Talk:Mitosis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articles Mitosis (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject
Portal:MCB
 MCB Portal
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of top-importance within molecular and cellular biology.
Peer review This article is currently undergoing peer review by the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject. Please feel free to leave a comment.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.


Diagrams and photographs of real life cells and computer generized cells dipictions would be highly usefull in these parts.

Contents

[edit] The links to main articles are pointless

Most of them lead back to the main articles, others are stubs that are exact replicates of the text in this article. We need some writers and researches to flesh this section out. Ambush Commander 03:24, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC) Needs addition of p53 and p21 proteins for inhibition of cDK due to errors in replication.

[edit] Not Clear

Is endomitosis a phase of mitosis, or is it something else? --Mac Davis 10:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] agh, I just realised - cellular biology is VERY lacking in Wikipedia

How horrible. I thought Wikipedia was doing well - then I see that the entire subject of cellular biology in Wikipedia is extremely scant. For example, cellular signals during mitosis are not elaborated, nor references to key concepts of cellular signals given, nor to protooncogenes, which speed up mitosis, and tumor suppressor genes, which slow it down, or premature mitosis, none of that! How infuriating! -- Natalinasmpf 03:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Major rewrite

I just put up a major rewrite of the article. I created an overview section that simplifies mitosis for the laymen, added some more technical information for the student, and redid the grammar and diction to improve article readability. I split up the pictures from Gray's Anatomy into the individual subphase sections so it's easier to follow the process and got a better picture of the cell cycle.

The section on homologous vs. sister chromosomes is a little confusing, but it was the best I could word it. It may not even be necessary. Any improvements appreciated. -D. Wu 04:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I renamed it to Vocabulary, but I'm not sure that's best. I remember learning this in my Biology course: it was really confusing. I'll take a look. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 16:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding revision at 13:54, 21 July 2005. I backtracked a little of User:Natalinasmpf's changes because I felt that it detracted from the cohesiveness of the article. I liked the light micrographs of mitosis, but I felt the second and third were placed rather haphazardly. In particular, the third micrograph replaced the original anaphase diagram from Gray's Anatomy, which interrupted the theme of the section.

I also shuffled the images, mainly back to their original locations. The diagram of the cell cycle is intended to be in the section where the cell cycle is talked about. Furthermore, the general diagram of mitosis is intended to be in the section where mitosis is first talked about. I cooked up an image that illustrates how genetic information is distributed so the section won't be bare.

The LM pictures were placed in a gallery at the bottom.

I also thought the links, especially in the first micrograph image, were extraneous and cluttered the article. I have therefore "de-over-wikified" accordingly. -D. Wu 19:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I guess I was too ambitious. I wish to have the one or two photos reintegrated into the main article rather than a gallery sometime (near?) future, when the article is much longer, and with far more elaborations (I could think of expanding the metaphase section, for example, concerning the "tug of war" part). By the way, could we start aiming for FAC? -- Natalinasmpf 01:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I think the article's at its most comfortable size. I'd rather not see it get unweildy like the menstrual cycle article. My hope is that the subpages like metaphase will actually start fleshing out now that the basic information is on the main page. I'm not quite sure where another LM would go without disrupting the flow, though, but they do make perfect additions to the subpages. -D. Wu 03:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Well it depends. Menstrual Cycle does need to get reorganised, but there's plenty of cultural and social references to it (other than the scientific explanation of it itself), but the thing I'm thinking of is that first thing, the idea is that eventually all articles can be submitted as a featured article if worked upon - why not mitosis? But it has to be slightly longer, maybe 25% longer. The "errors of mitosis" I will expand on, but for example, the Gray's Anatomy drawings don't really capture the drama. What they may need is some colour - I'll go over them with gimp tonight and see what I can do. Implications of mitosis in the larger scope of life, as well as key signals involved in mitosis, is not present (although yes, biologists probably don't even know much of the signals involved in cellular functions yet!), but needs to be implied. For one thing, we need some plant cell depictions. Mitosis, such a fundamental principle, should ideally for Wikipedia's standard (which is why I complained about it above) be 3-4 tiered, ie. an article with over 2 to 3 tiers of subarticles - however currently it only seems to have one (describing the phases). I could envision the subarticles (when we are more knowledgable) containing info about the cellular signals involved in each phase, and the transition, as currently all we have is the anaphase-promoting complex and the spindle checkpoint. Say, since you're a university student, can you see about obtaining some photos too? It would be great. Some kind of photo is missing to make it feel "complete", but I just don't know what. -- Natalinasmpf 03:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Biologists do understand a great deal about the signalling pathways in mitosis, but biochemistry is beyond the range of what you or I can authoritatively write about, and esoteric information such as it is should be in the subarticles. I agree that a mention that mitosis is controlled by signal transduction is warranted, but keep in mind that all biological process are controlled by signal transduction.
I completely agree with an Introduction section before Overview that talks in general about the importance of mitosis in life. We cannot forget, however, that mitosis is overall a mechanistic process. We mustn't get ahead of ourselves and expand beyond our knowledge--otherwise we're just talking. I'll eventually fold anaphase-promoting complex and spindle checkpoint into the cell cycle article under a section about controlling cellular division, because the checkpoints in mitosis exist as part of the greater assortment of checkpoints in the cell cycle.
Especially in the process section, we need to keep the feel academic and not dramatic. I agree that the Gray's Anatomy diagrams can be spruced up with color, but I think you'll also agree with me when I say that a glossy coat will only harm the intended purpose of this article. It's a succinct educational analysis, not a guided tour.
My general point is that any further significant expansion of mitosis should be within the subarticles, and if information must be added to the main article, great care should be taken. Because mitosis is an amazingly intricate process, this article can easily become derailed and balloon into just a collection of facts. -D. Wu 14:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aging?

