Talk:Apoptosis

message: Is it me? Or does this section appear to fail to provide much additional information in terms of types of apoptosis? I feel like it needs to either qualify how it is different from the intrinsic and extrinsic pathways or should be moved somewhere else
Sawerchessread (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Frog apoptosis

message: Could this article please ellaborate on Herceptin, Iressa and Gleevec.
What are they? Are they registered trademarks or known pharmaceutical drugs? I want to know more.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.64.17.242 (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Herceptin, Iressa or Gleevec

message: "Deliberate life relinquishment" is an awkward wording.
:I thought it was quite elegant actually... but any suggestions are always welcomed. "Cell suicide" has too many connotations to be used. -- Serephine ♠ talk - 00:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also thought it was a little awkward. How about "Apoptosis is the main type of programmed cell death in a multicellular organism, and involves an orchestrated series of biochemical events leading to a characteristic cell morphology and death." 128.111.209.143 19:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The current first sentence is "Apoptosis is the process of programmed cell death (PCD) that may occur in multicellular organisms". The "may" is a bit vague here. Is this saying that that apoptosis is the multi-cellular organism form of PCD? This would not be correct as there are other forms of PCD that may occur in the cells of a multi-cellular organism. Is it saying that apoptosis only occurs in multi-cellular organisms? There is strong evidence for apoptosis in yeast (e.g. http://jcb.rupress.org/content/166/7/938.1, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2555920/). The Gene Ontology differentiates apoptosis from PCD in general via characteristics such as "...lead to rounding-up of the cell, retraction of pseudopodes, reduction of cellular volume (pyknosis), chromatin condensation, nuclear fragmentation (karyorrhexis), plasma membrane blebbing and fragmentation of the cell into apoptotic bodies." (citations: GO:0006915, ISBN:0198506732, PMID:18846107, PMID:21494263). I'm not sure how best to condense this. I prefer Mike's suggestion from 2007 above to the current wording. Cmungall (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence

message: The VDAC interacts with Bak to inhibit its own mitochondrial outermembrane permeablisation (MOMP) activity? 
I thought Bak or Bax can interact with VDAC to directly induce permeablisation (when they multimerise), and it's the binding of these pro-apoptotic proteins to the anti-apoptotic Bcl-2/Bcl-Xl that inhibits MOMP? Can someone clarify? -Unsigned
* Actually the role of VDAC, if any, might be to assist Bax on membrane permeabilization. I think the issue is not sufficiently clear among scientists, so I would remove all mentions to VDAC until it is clarified. We should cite recent articles, not reviews from the nineties, which are obsolete - --85.50.70.8 (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: About the mitochondrial apoptosis signalling pathway

message: The article only mentions one pronunciation, and the reference link provided says that it's controversial. I've heard the word said by professionals in any of 4 different ways, and don't like the idea that the article only mentions one. While I pronounce it with a silent second-p, I don't accept that as standard because I also don't pronounce "helicopter" as "helicotter," nor do I use Greek and Latin plurals when an English one is acceptable. To me, the pronunciation as indicated is derived from pretentiousness rather than accuracy, because if accuracy was the issue, ptosis wouldn't be the most accurate Greek suffix.--Trypsin 15:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have always pronounced it as A-POP-TOW-SIS, I have only ever heard this pronounciation. I would like to see some mention in the article that the pronounciation is disputed (just like the linked to article). Adenosine | Talk 17:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do the same, mainly because I read the word before I heard it and the phonetic pronunciation stuck. -- Serephine ♠ talk - 03:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got yelled at by an old boss for doing that... so it's been ingrained in me to silence the 'p' (as in "pterosaur"). – ClockworkSoul 18:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well from one of my lectures with Professor Wyllie, he himself said that the correct pronunciation is with A-POP-TOW-SIS (pronouncing the "p"). He explained that, in Greek, when the "pt" is in the middle of the word, the "p" should be pronounced. 128.232.249.94 14:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apoptosis pronunciation

message: Hi, I am a little puzzled that the role of nitric oxide in regulating apoptosis has not been given due importance in this article. I would be enlightened if someone could include the significance of NO given that this topic of research is being pursued greatly in scientific circles. Thanks. Sriram sh 07:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou for pointing this out, I've included a small reference to this in the text. -- Serephine ♠ talk - 03:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, thanks Serephine for that little bit of information. I really appreciate that very much especially since I have been scouring all over the place for relevant and useful info. Sriram sh 08:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Role of NO

