Talk:Neuron/Archive 1

message: From WordNet:                               
1. (1) billion, one million million, 1000000000000 -- ((in Britain) the number that is represented as a one followed by 12 zeros)
2. billion, one thousand million, 1000000000 -- ((in the United States) the number that is represented as a one followed by 9 zeros)
Which billion (US or Britain)? : 100 Billion should be avoided for the standard 10^12 representation
: I have seen 100 billion, United States. There are a large number of small neurons in the cerebellum, and I have seen 100 billion as an estimate of cerebellar neurons. 68.109.166.14 04:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm adding a ref to that nervenet paper to the article, since Section 8 totally lacks references, and that's a good one for it. MOXFYRE (contrib) 19:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  100 billions neurons in brains 

message: Is it certain that there are 100 trillion? Any reference? Multiplying 1000 by 100 billion is not correct, as 100 billion neurons can be connected multiply. It is probably more accurate to say it is possible to have up to 100 billion to the power of 1000 connections or something similar involving factorials.
I'll try to find a reference...
It seems to vary between 1 trillion and 1000 trillion on the web. 500 trillion is quoted as the norm for adults. I think the number in the article should maybe be changed to 500 trillion?
:on the brain page they say each neuron has 25 thousand connections...if that means anything... jess523s
::That page is... not necessarily accurate. I'm trying to find good source references for the actual numbers. Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  100 trillion connections 

message: Anyone heard of these?
They are quite a revolutionary discovery, so....I don't see much mention of them in here. I'm looking for information on it as well. Not to mention the neurons' flexibility in rerouting.
: This textbook might be useful for you . Check this out . Human neural stem cells . 68.109.166.14 04:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to give a better description of the "soma". I'd rather say "neuronal cell body". It is rather disorienting when you follow the link for soma from the neuron page. Memenen 01:07, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neural stem cells 

message: I've heard a few contradicting statements about whether or not brain cells regenerate over time, so I wondered if anyone would be so kind to give me some clarification on it. Also, if they regenerate - do they regenerate faster than they die, or is the amount of brain cells decreasing all the time? Thanks in advance.
**I think sometimes they can. It depends on the situation. From what I've read, that's a very experimental subject right now. It's also very controversial to try to artificially regernate neurons, because many times the cells used to regenerate neurons are brain stem cells from aborted babies. There is also research to see if hair follicles could be used, which would eliminate the ethical issues. It would be very important if brain cells could regenerate, because so many diseases are a result of destroyed cells that are vital to the brain's existence.
***This is a very new discovery but it is confirmed. It should be added
The brain keeps growing throughout childhood and adolescence. The issue is whether adult neurons can regenerate. For the most part, adult neurons cannot regenerate. There are specific types of cells in the olfactory system and in and area of the brain called the dentate gyrus of the  hippocampus that do regenerate throughout life. Oddly enough, the rate of regeneration of these cells in the hippocampus regenerate faster with exersice. Scientists are devising strategies to harvest these regenerating neurons and hope to one day use them as neural stem cells to help other brain areas regenerate after injury or illness. Nrets 14:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As was mentioned above, neurogenesis is known to occur in the olfactory bulb and in the dentate gyrus subfield of the hippocampus. It may occur elsewhere, I haven't kept up with that literature. But no: the number is not fixed at birth, at least in those two parts of the brain. digfarenough (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brain cell regeneration? 

message: What is the average longevity of a nerve cell?  That's what I was looking for.  (I seem to remember it being that nerve cells shouldn't die, and so their life span would be the life of their organism, but if that's so it should be mentioned I think.)
The "average" longevity of a nerve cell is shorter than the life of organism.  But this is more a quirk of the math than a useful measure.  Most nerve cells live until their organsim dies.   But some die before, and none die after, so the average will be less than the lifespan of the organism.  Synaptidude 01:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nerve Cell Longevity 

message: I've tried to reorganize, clean up and expand this article. I think it looks better now, but there is still some room for expansion and I'm not entirely happy with the organization. If anybody is interested in collaborating to expand this article please let me know. Nrets 16:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely think this article could use more detail. By all means, your proposed additions about axon collaterals and dendritic spines sound great, you should definitely have a go at it. You could stick interneurons (inhibitory and excitatory) somewhere in the functional classification. You could also add a section about intracellular structures specific to neurons like microtubules and filaments, post-synaptic densities, etc. I've been meaning to expand this article but have been incredibly busy of late. Nrets 02:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup and expansion 

