Talk:Human embryogenesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The organisation of this article is under review by the Preclinical Medicine Project. This project aims to provide guidelines for consistent organisation of the preclinical medical science articles including anatomy, physiology and other fields. Please visit our page for further information!

[edit] No article?

Quite frankly I'm amazed! While the Mammalian embryogenesis article explains much of the preliminary formation of humans, it stops rather abruptly at the formation of the amniotic and yolk sacs. Taking most of the information from the article and appending it with how human embryos develop into two, then 3 layers, fold and etcetera would be a good start to what would probably become one of the more comprehensive explainations of human embryogenesis on the internet. Discussion? -- Serephine / talk - 08:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds very sensible to me. There's already mention on the preclinical medicine talk page of sorting out a structure by which to incorporate human anatomy into animal anatomy / distinguish human from general anatomy. Would your idea about embryology be something which would sensibly fit under such a structure? If so, perhaps talk to Melchoir about how to arrange things? I'm happy to help as best I can - I know quite a bit about lateralisation, for one. Nmg20 18:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Definately. Since we know so much more about human embryology it would make sense to create a separate article about it, yet it should remain a branch of animal (general) embryology. See my ideas below, and thanks for your interest! -- Serephine / talk - 02:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Ideas

These [including Embryology] are big topics. Once those are more consistently organized, one can branch out to related articles under those disciplines. A lot of work has already been done on articles on more specific topics. I think it would be great to join all of that work together under the umbrella of a well organized -ology article.

Another useful quote taken from the preclinical medicine talk page - get everything organised and once the framework is in place, add to it. The embryology page needs a major re-haul as it isn't a very good starting point for those interested in it. I would say that the Embryology page needs to act as a general signpost to the more relevant fields within it, as one cannot possibly hope to cover human, mammal and other life embryology on one page.

So, I suppose a good place to start would be to have a nice embryology page which discusses the main and general points of the science - elaborating on what is already there and adding information (and links) to the various "fields" within it. These links shouldn't be an endless list of related articles - there are too many and it is offputting to the layperson looking for some light browsing. Instead perhaps, related clumps of articles would come under a heading and short introduction.

For example, embryogenesis is the study of how an embryo forms and develops. It exists in a large enough topic itself to be separate from embryology, yet there is no link from embryology to it. Why not discuss embryogenesis briefly within embryology page - as a field within embryology? This would provide a layperson a direction to go if they were interested in it. Additionally, that particluar section could also discuss the more specific forms of embryogenesis - such as mammalian and human embryogenesis - with relevant links of course.

How's this sounding Nmg? -- Serephine / talk - 02:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carnegie stages

The page Carnegie stages might be of assistance, with each stage becoming a header. --Arcadian 13:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I like, thanks for introducing me to this (I hadn't heard of it until now). I unfortunately do not know the stages myself and foresee problems with the layout of the article if 23 headings are used (imagine the contents, plus some headings would contain relatively little). However we need people thinking about how to go about stucturing the article, so thankyou for your input Arcadian :)

Working on this idea, it seems useful to introduce the Carnegie stages early in the article (which would allow the merger of the rather stubbish existing one) but use more general headings to describe the overall process - more descriptive ones which break the whole process into arbitrary chunks, such as "From Zygote to Blastocyst", "Invasion of the Uterine Wall", "Formation of the Trilaminar Embryo" and so on, describing along the way which days development X takes place on ("by day 15, blah blah has formed etc.).

To me, this makes the article much more interesting to read rather than 23 headings labelled "Day X-Y" -- Serephine / talk - 13:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't we do both? I agree with Serephine that using 'just' the Carnegie stages is a little dry - the first time I came across them I remember it being a bit of a chore finding out what actually happened at each stage! - but the first external link on that page provides possible subtitles. What about something like: Day 1: the fertilised oocyte; Carnegie Stage 1 Days 2-3: the morula; Carnegie Stage 2 Days 4-5: the blastocyst; Carnegie Stage 3 and so on? I think that has the dual benefit of letting the lay reader know roughly what the Carnegie stages mean while retaining the scientific classification for the non-layperson. Nmg20 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I like these proposals. To me, the main value of the Carnegie stages is that it makes it easier to group related developments, since it is more reliable than using days, but it would be good to have the English descriptions in the section headings. Perhaps for now we could break it into approximately five or so sections, with each section mentioning which Carnegie stages are covered in it. And good luck to both of you on your exams. --Arcadian 01:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguishing mammals from humans

