Talk:Cancer stem cell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| B | This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme. |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Mid | This article is on a subject of Mid-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
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. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] Cleanup tag
what does tagged mean? -- 214.1.101.252, 17:53, 23 August 2005
- I didn't add the tag, but I'd guess that this article was cleanup-tagged for the following reasons:
- no bolded article title in first "paragraph"
- incompete sentence
- no sentence capitalization
- no explanation or proper citation of references
- incredibly short text (what some call a "sub-stub")
- I've addressed all but the last issue, making this a tiny but reasonably formatted stub. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Write-up
I will try to write up a comprehensive article on this subject. I have therefore removed the stub tag. Feel free to contribute in the mean time and I will incorporate your edits into my text. Peter Znamenskiy 10:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- You've done a good job so far, but there still needs some work done (adding citations etc.) I've added to the MCB WikiProject. Dr Aaron 11:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal for additions
I think this article is already quite informative. Although I don't agree with the 'low importance' rating. The subject has received significant public media attention to warrant a higher rating.
I have some thoughts on additions to the article:
CSCs in different tumor types
Maybe we should include some more specific examples for tumors where a population of cancer stem cells have been found in the 'evidence for cancer stem cells' section?
There is some pretty solid published evidence now for a CSC population in glioblastoma, colon cancer and breast cancer.
How CSCs are identified
Maybe add methods for purification, identification and culture of CSCs?
Origin of the cancer stem cell
The theory of the origin of the cancer stem cell is still debated. While the oncogenic transformation of a stem cell is one possibility, there is still a lot of discussion surrounding this issue. Possible progenitors of the CSCs are either pluripotent stem cells, multipotent progenitor cells (in certain cancers 'transiently amplifying cells') or even a differentiated cell which regains some 'stem-like' properties due to mutations.
Cancer stem cell niche
Another topic which might be added is the theory of a 'cancer stem cell niche', stating that like normal stem cells also cancer stem cells need a specific environment to keep up their stem-like state.
Nomenclature
The debate about the origin and existence of a cancer stem cells is also reflected in the nomenclature used. Some scientists and articles refer to these cells as 'tumor progenitor cells' or 'tumor initiating cells'. Maybe these terms should also included.
Any thoughts? --Loopback007 00:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Case Against
Have to agree that a "low rating" for this subject is pretty strange. There should be some mention of a recent experiment published in Science which challenges the cancer stem cell hypothesis. Summary and link to the paper can be found here ...
Khaj 15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Further evidence, this time challenging cancer stem cells in breast cancer ...
- Khaj 09:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
MCB defines "low importance" as meaning "Obscure subjects that are known only to researchers in the specific field." "Mid" importance means that it's graduate student material. "High" is for college textbooks, and "Top" is for things that teenagers (and younger students) might encounter in school. I don't think it's intended as a commentary on how important the subject is to the future of cancer research; it seems to be a rating system that primarily answers the question, "How likely is it that an entire classroom of students will be looking at this page?"
It could also be a typo. On the WPMED project (which has a very different rating standard, despite using the same words), my default assessment is set to low, and there are probably a few "mid" level articles which were accidentally tagged as low. You could ask someone at the MCB project to reconsider the assessment if you think that cancer stem cells are a common topic in a lower level biology class. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