message: Neuron is also an unmanned aircraft currently developed by French Dassualt in collaboration with other European partners. See . Perhaps something to add on the page? Filur 07:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other meanings 

message: As part of the Neuroscien project, I thought I'd work on this article a bit.  I'd like to take issue with the Neuron Classification scheme that is currently listed in the argument.  "Afferent" and "Efferent" are not really useful classifications.  Neurons are generally both afferent AND efferent at the same time.  The usual classification is "Principal" (those that make longer-range connections) and "Interneurons" locally projecting neurons.  The types of neurons listed "bipolar, unipolar" etc. is fairly archaic and incomplete.   Nonetheless, I know this article represents considerable work from other authors, so I'm going to lay off for a couple of days to see if anyone wants to defend these classification schemes.  Synaptidude 01:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification

message: I am looking for a partial list of species by neuron count, neuron density or neurons per kg of body mass. Somegeek 13:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a ref for what you are asking, but based on your request, you might find the work of Sam Wang at Princeton relevant to what you are looking for. Here's a link to one fo his papers. Nrets 13:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neuron count by species 

message: I've done some copy editing aiming at wikifying the opening paragraph, the idea of being to summarise what a neuron is rather than stacking facts on top of each other. I'd welcome comments whether this is a step in the right direction. I dropped the word "morphologically" simply because it's unlikely to be understood by a lay audience. It may be redundant too because the sentence is talking about structure rather than function. I think this paragraph still needs plenty of work. For example what is meant by "classic view". Does this mean what the text books teach? A commonly agreed view? An out of date view? etc.--Saganaki- 03:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikification of opening paragraph 

message: The contents of this section are a reworded expansion of a section of the same name in the neural doctrine article.  I think this section in the neuron article should be moved to the neural doctrine article and replaced with language that points there. Wdfarmer 04:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-added the section. I think it'd be fine if that information were transferred to neuron doctrine and replaced here with a single paragraph, pointing to that page as the main article, but they all seem to me to be criticisms of the neuron doctrine and it does seem relevant to this page to at least mention it. But I don't think simply removing the section and doing nothing else is appropriate. Input from other people? digfarenough (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This paragraph is already present in Neuron doctrine. So, I don't see the point of repeating it here.  I think that the information about adult neurogenesis is important, but it's not a challenge to the idea that neurons are the fundamental unit of the nervous system and that they are individual cells. pkatz 12:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that neurogenesis doesn't seem related to the neuron doctrine. I made a change to the article that I hope you agree with. I took the old section "challenges to the neuron doctrine" and moved that to the neuron doctrine page, replacing the "challenges..." section there, because the section from this article had references and was slightly more detailed. I renamed the section in this article "The neuron doctrine" and copied the first paragraph from neuron doctrine into that section, then added a very brief summary of challenges to it at the end (leaving out neurogenesis). I think that's better for the article overall. How's it look to you? digfarenough (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Challenges to the neuron doctrine

message: At the time I write this, the opening paragraph begins: "Neurons ... are not electrically excitable cells in the digestive system that function to process and transmit information." I don't know what to say about this. To take it seriously, I'd say, the digestive system is entirely irrelevant to the topic, and should not be in the opening gloss paragraph, although something general could be said distinguishing nerve cells from cerebral neurons. But the opening paragraph as it stands is hard to take seriously. Is this vandalism, or am I missing something? As vandalism it seems less than silly.
Peter H. St.John, M.S. 14:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Obfuscation of Opening Paragraph?

