Talk:Peroxisome

message: The previous edit was improperly done and mangled the paragraph so that it is unintelligible and contains code.  Will try to restore part of the previous version I see in the Internet Archive...
----
It is not wise to begin this basic cell biol article with a teleological definition that might even be incorrect - apart from being teleological:  ("Peroxisomes are ubiquitous organelles in eukaryotes that function to rid the cell of toxic substances.". ) I will change this .. (sb tell me how to binde tildes on my computer ..) sdot
Done .. i also do not like the functions part of the article; is somehow suggests that a peroxisome is a bag of antioxidant enzymes; much of the oxygen stress that peroxisomes "rid the cell of" is actually created in peroxisomes by oxidases.
The diagram shows a "Crystalline Core", but there is no mention of it anywhere in the text.  There should be. Dougher 01:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A single membrane is a lipid bilayer.  There's no contradiction there.
What about the free radicals that the peroxisomes nuetralize?
----
Honestly I think that the proposed role of a peroxisome to  get rid of reactive oxygen species (ROS) is a great misunderstanding in the field. To my limited knowledge no mechanisms exist to transport ROS specifically to peroxisomes. ROS in many comparments are very dangerous, but they are taken care of by  a panoply of local mechanisms including the SOD and peroxidase. 
In my view the role of peroxisomes is to compartmentalize many processes that require the presence of ROS especially H2o2 to the peroxisomes and thereby protect other cell compartments from the deleterious effects of ROS. Many of these steps are indeed linked to various aspects of the lipid metabolism..
Also one should make clear that peroxisomes are not held endosymbiotic organelles by the majority of scientists. So the parargraph should be changed to reflect this. So it should first be stated that they can form de novo from ER vesicles (dependent on PPAR nuclear receptors). That they do not have a genome of their own, and that their proteome shares similarity to the ER.
The endosymbiotic story should be kept as a view held by a small minority of scientists relying on primarily morphological evidence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.6.169.176 (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  first line / definition 

message: Perioxisomes currently reads as follows:
:Perioxisomes are organelles containing peroxide enzymes and perform many differentiating tasks, including breaking down fatty acids. Perioxisomes are found mainly in the liver and the kidneys, the organs primarily responsible for breaking down and excreting toxic chemicals.
:Peroxisome is an organelle in all animal and many plant cells that carries out oxidation reactions, some of which produce the toxic compound hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). Peroxisomes contain the enzyme catalase, which catalyzes the breakdown of toxic H2O2 to water and O2.
This was created as a seperate article based on a misspelling of the title. If nobody opposes merging the articles, I'll change Perioxisomes into a redirect here and the text from it will still be available on this talk page if anyone wants to incorporate it into the main article. Some of it appears to contradict what is said here (found in 'all eukaryotic cells' vs 'all animal and many plant cells'). The claim that they are 'found mainly in the liver and the kidneys' may or may not be true (of animals with these organs at least) but warrants investigation as it's not mentioned in this article.--Eloil 04:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger: 'Perioxisomes' 

message: I'm not an expert here, so I'll leave this to someone else to change, but, for the formula:
H2O2 + R'H12 -> R' + 2H2O
should not this be:
H2O2 + R'(H1)2 -> R' + 2H2O
The formula as it is in the article, I don't understand; perhaps I am just ignorant to something.
Cheers,
Kevin
70.52.217.23 07:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formula problem 

message: I was doing some studying for a university cellbiology exam, and  molecular biology of the cell 4th edition claims that peroxisomes are part of the transmembrane transport, rather than the vesicular transport. Just thought it was worth mentioning here.
Regards,
Rogier  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogier P (talk • contribs) 14:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vesicular transport? 

