Talk:Endomembrane system

Endomembrane system has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 28, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
December 24, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Molecular Biology: MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Biophysics (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biophysics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BiophysicsWikipedia:WikiProject BiophysicsTemplate:WikiProject BiophysicsBiophysics articles

This article was intensively edited as a Fall 2008 / Spring 2009 educational assignment: WikiProject AP Biology 2008.

We invite you to join us to make further improvements and changes. We are not claiming any sort of ownership. This is a project in collaboration.

Help[edit]

I am an AP Biology student who is currently taking this article under my wing in the hopes that it will eventually reach Featured Article status. This article achieved GA status on Christmas Eve, I'm setting my sights on FA. I welcome and encourage all who visit to contribute/criticize, albeit constructively, as they see fit. If you see anything that you think should be changed than by all means let me know. I am completely open to suggestions and thankful for any help that might come from the Wikipedia community.

My end goal, as noted earlier, is to nominate and pass this article to Featured Article standing sometime in early March. While it will be a difficult road ahead, I hope those of you who took the time to read this will understand my undertaking and seek to help me expand and improve this article. Also, check out my user page to learn more about me or Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 for my AP Biology Class Goals/Project information. Cheers! --VivaLaLacy (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The endomembrane system and the problem of protein sorting.
NCBI books

Potenetial Resources[edit]

--VivaLaLacy (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graded --JimmyButler (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Looks like it's time to start this discussion. You're making some good progress. That's evident. Some advice - add your citations in properly formatted as soon as you can. Otherwise, it's a total pain in the rear to go back days or weeks later to find the right passage and hook up the appropriate citation.

It doesn't really matter what kind of citation style you use, but it has to be consistent. Citation templates are good for beginners - you can just plug in the right information. The templates aren't necessary, just helpful. At GA, you'll be expected to have properly formatted citations: authors, dates, publishers, etc.

Another thing I've learned by experience: start keeping tabs on where you found stuff. You'll be asked in peer reviews, GA reviews, and at FAC to clarify something. I can't count the number of times I read something and put it aside in my mind for later, then went back to the 10 sources or so I had and was completely unable to find it again. That drives me nuts. I've even started to keep files of the articles I've written. If you stick with the article after your class and it makes it to FA, and it appears on the main page, you'll get asked about sources again.

Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was actually about to ask you about this. The list above is just an ongoing list of possible references, I'll probably try to organize it so I can determine what is what.--VivaLaLacy (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One question, do you know why my access dates appear red under the reference list on the article? --VivaLaLacy (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dates appear to like zeros. I changed the first ref to fix it.

What do you prefer? Commentary on the reliability of the sources now? Or when you have it all written? About.com = :( -- Textbooks = :D It might be simpler to use simple sources to start with, then once you have a better handle on the content, you can go back and switch the frownie face sources with the zOMG!!1! sources. --Moni3 (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the about.com link on the potential reference list? I think most of the links provided in the list above are reliable with the exception of a few, such as the about.com and answers.com ones. In writing the article I've found the textbook links to be the best. Except for maybe the first and fifth reference, the sources I've used in the article so far are credible, right? --VivaLaLacy (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the ever-important disclaimer that biology references aren't my area, if you ever have a question about if a source is reliable, click that link to see. It should have an author and a publisher. Like a textbook, journal article, or newspaper source, it should be fact-checked by 3rd parties. It can't be another wiki, or a website where any old someone (like us) can include information. Looking at what you have now, #4 makes me ask who John Kyrk is. Is he notable in the field of cell biology? Is Cellupedia a wiki (I can't tell)?

You're doing basic stuff, which is ok. When I start off working on an article I have little knowledge about, I work from Google, then start to compile a list of references. I think your sources so far are good for a GA, but they would not pass an FA. Although what you're citing seems to be basic enough that a textbook would cover it nicely. You let me know what you would rather do: understand the overall concepts before worrying much about citations and sources, or get more authoritative and advanced sources first? It's your choice and really no preferred way to do it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Kyrk's background info can be found here by clicking "from the author" in the middle of the page. After reading it I'm not really sure if he's notable in that field but I did notice he got his information from the same place I already used, Molecular Biology of The Cell. Looking at cellupedia, I found out it's actually a student created website by reading this, so it's not very reliable.

I think I have a basic understanding of my topic, aquired from looking over the links from google. I'd prefer to go ahead and get the more authoritative and advanced sources now since that will help me achieve FA later on. --VivaLaLacy (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Yea... a reputable reference in an acceptable format... I wish you were at the beginning of the alphabet!--JimmyButler (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Help[edit]

Does anyone know the correct way to refernce an online book? As you can see from my reference list on the article, the same books are appearing for the different parts of the endomembrane system. I don't think it would be suffice to just reference the book once, because then you would lose all of the url's associated with the different sections of the book. I'd like to keep the links to the different sections, because as an article on an online encylcopedia connectivity is crucial. --VivaLaLacy (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This can be done by separating (foot)notes from references. I've indicated the idea with a couple of examples. Geometry guy 23:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done the rest. Geometry guy 15:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, In all of my upcoming sources I'll be sure to follow your format. --VivaLaLacy (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You may want to check that the weblinks all go where you want: with this format you can have a specific weblink for the cite, and a separate weblink for the general reference. Geometry guy 23:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spell Check[edit]

I strongly recommend running your additions to this article through Microsoft Word and do a spell check. Nothing discredits an article like having your teacher correct spelling errors involving "standard" English words. If you activate the supplemental programs as suggested in class; the typo's will appear underlined in red. Remember you are writing a formal document with a world-wide audience; there is no tolerance for spelling errors. --JimmyButler (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Do[edit]