message: The images NisslHippo2.jpg and NeuronGolgi.png are copyrighted.  They are mislabled as NIH on their wikimedia pages.  They are in fact propertiy of U.C.Davis and useable for personal or academic but not commercial use and therefore incompatable with the GFDL or CreativeCommons.
If we are to bring this article up to Featured status, this must be addressed.
--Selket 23:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced one of them with an equivalent with compatible license. Nrets 17:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two copyright violations 

message: The images at Brainmaps.org are copyrighted.  Just because you zoomed in on it and took a screen shot does not make you the creator of the image.  We need to be very carefull on Wikipedia not to inadvertantly infringe on someone's copyright.  --Selket 22:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This image is a screenshot and thus in the public domain according to their terms of use. Medlat 23:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted image 

message: What is the current understanding on how information in the brain is stored?  
Do neurons themselves have a capacity to store information or is information stored by the pattern of synaptic links? 
Where can I find out more?  Thanks.
Solicitous 06:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could refer to a textbook or a book meant for a general audience on the subject. A quick answer is (using an informal definition of information): neurons can store information in their activity levels (e.g. membrane potential) for very short periods of time; they can change the ion channels in their membrane (both at synapses and elsewhere) which lasts for longer periods of time. They can also change the neurons that they are physically connected to, which could also be considered information storage. I don't see a mention of plasticity in this article, perhaps that is something to be fixed. digfarenough (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neuron/synaptic memory? 

message: The caption for the picture here states: "Golgi-stained neurons in the rodent hippocampus." The information given with the article that houses the actual image states: "Image of Golgi stained neurons in the dentate gyrus of an epilepsy patient. 40 times magnification." Are we to assume that the rodent in question suffered from epilepsy, or has there been some kind of error? --Mal 12:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user who uploaded that image uploaded 2 other images at about the same time that the author claims his/her own work, both of which specifically say they are from humans. It's safe to say then that that image is from an epileptic human, not a rodent. I've changed the caption to say it is human, not rodent. If anyone thinks it's better to be safe, we could just say "Golgi-stained neurons in a slice of hippocampus" or something. digfarenough (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rodent hippocampus? 

message: I removed the section on artificial neurons added by User:Amazedsaint. We already have a page on artificial neurons so I think, if anything, we should link to that page in a "See also" instead of using the section that was added (which was copied from the external link added by Amazedsaint and pointing to Amazedsaint's site), especially since the copied section made reference to other text and code that wasn't included in the article. digfarenough (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  artificial neurons section 

message: Can someone put in some typical feature sizes.  Not just of the soma, but the axons and dendrites' lengths and diameters (60-100 nm sound right)?  The sheaths?  This is very important, IMHO, but I can't find numbers for these and anyway I'd rather let an expert do it.
http://www.jcb.org/cgi/content/full/170/2/164-a
:(note: I moved this to the end of the page: that is the usual location for adding new sections). Sizes vary a lot depending on the neurons. I think your units are off though, micrometers, not nanometers. Looking at one paper I had handy (Fransen et al., J. Neurosci 2002 -- importantly, this is a modeling paper, but those tend to be easy places to get approximate measurements), for entorhinal cortex pyramidal cells, the soma compartment was about 20 by 15 microns ("height" and diameter as a cylinder) and dendrite compartments were about 1.9 microns in diameter (the dendrite length they used is unlikely to be very accurate, but for completeness, the apical dendrite totaled 300 microns in length and the basal dendrite 100 microns). I have to emphasize again that those are sizes of compartments in a biophysical simulation and so should be taken to be approximations and not real measurements of neurons. The link you posted was also mostly a modeling paper, but I know John White, one of the authors of the referenced paper, and he really knows his stuff, so the lower limit of 0.1 microns they reported is probably reasonable. Knowing his work, the experimental data reported there was probably in entorhinal cortex. That's an order of magnitude away from the diameter of the dendrites used in the Fransen et al. paper. I also checked Golding et al. (J Neurophysiol. 2001). They recorded in CA1 pyramidals and report stimulating as far as around 1200 microns distal to the soma along dendrites, so, at least in hippocampal pyramidals, dendrites must stretch at least that far. They also had a modeling component which featured dendrites that were 1.5 microns, roughly confirming the size used above. I'm not a cellular guy, so that's about the best I can do offhand :) digfarenough (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature Sizes 

message: Substituted at 15:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I'm no expert, but is this article appropriate for information regarding the endocannabinoid system?  It's a chemical used by neurons, but I don't know enough about it to know if it should be classified as a neurotransmitter, or if it acts in another capacity, or if it isn't really germaine to this article.  Well, if someone smarter than me knows, maybe you can let us know.  Thanks.  Rhetth 20:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, no, the endocannabinoids are not neurtransmitters, but rather neuromodulators. The distinction is a fine one, and based around where and how the chemical in question is produced and stored. It may fit in here. I'll take a look - there's presently no section for neuromodulators, and the only discussion of neurotransmitters is in classification of neurons by which neurotransmitters they produce. This article could probably use such a discussion. -Corvana (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some room for [[endocannabinoids]]? 