Sorry - exams tomorrow, so I've been keeping my head down, in the main! I've had another thought: looking at the anatomy pages, what they tend to do is to describe the structure in general terms initially, then move on to talk about humans specifically and animals specifically in separate subsections of the same article. This might be a neat way of doing it, although it's possibly impractical with a topic the size of embryogenesis where the processes can be very different between species?

On that note, isn't another problem going to emerge when we consider the differences between different mammals, or are these relatively minor? My expertise is mostly in lateralisation (e.g. how left and right are determined, how organs end up reliably on different sides) rather than the total process, but I know there are significant differences there betwee, for instance, rats and humans...

For an example of the anatomy division I mentioned, take a look at Femur, where the article talks largely about human anatomy, then includes a section (3) on "In other animals". The 'content' isn't ideal, but as a structure I think it's worth considering. So what if for embryogenesis and so on we suggested:

• Starting the article with a generic description of embryogenesis (or whatever it is being discussed) - what it is, what it does, when it happens, and in what things it happens - i.e. the universals.
• Then say outright that the article focusses on human embryogenesis, and that animal embryogenesis is discussed either in section X of this article or provide a list if we think it's better to - of the form:

"For development in birds, see avian embryogenesis For development in rodents, see mouse embryogenesis" etc.

Nmg20 21:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Then say outright that the article focusses on human embryogenesis, and that animal embryogenesis is discussed either in section X of this article or provide a list if we think it's better to

Lovely, I couldn't agree more. Fantastic ideas, you've been a great help. I might start a draft for this soon time permitting, as my exams are approaching. Good luck with yours :) -- Serephine / talk - 23:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary Draft

Ok taking your suggestions into account I've drafted up a guideline of sorts. Taking the suggestion from the Preclinical Medicine WikiProject that umbrella -ology articles branch out, I've started with the Embryology article. This page would feature the following areas, which roughly correspond to primary and secondary headings:

• The definition of embryology as the broad study of an embryo and its development inside the uterus.
• How it fits into developmental biology and its relations to sciences in that area.
• How it is used to support the theory of evolution, or a suitable link to an article covering this.
• The areas studied in embryology and relevant links to those articles. Includes but is not limited to:
  • Fertilization, to an extent. An "iffy" area, but I think worthy of coming under the umbrella heading
  • Embryogenesis
  • Foetal Development (this is tricky... but so far as I can tell the development of the foetus is covered in most embryology books and sites, and I personally have studied it under the heading of embryology)
  • Organogenesis and Histogenesis
  • Teratogens, to an extent. Borders on biochemistry area but still relevant

Reasons

This structure would give the lay-person, casual browser and even informed scientist a good covering of articles associated with Embryology, as well as a good direction to go depending on what they are looking for/interested in.

Stem Articles

The articles leading off the main embryology article is where the human/animal distinction can be made. The general idea would follow the umbrella proposal, where an overarching general concept gives rise to more specific areas within it, but with the main articles focusing on humans where relevant.

For example, articles such as embryogenesis which will have human, rodent, mammal, fish and who knows what other specific examples within it will have the general concepts of the title, a disclaimer informing the reader that the article is about human embryogenesis, human embryogenesis itself, and a section with relevant links to specific examples of non-human embryogenesis.

Conclusions

To improve the embryology related articles, the basic ideas are to make organisation user-friendly via the use of umbrella articles, and focus on human development within the articles -- Serephine / talk - 08:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anatomy project - embryology

It would be great if some of you non-embryology-hating folks could add to some of the anatomy articles. Especially human fetus stuff and derivatives. (Pharyngeal arches, etc.) Articles about (adult) structures could include what germ layers they are derived from. I know medical school anatomy courses often test on these types of things, so many would find it very helpful. Here is a link to the anatomy project. --Mauvila 08:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)