I'd like a section on the connection between mitosis and senescence...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.174.218.52 (talk • contribs) .

Check out telomere. -- Natalinasmpf 21:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plants/Animals Mitosis

I think this article should at least point out the more prominent differences in plant and animal mitosis Jds10912 20:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there are much differences in plant and animal mitosis. The only different part is in the telophase, where plant cells don't form cleavage furrow but having vesicles to gather at the equator to form a cell plate, then eventually become a cell wall to separate two cells -- this is in cytokinesis. Correct me if I have any mistakes. (EDIT: ...and also the absence of centrioles in plant cells. I totally forgot about this) — Yurei-eggtart 16:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ever Heard of Kinetochore Microubules?

Did you know that currently most scientists believe that the kinetochores do not hook on to the spindle microtubules. It is currently thought that the kinetochore creates tubules of its own and sends it to either ends of the spindle. At each eand of the spindle is a pool of enzymes that slowly digests the tubules, and therefore pulls the chromatid(s) apart. Seriously, This is too big to miss. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.241.229.199 (talk • contribs).

Could you provide a link to a scholarly work that suggests this? My current understanding is that kinetochore microtubules are nucleated by the centrosomes, which then attach to the chromosome at the kinetochore. The kinetochore then walks along the microtubule and degrades the tubulin along the way. Essentially the reverse of what you said. -D. Wu 06:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article improperly altered

I was reading through the article when I noticed the following after a mention of binary fission:

It is important to remember that binary fission is still illegal, and so it is carried out on a very small scale.

I also noticed that the article was trunkated somewhere in the metaphase section. I think the edits shown here should be reverted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitosis&diff=prev&oldid=45723866

I'm not sure if this was malicious, or just someone who made a couple really odd mistakes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Harrold (talk • contribs) 04:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

It would be helpful if a pronunciation was included in the mitosis and meiosis articles. -R. S. Shaw 04:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mnemonic for mitosis/meiosis distinction?

Anybody know a good way of remembering that meiosis is the chromosome-reducing process? I find the words too similar to easily keep them straight. -R. S. Shaw 04:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] M phase taken out of the article

Maybe M phase should have its own article with links to mitosis and cytokinesis, as M phase has two parts: mitosis and cytokinesis? Andrius 14:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed

I noticed this article listed at the Good article candidates page and took a moment to review it. Unfortunately, the article does not meet good article standards due to the total lack of inline citations. Taking a quick look at the rest of the article, I don't see other major issues, so I'd recommend renominating the article for GA after the problem with citations is fixed. Good job, and good luck. Neil916 (Talk) 19:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Renomination

I still think the "How mitosis distributes genetic information" needs inline cites, lest someone may fail its nomination again. LuciferMorgan 16:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That section just reworded what was in the overview, so I just removed the whole section as redundant. – ClockworkSoul 16:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA On Hold

This GA nominated article is on hold for the following reasons:

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
Lead shortened to 3 paras and made a better summary. TimVickers 20:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Done by another editor. TimVickers 21:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MSH, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article.
  • Please convert all numbered lists into prose.
Done be another editor. TimVickers 21:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to notify me when the problems are addressed. Tarret 14:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

Good job, here are a few bot-generated suggestions on how the article may be brought to FA status. The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: fiber (A) (British: fibre), organize (A) (British: organise), isation (B) (American: ization), signaling (A) (British: signalling), check (A) (British: cheque), mould (B) (American: mold).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

Hope this helps. Tarret 21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/t/Talk%7EMitosis_e637.html"