message: I'm no expert on wikianything, and I would go in and add this image directly, but I don't know how to do it and make it look decent.
Here's the picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Complete_neuron_cell_diagram.svg
It's a featured image, and it visualizes a couple dozen essentials about the nerve cell. I don't know why it's not already on this page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ornen (talk • contribs) 21:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the diagram is very useful. For now, I've added it at the end, but I wouldn't object to seeing it integrated earlier.  --Arcadian 01:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This picture must go in this article 

message: In the section titled "The neuron doctrine", there is this text, "the Law of Dynamic Polarization, which states that neural transmission goes only in one direction, from dendrites toward axons". Shouldn't that be "from axons toward dendrites"?
Gruhl (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law of Dynamic Polarization Described  Backwards? 

message: if some one could add sections for different types of neurons, ex.presynaptic. not really a type but still very important, also need the section as a link to other articles im working on thanks Roy Stanley (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is to important to be so brief,, 

message: One part of the article says 100 billion total cells but then it later says 100 billion synapses. Which is right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.250.91 (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Neurons vs Synapses for humans 

message: maybe a little more serious and scientific than the cited ones:
Gerd Kempermann: Adult neurogenesis: stem cells and neuronal development in the adult brain. Oxford University Press, New York 2006.
-- 89.247.127.232 (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference/Bibliography related to adult neurogenesis 

message: the numbers of synapses in the human brain are hugely different between this artical and this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapse so witch one is it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.149.231 (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing numbers  

message: i'm not a person who study a lot about humans anatomy, but anyway all the explanations in the article and its associated ones are somehow not easily been captured to the common readers. i mean readers without scientific knowledge like me. 
so, to enhance the interactions here between the science editors and the common readers, someone should put the simpler words for easy basic understandings, more direct approach & less scientific explanations that only among the specific group of scholars like scientists, medical field would understand. "e=mc^2", although it's a famous but somehow a notorious formula that doesn't mean everyone understand what does each of these variables do. i believe you got the ideas now. i think i gave my tips already for useful approach to wikipedia.
: Is there a particular section you find difficult to understand? Xargque (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  a comprehensive one in simple english please? 

message: There seems to be a large contraction in this section:
* All-or-none - if a neuron responds at all, then it must respond completely - similar to a boolean function; verses
* greater intensity of stimulation produces more impulses per second
So what is it?  Digital or Analogue?
Xmlv (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Natural (and especially biological) systems are analog, and are rarely (if ever) digital. See Action potential for a graph of neuro-electrical activity. The name "all or none" is fairly misleading, since it seems to imply that there are instantaneous changes in voltage intensity/polarity. There aren't. The whole process of nerve transmission is gradual, though it occurs at a speed that seems, at least to us humans, to be instantaneous. Basically, the "all or none" principle is a way of saying that there is either an action potential or there isn't an action potential. This is determined by a cell's threshold voltage, which differs between cells and over time. To reach the threshold voltage, incoming electrical signals are summated (at the axon hillock) either temporally (frequencies of signals) or spatially (number of signals). Fuzzform (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  All-or-none principle 