message: Citation and recognition of articles by women and young researchers is gone. Citations and recognition of articles by both a variety of US, European and other nationality researchers is gone. The history of how apoptosis was researched, discovered and brought to the forefront of international science by both collaboration and competition by many different people has been removed from the article and placed somewhere else, despite that it was explicitly asked in this discussion section not to do so.
I perfectly understand that any article can be subjected to changes by any contributor, and that the order or the wording could have benefited a lot from good editing. However, great care had been taken to make the article acurate and founded on the best scientific literature available. 
:Sorry for the tone of the note I left yesterday. I take it back, and recognize it was totally inapproprite. Although it is not a justification, I did get irked at the fact that I had explicitly requested the article not to be broken into several pieces, and I still don't understand why there has been so much insistence. -jaimeglz
:OK, well I'm assuming that this is directed at me as I rewrote this article a few weeks ago. I'd like to address a couple of issues you raised here:
#I'm Australian and have no interest in promoting a US-centric point of view. If anything, the Americanisation of Wikipedia irks me. I maintain the British English spelling of the Golgi apparatus article in silent protest against this fact, so please don't accuse me of something so unfounded. I moved all citations, at great trouble (every one was checked against the sentence I included it in), to the in-line style of referencing, as you noticed. I even added a few new ones. I removed any reference not contributing to the article after I edited it, these were references dealing with extremely complicated topics which, in all honesty, would interest no-one but an expert in the field. Said expert doesn't need the help of an online encyclopaedia to find these articles, hence my justification in removing all of 3 articles.
#The history of apoptosis has been removed to its own page, and linked from the main article. This, I believe, was a good move on my behalf to centre the article more on the process and function of apoptosis, which the majority of the visitors would want from the page. Should you wish to include an outline of the major points along with the link, please feel free, indeed this would only improve the article.
:Your passive-aggressive tone in denouncing my changes comes as somewhat of a disappointment considering that part of your spiel was directed at how I've degraded the article, somewhat ironic since you have broken a Wikipedian tenet and haven't assumed good faith. I think that the elucidation of the article, the inclusion of diagrams, cleaned up references, improved readability and the promotion of the article from a "B" to an "A" class article would actually contradict your entire basis for your attack. I would hope that you would consider simply listing your grievances in the future rather than launching into a sarcastic attack on both my personal inclinations and the tenets of Wikipedia. Quite frankly, I'm offended and insulted. -- Serephine ♠ talk - 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Much was lost in the rewriting of the article

