microtubule diameters ranging from 23-51 nm (also different numbers of protofilaments ranging from 10-15). I will add these references to the main text and somehow also include that there is a diversity of structures beyond the "classical" 13-unit protofilaments.Gepasi (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microtubule diameter