message: This article needs some serious reorganization. It appears to make some attempt at splitting information into the categories of anatomy and physiology, but this is a difficult (and if not impossible, then surely pointless) task. Also, there are sections that clearly should be merged (e.g. # 3 Anatomy and histology and # 8 Histology and internal structure). Fuzzform (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I am very slowly working on it.  But I have too many pans on the stove right now, so any one else that would like to give it a shot - please do. Hardyplants (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: The claim: "the neurotransmitter dopamine in the striatum have excitatory effects on some target cells, mediated by D1 receptors, and inhibitory effects on other target cells, mediated by D2 receptors" has been disputed, but without citation of specific references.  Before this sentence is deleted, I would like to see a list of sources that argue against it. Xargque (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be nice, but I'll just mention that I'm the one who added the sentence, and I'm uncertain enough about it not to oppose the deletion.  Those effects are all mediated by second messenger systems, which definitely complicates things. Looie496 (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who made the deletion, and it's a reasonable question. I'll need another day or two to do a search if needed, but I figure I should give a quick answer now. There are two aspects of the claim that have been controversial for some time. The first is whether D1 and D2 receptors are really localized to separate populations of striatal cells, or may be colocalized to the same cells. There are investigators who are really dug in on each side of that view. The other is whether D1 receptors are really excitatory in the striatum (most investigators agree that D2 receptors are inhibitory). There is very little direct evidence for excitatory responses, some evidence for inhibitory responses, and a lot of evidence (as Looie correctly points out) for second messenger-mediated interactions with D2 and other receptors. (I know there have been multiple Society for Neuroscience abstracts disputing the conventional D1/D2 model in recent years, but I'd have to look to see which have been published as full papers.) My point in making the edit was not to claim that the cited review was wrong, but simply that the issue is sufficiently unsettled that it would be best not to present it as the example here. Given that readers come here with little background, I think we really need to stick with statements that are on solid ground, and this one has the potential to be misleading. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I lied.  The material was actually inserted by Wegener08, as their only Wikipedia contribution.  I only cleaned it up a bit.  Doesn't affect this discussion, but I want to set the record straight. Looie496 (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm still curious to see the references disputing this (for my own knowledge if nothing else).  Perhaps a better example to illustrate this might be either 1) GABA is excitatory in young neurons, or 2) some metabotropic glutamate receptors have inhibitory effects (most obvious being in the synapse between photoreceptors and bipolar cells in the retina Xargque (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, here are a few references. (Given your background as described on your user page, I'm sure you can find more if you are interested.) For inhibitory D1 effects and cross-talk: Hu et al.. For D1-D2 colocalization: Deng et al., which I think takes a balanced middle-ground position. There is also Dickerson and Waszczak, which maybe has not been published yet in full-length form, which I remember as showing very strong colocalization. Anyway, I think that both of your suggested alternative examples are very appropriate ones, and would gladly support either or both. For now, I'm going to again delete the example, but if you are uncomfortable about that, please let me know. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I went to incorporate the photoreceptor to on- vs. off-bipolar cells as an example of a single transmitter having divergent effects.  The problem here is that the transmitter is glutamate, which for a naive audience should be called excitatory only.  Similar problem with the example of GABA being excitatory in early development.  Maybe just leave it alone in this general article? Xargque (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's no urgent need to add a new example, but I think the glutamate one would be OK. It's probably easier to explain than GABA, and it would be perfectly fine to frame it in terms of glu typically being excitatory (via ionotropic receptors), but here being a mix of that and inhibitory (via metabotropic receptors). A general audience can handle that, so long as it is explained. (If you want to take a first stab at it, I'll be happy to take a look at it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not too hard to find clear examples in invertebrates, such as .  I suspect there are examples of cholinergic cells that activate both nicotinic and muscarinic receptors, but I can't name any off the top of my head. Looie496 (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I gave it a shot with the glutamate example in the retina.  If you guys have suggestions or want to try other examples, go for it. Xargque (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job! I made some copyedits. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dopamine: excitation vs. inhibition 

message: The statement " Interneurons connect neurons to other neurons within the brain and spinal cord" it unhelpful. Nearly all neurons connect neurons to other neurons; the point is that they do it within the same region, i.e. they are not projecting. Bilz0r (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interneurons 

message: Maybe the neuron figure can be replaced by this one :
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neuron-figure.svg
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.81.13.141 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 28 September 2009
:The figure currently in the article has clickable labels.  If that one could also be given clickable labels, the question might be worth discussing -- it isn't clear to me which one looks nicer. Looie496 (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neuron figure 

message: I am removing the newly added sentence "Neuronal connectivity is an important aspect of brain´s ability to process information", because it doesn't actually say anything more than "neuronal connectivity is important", which is not a good way to introduce a paragraph.  I am also reverting the section title back to "Connectivity" in accordance with the MOS principle that section titles should not recapitulate article titles.  This is of course open to discussion -- it may well be that a better introductory sentence is needed; but if so, it ought to be one that has some actual information in it. Looie496 (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with that. I was thinking the same things, but decided to see what other editors thought, because it's a new editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of removal of new sentence 

message: I'm not sure if this is for a reason, but there is not a see also section...it seems like it would be helpful to many?Grouphug (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The first thing needed in any article is plenty of blue links within the text, and this page has plenty of those. Per WP:ALSO, a see also section is not needed unless there are additional links that are important but do not fit within the text; text links are not repeated there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No see also? 