message: I noticed that a large portion of the 'Function' section is paraphrased from Chapter 12 of 'Molecular Biology of the Cell' by Alberts et al., so it may be a nice idea to add this text to the list of references...
 For those that are interested, an html version of the book is freely available on the NCBI website. Here's the chapter on peroxisomes: 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=mboc4.section.2194 
Morty vikka (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice catch.  The edit where this text was added was: .  I've added that textbook as a reference, which I guess should take care of the matter. Kingdon (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The diagram is valid only for peroxisomes with a crystalline core (rat, mouse, guinea pig liver). Liver of humans, rhesusmonkey and toad; renal and intestinal peroxisomes, and many other celltypes have no core. The core consists of urate oxidase which is absent in humans and kidney. The absence of a core in patients makes microscopical recognition difficult when it comes to diagnosis; so the diagram gives a biased idea. Cytochemical staining is always advisable in humans. A photograph of human peroxisomes would be appropriate, as well as a reference, for ex Depreter et al, "Human peroxisomal disorders", 2003, Microsc Res Techn 61: 203-223; Roels et al, "Diagnosis of human peroxisomal disorders, a handbook", 1995, J Inh Metab Dis 18, suppl 1, &-226.  
With respect to the first description of these organelles: they were known until the seventies as microbodies. C. de Duve and coll coined the novel name "peroxisome"; the title of their review paper of 1966 was "Peroxisomes(mIcrobodies and related particles)".
The name microbody was first used by Rhodin (Oslo) in the kidney (1954), but also by Rouiller and Bernhard (Paris), in liver (in 1956)(ROUILLER C, BERNHARD W, "Microbodies" and the problem of mitochondrial regeneration in liver cells. J Biophys Biochem Cytol. 1956; 2 Suppl:355-60) . Both groups used electron microscopy. The merit of de Duve was to identify several of the enzymes within the microbodies of rat liver (which have a core!), by the use of cell fractionation. In 1957 Thomson & Klipfel had made a similar observation but their paper went unnoticed (Arch Biochem Biophys 1957, 70: 224-238). How the organelles of de Duve looked in liver and in other cells remained a matter of debate for several years. Further studies were greatly facilitated by the development of a microsocopic stain for peroxisomes using diaminobenzidine, simultaneously by Fahimi and by Novikoff & Goldfischer (1968). 
    
At least the refs above should be added, and the diagram annotated about the core. I cannot edit this first paragraph.
The use of the word "toxic" is unclear. Better be precise: hydrogen peroxide; very long chain fatty acids (C26, C24; phytanic acid; polyamines. But several peroxisomal enzyme systems perform synthesis, for ex of plasmalogens, a lipid important in myelin. The synthesis of the polyunsaturated fatty acid DHA C22:6, and of bile acids, also requires peroxisomes.
The word "peroxide enzymes" is unknown to me. These are oxidases producing hydrogen peroxide. Catalase destroys the peroxide formed. I am not aware of oxygen radicals being produced inside peroxisomes, nor transported into them. Peroxisomes do not contain peroxidase.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.160.226 (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the diagram with a new version which mentions that the crystal core isn't always there (and it's now an SVG image, so easier to modify).  --Qef (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram 

message: : "It has been demonstrated the generation of superoxide (O2•-) and nitric oxide (•NO) radicals.[9][10]"
what was the intended meaning? is it has been demonstrated that peroxisomes generate o2.- and .no ??
:  in this edit. Boghog (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  unclear intent 