message: Your note had all the hallmarks of being written more with passion than calculated thoughtfulness, so it's ok :) It's natural to feel very protective of something you've worked very hard upon - as I saw with the level of references included in the article. I was very impressed with this, and this was in part the reason I initiated my large clean-up. Plus you re-worded the tone of your note and effectively apologised, for that I can easily forgive you - although I hope you mean that it was inappropriate because it was unprofessional rather than because I am not American ;)
To address your points and hopefully reach a conclusion:
#When removing references, I did not remove them on the basis of whether they were by PhD students or women. I removed them because they no longer had any relevance to the text. There is no need to "fill-up" references to make sure all demographics are equally represented, therefore your point, to me, makes no sense. I myself am female and not a researcher, therefore I can't be accused of bias.
#On the topic of removing references, my justification for removing them stemmed from the fact that referencing was not in-line: i.e. not linked from the end of the sentence/paragraph it supports. Therefore, when placing the references I had to check each (both the abstract and full text thanks to a university proxy) to see what exactly they supported. Hence when cleaning up the article from reading like a journal review to reading like an encyclopaedia ("Thibert et al. showed that..." -> "It has been shown that<ref=Thibert>") there were inevitably references which had to be removed, as they had no relevance in the text.
#On the topic of cleaning up: when I first came to this article I recoiled in horror at the unfriendly and unreadable layout; big, unbroken paragraphs, a review-like format, needlessly detailed explanations, sections referring back to previous sections, a big clunky list of references at the end (though I noticed the effort on the discussion page to neaten these up, most impressive). I re-did the headings and systematically rewrote the article to be readable by at least a university student (which I am). The problem at hand was prose: there was no flow in idea progression or sentence - hence when reading a paragraph you would need to recheck it a couple of times to understand what was being said, and even then you might come across the dastardly "See also above ...". There were sections also that made no sense as context was not provided.
#I tried not to eliminate detail where possible, and rewrote much of it to be relevant to the article. I apologise for removing it, I know the feeling of having a large chunk of work removed, but I was being brutal to mould the page into a useful one for anyone who came across it. I shouldn't have to say that Wikipedia isn't a scientific encyclopaedia - it's open to anyone and therefore the information should be written for anyone interested in that topic. Detail like what I removed would be better used in an article more specific for the processes, where the hardcore enthusiasts and scientifically literate would be more inclined to go for that calibre of information.
#Finally, the history move. Another aplology on my behalf - I didn't not see the discussion on this page. I was being a bold editor, though I think it was for the better. I do not think the article in it's entirety should be moved back to this page - it is big enough as a separate entity to exist on its own. However, as I mentioned above, a short summary of the main points would flesh out the heading in the main article and encourage people to visit the history article.
Should you have any concerns over my justifications and still do not agree with the direction the article has taken, please let me know and we can get a couple of people from Wikiproject MCB to arbitrate and input into any issues. I realise that you've said "much was lost in the rewriting of this article", but look at how much has been gained: readability, context, diagrams, easy references, appropriate headings, and of course it scraped up an "A" and paved the way for further contribution. Thanks for your understanding -- Serephine ♠ talk - 02:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Justification

message: Letters that appear in words derived from Latin roots that are not pronounced (such as the p in pneumonia or pteradactyl are in fact pronounced when the letter from the same root appears within the middle of a word, as in the case of the second p in the word apoptosis (the second Latin root being ptosis, in which the p is not pronounced when it begins the word) or the c in the word gastrocnemius.  Thus there is no legitimate pronunciation of this word without the second letter p. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean Greek and pterodactyl. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It appears that the pronunciation guide and the explanation of the guide are contradictory.  I'm not up on my IPA, but isn't the second "p" supposed to be absent from the guide if it's silent? -Bobsagat 21:19 CST, Feb 13 2009  —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mispronounciation

message: Apoptosis is not a common word, but a fusion, a word made up by medical people to explain a phenomenon. The word was (clumsily) constructed to describe programmed cell death, where defective or damaged or aged cells literally "close up and fall away" of their own accord, a sort of cell suicide due to innate cell programming which quietly does away with unwanted cells. Apo refers to from, away from, off, asunder or separate. Ptosis originally referred to autumn leaves which shrivel up and fall away, hence "apo-tosis". The word should be pronounced "Apo-tosis", never "apop-tosis" nor "a-poptosis, since cells do not "poptose" nor to they "tose" (even without a "p"). One consequence of failure of the apoptosis mechanism allows cancer cells to survive and multiply instead of performing "seppuku" (The correct term for harakiri, the later is vulgar "Cut Belly") Historygypsy (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: In Execution it talks about the process happening in finality through proteolytic caspases. I am wondering if this is being excessively descriptive? When I looked up what a caspase was, it says they are a family of proteases. Since all proteases engage in proteolysis, it leads me to presume there is no such thing as a non-proteolytic caspase, and as such, the adjective is unnecessary? Sort of like saying a mammally dolphin or something (I apologize for my lack of ability to compose a good analogy). Tyciol (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: a fair point but English frequently uses mild repetition/redundancy for emphasis. "very unique" for example or "proteolytic degradation" or even to quote your own comment, "process happening". They aren't purely redundant. I think people find them reassuring or maybe they just save you the mental effort of extracting the meaning of a statement that is overly concise. Wikipedia usually is not written in the tight style of a journal article since the audience is broader. Oh, another favorite of these phrases is "radiating outward" or even (I actually heard this in a lecture) "radiating radially outward". 71.237.182.219 (talk)jawshoeaw  —Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Caspase]]s

message: That picture is not very clear - a skeptic (no, I've never heard of apoptosis doubters but good little scientist larvae rightfully ask these questions) might say for example that the digits just grow longer - a second photo would be nice, or arrows demonstrating unambiguously that apoptosis is necessary for interdigital separation. The second photo of the mature rat or mouse foot was too funny. Too many pictures on wikipedia are like this - essentially just stock photos that do not support the articles or support them weakly. There was a science journal parody years ago with an article about the flexibility of stock photos to meet the needs of many scientific disciplines - only the captions needed to be changed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.182.219 (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering that, too. David Spector (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: mouse foot picture

message: Does it all mean if mitochondria are destroyed in a cell it will self destruct due to released factors?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.166.36 (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mitochondria? 