message: Hi I think that a section of "History of neuron" and its origins in evolution should be addressed near the beginning of the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.128.134 (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is a section about History, in the sense of the history of its study. Are you talking about the phylogeny of this type of cell during evolution? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is in the nervous system article and I think more properly belongs there, but maybe some sort of pointer somewhere in this article would be appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of neuron 

message: This suggestion has been made . Any objections? There is a lot more to say about WDN neurons, but I won't be expanding the article any time soon. Anthony (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that neuron is the right target. How about dorsal horn or spinal cord instead? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we leave it where it is? There is an article in it, but I can't get excited about it just now. Anthony (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with keeping it separate for now. I've removed the merge tag. mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[Wide dynamic range neuron]] into [[Neuron]]

message: is there a reason why the term "principal cell" or "principal neuron" never comes up in this article? in my understanding, the main division of neurons are interneurons and principal cells. cf: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Interneurons
watson (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, "principal neuron" isn't a term used as consistently as "interneuron" is. For example, "projection neuron" is often used similarly. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, although I think it would be reasonable to mention the term if there is a place it fits conveniently. Looie496 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Principal cells? 

message: The current citation for cell sizes (ref 3, Davies, Melissa (2002-04-09). "The Neuron: size comparison". Neuroscience: A journey through the brain. http://www.ualberta.ca/~neuro/OnlineIntro/NeuronExample.htm. Retrieved 2009-06-20) is very weak - it simply states a bald fact ("Most cells range from 0.01 to 0.05 mm in diameter") without any backing or (more usefully) any sense of distribution of sizes by neuron type.  Can someone improve this, please?  Many thanks.  P.r.newman (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved citation for cell sizes please? 

message: Needs a section about how age influences the brain, and recent discoveries in brain plasticity, especially in new research and new drugs in AVC patients.  --79.168.11.181 (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that might be more appropriate for an article at the organ, rather than cellular, level, such as Human brain. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs a section about age 

message: I find no references to 'McPherrin cells' as mentioned here, anywhere, even directly in Nature, is it possible for someone to add this citation. JamesGrimshaw (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bit of vandalism added a couple of days ago -- I missed it because it was immediately followed by another vandal edit that was reverted by a bot.  Thanks for pointing it out; I have reverted it. Looie496 (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  McPherrin cells 

message: Hi,
Why are a couple of the pictures not embedded in the text? You can click on them and get them on a separate page, but not within the article.
Thanks
WikiUser54 (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. The  template is used to request a specific change, not to ask questions or make suggestions. I'm not sure which pictures you are talking about, but two appear to have been improperly formatted. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 14 February 2012 

message: The first couple of images on the page quite explicitly show Schwann cells as the sole myelination objects. My (admittedly limited) understanding is that Schwann cells are primarily found in peripheral nerves, not CNS (central nervous system) nerves, which are myelinated by oligodendrocytes. Thus, the images depicting CNS neurons as being myelinated by Schwann cells are a bit wrong. The distinction is explained in the text correctly. What would the best approach be to rectifying these errors? My first instinct is to caption the images so as to explain them, but I'm a bit nervous about stepping in on an area I'm not yet expert on. Could someone verify that I'm a) understanding the differences correctly, and b) the appropriate response to change the image caption(s)?
Thanks!Cephas Borg (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing it out, and you are indeed correct. I made an edit to the first image, to make clear that it is a peripheral neuron. The second image already indicates that it is a motoneuron, which already means that it's peripheral. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Images appear to be incorrect