message: Facts in this article are referenced, but some sentences seem ambiguous about their citations. The reader is left unsure if a fact's corresponding source is the last reference mentioned or the next source mentioned. It does seem neutral. Some authors are used multiple times (Gabaldón, Corpas FJ), but I don’t think this is meant to bias the article or over represent certain viewpoints. It may be because these authors specialize in peroxisome research. Everything is highly relevant to the article. It is enhanced by the reactions under the Metabolic Functions section, as well as the video and pictures. No major distractions are noted. The information in the article comes primarily from scholarly articles, scientific journals, and peer-reviewed works, which gives it credibility. The links to the articles are working. Some information is dated (1969, 1985, 1992, 2001, 2002, etc.), but this may be due to lack of a plethora of research on this specific organelle. It could also be because the older articles are cornerstones within the field. No plagiarism was found. The most exemplary sections within this article are Metabolic Functions and Peroxisome Assembly because they are well organized and cover a lot of information in a understandable way. The introduction covered a lot of knowledge, but I think it could be simplified more to increase accessibility and understanding. I also think the Associated Medical Conditions section could be expanded on, especially because of the medical implications discussed in the second paragraph of the Metabolic Functions section. All in all, this article is of good quality, but it could be improved on by citing more specifically, expanding on certain sections, and simplifying the introductory paragraph.
Lester190 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peroxisome Article Critique 

message: The citing seems to be done extremely well. There’s a high amount of citations and an intense amount of information. However, I did notice that the pictures on the side appear to have no citations or at least ones that can be as easily found as the citations in the text.  I also believe the “History” and the “Associated medical conditions” section should and could easily be more than a single sentence. Especially the associated medical conditions section because there is the opportunity to go into detail about some specific conditions and there should also be hyperlinks provided to those conditions as well. The peroxisome assembly section should have a hyperlink to an article explaining fission. Davidson57 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just some things to consider adding 

message: This article would be good for an Introductory Biology or Cellular Biology student to read because it provides a detailed overview on the function of peroxisomes in the cell. However, some of the terminology is extremely technical and may be too difficult to understand for a lay person, especially in the in Metabolic Function and Genes section. The citing seems to be done extremely well, with a high amount of citations and a good amount of factual information. One question I had was the lack of information in the History section. A quick Google search yielded a plethora of information relating to the history of Peroxisomes. I feel like the article could be edited to address this better. Another issue I had while reading the article was the limited information in the Associated medical conditions. While it does provide hyperlinks to various other articles, in this article itself there in very little information. Overall, this article is of good quality, but it could be improved on by citing more specifically, expanding on several sections, and simplifying some complex technical language to make the article more understandable by a lay person.  Braley13 (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peroxisome Review  

message: Overall I think this is a very helpful article for someone who just wants to know the basics about peroxisomes and their general functions. I also think that this article had a good balance of explaining what a peroxisome does for both plants and animals cells. Some of the language used was a tad heavy on the jargon, particularly the section on the genetics of peroxisomes. I feel that the section on the history and evolution of the peroxisome was a little sparse, as well as the medical condition that having a peroxisome disorder can cause and the genetics of peroxisomes could have used more information. There needs to be more disorders listed and a brief description of the disorders or hyperlinks to their respective pages so if interested someone could learn more about them. Another small thing I noticed was that in the introduction "very long chain fatty acids" has a link to another wikipedia page however when it is mentioned in the Metabolic Function section only "fatty acids" has a link and it is to a different page, I think the links should be kept consistent. Two of the three pictures were not cited, which is misleading to the readers.
     All of the information is relevant and unbiased and everything seems to be cited correctly with the exception of two of the pictures. The information in this article is very specific and is written in a fairly understandable way, if the reader had a biology heavy background they would find this article much easier than someone who had little or no science background due to the jargon heavy writing style. However this article could be very helpful for a introductory biology or a cellular biology class. I believe that this article can be improved upon by expanding upon is sections that are light on information and writing the more complex parts on the information in layman's terms.
--Maddox32 (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peroxisome Article Review 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Peroxisome's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Alberts":
From Mitochondrion: 
From Cytoskeleton: 
From Lysosome: 
From Cell nucleus: 
From Fluid mosaic model: 
From Golgi apparatus: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Peroxisome]] 

message: Contradiction between intro (catabolism = degradation of bile acids) and metabolic functions section (production of bile acids).
In the metabolic functions section: NADP+ (with superscript +), not NADP.
Same section, last paragraph: what does "polarised" mean??
thanks WolfGreg9 (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few comments