message: :For an average child between the ages of 8 and 14, approximately 20 billion to 30 billion cells die a day. In a year, this amounts to the proliferation and subsequent destruction of a mass of cells equal to an individual's body weight. []
The cell article claims we have about 10^14 cells, so something's wrong somewhere, probably the sentence with the challenge tag, which I removed. Please undo/correct/whatever if you know better. --99.245.206.188 (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  doesn't add up 

message: I can't find any mention in the article of how apoptotic processes might have evolved. This is, I think, rather important information and it could be of interest to other readers.24.245.92.178 (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution? 

message: Hi! I am new to editing Wikipedia, but I have relevant expertise for this article. The image now accompanying the article shows bone formation from cartilage. Although cartilage cells are said to degenerate in this process, their morphology is quite far from that which is typical for apoptosis. In my opinion, the image should be removed until a more suitable new image can be located. A suggestion for a new image is figure 2 from the following scientific article: http://arthritis-research.com/content/10/4/R86. This image may be freely used provided a proper reference to the original work is made, according to the journal's copyright policy. As I am so new to this I don't really dare to make these changes myself. /GN 130.229.40.79 (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image showing ossification should be replaced 

message: Does anyone know how to contact the author of picture to get him to correct the misspelling "mecanism"? Thanks /Carl.moxey (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Control Of The Apoptotic Mechanisms picture 

message: Hi, just wanted to note a small  error but an error non the less. The text speaks about tumor necrosis factor TNF but the image at "Process->TNF path" speaks of TFN or tumor factor necrosis.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.108.22 (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading acronym: File:TFN-signalling.png  

message: The abbreviation of  tumor necrosis factor is TNF as stated in the description of the figure. Why does the author use TFN instead of TNF two times within the figure? First for the receptor (upper left corner) and also for the ligand (green triangle)?
Giseler146 (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figure: Overview of TNF (left) signalling in apoptosis 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Apoptosis. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.a-star.edu.sg/astar/biomed/action/biomed_dvp_abstract.do?id=2901ddeb02dH
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080630030923/http://www.bartleby.com:80/61/13/A0371350.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/13/A0371350.html
*Added  tag to http://biovisi.com/APOPTOSIS_CASPASE3_VIDEO.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050207142048/http://www.biochemweb.org:80/apoptosis.shtml to http://www.biochemweb.org/apoptosis.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070111132934/http://apoptosisinfo.com:80/ to http://www.apoptosisinfo.com
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070111190837/http://www.apoptosis-db.org:80/welcome.html to http://www.apoptosis-db.org/welcome.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Apoptosis. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://apoptosisinfo.com/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apoptosis-db.org/welcome.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630103651/http://stke.sciencemag.org/content/vol2007/issue380/images/data/tr1/DC1/Apoptosis_WEHI.mov to http://stke.sciencemag.org/content/vol2007/issue380/images/data/tr1/DC1/Apoptosis_WEHI.mov
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) 01:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Apoptosis. 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/20090303235946/http://elfosscientiae.cigb.edu.cu/PDFs/BA/2006/23/1/BA002301RV001-010.pdf to http://elfosscientiae.cigb.edu.cu/PDFs/BA/2006/23/1/BA002301RV001-010.pdf
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) 05:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Apoptosis. 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/20061228100402/http://www.nih.gov/sigs/aig/Aboutapo.html to http://www.nih.gov/sigs/aig/Aboutapo.html
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160515224643/http://www.deathbase.org/ to http://www.deathbase.org/
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) 03:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* Amphibian Metamorphosis.PNG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: — Assignment last updated by Gonet99 (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Plant Behavior 2022

message: — Assignment last updated by Nata11ashatan (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Biochemistry II