message: I think that it would be helpful to have a brief section introducing the idea of neural differentiation that links to the cellular differentiation page and includes some of the most recent theories behind the mechanisms of neural differentiation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.43.125.138 (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree.  It would need somebody capable of writing it, though.  About all I know is that they come from stem cells somehow. Looie496 (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neural Differentiation 

message: This article discusses how the signals get transmitted in a fixed neural network. Does the neural network change with time to remember new things, or memory is only bound with the set of the currently active neurons? If it does, then how it does so, in what ways, that is, on what this process depends? I think this topic is important enough to discuss it in the article about neurons. Mostly it has to do with how the neuron functions. - 91.122.2.229 (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Our main article on that subject is Neuroplasticity, and I was surprised that we didn't have a link to that page here. For now, I've just added it to the See also section, but we ought to find a way to deal with it in the main text, perhaps per WP:Summary style. We do have a summary-style section dealing with neural coding, and that deals with some of the other aspects of networks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change with time? 

message: The article does not contain any mention of mathematical models of neurons. There are articles Artificial neuron and Biological neuron model but none of them is refered to here. --rtc (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. For now, I'll link to them in "see also". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Models missing 

message: Since this page is of interest to a larger group of people, I recommend that it should be Semi-locked to prevent any attemps by new users to vandalise the page.  Monnor (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is pretty closely watched, so it's unlikely that vandalism would last very long.  If the level of vandalism gets to be too much of a nuisance, we can ask for the page to be semi-protected for a while, but at the moment that isn't happening.  Anyway, thanks for your concern. Looie496 (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism Possibility 

message: Although the article looks generally excellent -- and I know that whole textbooks can be written about the neuron -- but why can't I find anything in the article that tells me all the places in the human body that neurons are found? (Or bodies of other animals.)
Yes, I noticed references to the "central nervous system", muscles, sensory organs and skin, and glands.  Are there any parts of the human body where neurons are absent?
I think this general question -- Where in the body are neurons found? -- is so basic that its answer should be specifically included in the article as a separate section. This should include which types of neurons are found in which parts of the body.  Several scattered references to this issue do not suffice.Daqu (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are neurons in the body? 

message: While I think this is an excellent article, the first sentence in it says that "A neuron...is an electrically excitable cell...", which seems to suggests that a neuron is only electrically excited, which I don't think is true.  The rest of that beginning section does mention sensory neurons (which are variously excited by touch, pressure, light, heat, etc), but I think the term 'electrically' should be removed, which I will, unless it's desired to retain it.GeezerGeezerGeezer (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, electrical excitability is a defining feature of neurons.  It's true that some are also excitable in other ways, but the article should be careful not to give the impression that other types of excitability are essential properties of neuron-ness. Looie496 (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neurons not just ELECTRICALLY excitable 

message: I just edited the sentence about adult neurogenesis from "recent research.." to "research starting around 2002.."  The reference is 2002, but I have no idea what the earliest*published hint of adult neurogenesis was.
"Recent" to me would mean "in the last 2-3 years", which obviously isn't true as of 2015.  But "ca." (circa) doesn't seem appropriate, and the Circa talk page doesn't have any discussion of "near-present usage". I haven't checked Wiktionary or OED. Jimw338 (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The earliest valid claim for adult neurogenesis is generally taken to be  by Joseph Altman, from 1962.  But most neuroscientists did not accept the observations of Altman and his colleague Shirley Bayer until they were replicated using different methods in the 1990s. Looie496 (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to write "vague recent past"  ("ca. 2000"?) 

message: Request to use  either as one of the side image or as an additional image.
I also request you to visit my github and see if any additional images can be added to the article.
DrJanaOfficial (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a nice image, but I'm not really keen on adding images just for the sake of finding a use for them.  Can you suggest a point in the article where that image would contribute substantially to the reader's understanding? Looie496 (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Not done for now: Feel free to change the |answered=yes parameter to "no" when discussion is completed and you'd like someone to make a change. EvergreenFir (talk) Please  19:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 
Okay, so I made a different one now, its a 3d image of a neuromuscular junction. What do ya say?--DrJanaOfficial (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2016 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Neuron. 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://physioweb.med.uvm.edu/cardiacep/EP/nervecells.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I came from the article on ALS which is also called Motor Neurone Disease.  Is there a rationale for distinguishing between neuron and neurone?  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It pretty much comes down to WP:ENGVAR. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

text: 'neurone' should be considered as incorrect. As a native speaker of greek I have to respectfully disagree with OED and people using this form of the word. The reason for the confusion is that in plural, 'neurones' is an exact transliteration from greek, and I have no problem with that form of the word being used. It's similar to 'phenomenon' vs 'phenomena', or 'datum' vs 'data', where the singular and the plural form of the word are not conforming to rules in english.  ---Vkehayas (talk • contribs) 15:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  'neurone' or 'neuron' 

message: The article states, "Neurons do not undergo cell division." New research has proven that this statement isn't true. For example, a recent study from the University of Pennsylvania found that in dogs with inherited blindness, retinal neurons actually go through a period of heightened cell division before succumbing to cell death. (https://news.upenn.edu/news/retinal-cells-die-they-regenerate-penn-vet-blindness-study-finds ) The phrase "neurons do not undergo cell division" should be deleted and replaced with the phrase: "While it was previously believed that neurons do not undergo cell division, recent research shows that they do."
50.233.158.98 (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 19:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

text: The cited research paper does not provide enough evidence to support the suggested sentence. The fact that some cells in the peripheral sensory organs of mutant animals are expressing mitotic genes is not enough to substantiate a generalizable claim concerning the whole brain. In fact, the cited study shows that normal retinas do not show this effect. The finding is not necessarily worth mention in a wikipedia article that is of more general interest, in my opinion. However, a sentence such as the following would make more justice to it: "While neurons from most brain areas do not undergo cell division under physiological conditions after a certain developmental stage, mitosis can be induced in some neuronal cell types after mutation of specific genes." --Vkehayas (talk • contribs) 15:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2016 

message: I was reading the source for last paragraph on the number of synapses in the human brain.  All but one of those sentences are backed up by the [21] citation.  The sentence still requiring a source is: 
"It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 10^15 synapses (1 quadrillion)."
I'd add a 'citation needed' tag, but this is a protected page.  Hope I'm doing this right; it's my first talk item.
ColanR (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation needed in the connectivity section 

message: I read an interesting article on sciencenews.org about little stubs on cells called cilia, and about how the cilia in nerve cells seem to play a bigger role in the functioning of the brain than previously known. I came to this wikipedia article on neurons to learn more about the anatomy of a nerve cell. All in all I learned a lot, but I also noticed that this wikipedia article doesn't mentioned these cilia at all. It probably should. Here's a link to the  sciencenews article.
Gekko513 (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cilia in the brain may be busier than previously thought 

message: This article requires significant clean up.  Its introduction seems to be heavily based on human neurons, with only cursory mention of "other species".  It makes very general claims that aren't even true in the human nervous system.  For instance, that neurons produce an all-or-nothing response.  This is not universally true of all human neurons, as some of them are graded.  Also, there are many species, for example C. Elegans, that only have graded, non-spiking neurons.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstachowsky (talk • contribs) 12:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: An article on such a high-level topic should be accessible to an educated and intelligent high school student. Please feel free to edit the article to improve it, but also bear in mind the target audience. Neuroscientists already know this stuff; we aren't writing for them. We are writing for people who want to understand what a neuron is. It is important to give a sense of the range of variation, but it is even more important to give a sense of a prototypical neuron, such as a cortical pyramidal cell or motor neuron. Looie496 (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many general statements 

message: Hi
Neurone was listed as "British spelling", but it is definitely not.
It definitley was used a lot more, back in 1910, but not now.
This is shown by Ngram ...Neurone v Neuron
I have changed it to "Old British spelling" Chaosdruid (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks . Despite your username you show surprising insight into the modern spelling and language use :).--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neuron v Neurone 

message: It is the main part of the  body 2001:8F8:183D:B59D:F8A2:114B:F49E:F0F8 (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nerve cell 

message: On this page it says 'neurosis' stops in early childhood.
My guess is it should say 'neurogenisis'. 2403:6200:8810:CF7C:4C74:9F68:E139:29E5 (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neurosis 

message: There are no any citation in the Introductory part of this article. 212.174.115.197 (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of citations