Create membrane section and explain overall structure and function - debatable
~~Explain captions thoroughly~~
~~Set images the thumb width~~
~~Justify more places with references~~
Expand the lead paragraph
Copyedit

A major leap forward in content. If you do not wait to the last minute to address your peer review concerns; there is hope for GA before the grading period is over. Best of Luck!!!--JimmyButler (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Help[edit]

For some reason reference 21 is not repeated in the paragraph that follows it. Instead there is a separate reference number (22) for a reference that is the exact same. Please help if you have the knowledge to do so. --VivaLaLacy (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been fixed --VivaLaLacy (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit anyone?[edit]

A thorough copyedit by a keen eye would be nice to have before the GA review. --VivaLaLacy (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer; I looked it over and took a different approach on the citation / referencing. If you can break the code on that formatting then I highly recommend that you thoroughly cite your sources. Until there is adequate referencing; there is no hope for GA. Please don't "shot-gun" the references to give the illusion of credibility. I fail people on research papers for that. They must align (the source must contain the information that you are citing!). You may use the same reference several times; which would likely resolve the inadequacies you have right now in citations. Franky, content- wise you've gone well beyond the scope of my knowledge so I have little to offer there. The nature of the topic may keep away GA reviewers; so don't hold your breath on an evaluation. Best of luck with it. --JimmyButler (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why have JimmyButler and Dr.pda completely changed the citation style of this article since December 9th? Now there is no alphabetical listing of sources used, and no helpful links to material in online sources. Geometry guy 21:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formats are highly variable among Wiki articles; however, I have no particular passion for one over another. Feel free to revert to prior format if that is your preference.--JimmyButler (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you made other improvements in your edits too, and I don't want to revert them. However, I'm willing to help restore the earlier citation format if the main editor VivaLaLacy prefers it. If the main editor prefers the new format, then my preference is irrelevant. Geometry guy 23:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent Point. My response was inadequate; and in hindsight seems somewhat dismissive in tone. My apologies. The question you raised was Why? I failed to address that. It was the intent of the class to pursue a citation format that I was familiar with so that I would be able to offer assistance. My knowledge of formatting is grossly limited; therefore I opted for this one. It was modeled in FoodPuma's Osteochondritis dissecansin which essentially a single reference section was created. The original format for this article's citation may have existed before the project. My neligence is in not checking further back in the edit history to determine this. When such major changes are introduced; it is just good manners to open it up for discussion on this talk page - I fell prey to the ownership syndrome - a poor example of proper edicate on Wikipedia. Students take note!

That stated; This would be the appropriate proceedure:

Regarding citations; I'm not sure I understood the orignal format. Some references were listed under notes; where others are further linked to the reference section. At first I thought maybe it was only books that were moved to the status of reference; however, that was not the case. Another aspect that preplexed me was the need to go through two steps to get to the reference information 1) to the note link then 2) to the reference link. It seemed less efficient than going straight to the complete citation under one subheading. Other than the benefits of an alphabetized list; are there benefits to notes and references vs. a single reference heading? If so; then a reversion may be in order. If that should be necessary I can revert back and carefully screen for any modifications that were introduced after the new citation format was introduced. (Sigh) I guess my power as "The Teacher" does have limts!!!! Cheers --JimmyButler (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my preference; I have none. Geometry guy proposed the original citation format to me as an answer to a question I had. The question can be seen above, under the reference help section. I stuck with that format for the rest of the article. --VivaLaLacy (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

I am not quite sure about this but you have used the the citations 12 and 14 together, one right after the other (eight times in a row) and I believe this to be redundant and unneccesary. I feel that you should either get more citations to fill in these spots or just cite 12/14 at the end of the the entire unit (no–not each paragraph, the entire unit). --Cooldrummer (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concern above definitely needs to be addressed. After all, this is supposed to be a GA article.

--Criticism101 (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are placed there to meet requirments for the quantity of citations that I was told. I felt that if they were not there people would raise concern over where that information came from. I used those two sources for that information, so it would be unneccesary to use more citations to fill in those spots. If just citing 12 and 14 at the end of each unit is acceptable by citation standards then I will do it. --VivaLaLacy (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concern has been addressed well. Pardon my tight review.

--Cooldrummer (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no problem with VivaLaLacy (talk · contribs) citations. Cite after each sentence. Who cares if the same source is used ad infinitum, as long as it is a good source. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spitzenkorper[edit]

I personally believe that this article needs more work for the spitzenkorper section because I do not fully understand what it is maybe some media or a better explanation would work. --AwesomeOpossuminthelake (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I do not know much about this component of the endomembrane system. User:Peter G Werner is the user that added this section. If it is agreed that expansion to this needs to be made, I could request his help. --VivaLaLacy (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VivaLaLacy (talk · contribs), I think your being messed with. The article Endomembrane system is an overview and doesn't need to expand a section that highlights a unique organelle in the fungi beyond a couple of sentences. The spitzenkörper section is fine as it is. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question has been answered very well. Thank you.

--Criticism101 (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. Your explanation was valid and reassuring.

--AwesomeOpossuminthelake (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA[edit]

Any suggestions on what needs to be done for FA status? Is the article written well engough to satisfy featured article standards? Where should content be expanded? I tried to include as much information as I could find, but I may be able to find more if completely neccessary. The content exceeds the encyclopedia entries I have had the chance to read. --VivaLaLacy (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. A point that you haven't covered in this article is how the endomembrane system evolved, or how individual components evolved. The paper here has a general overview (p759) and PMID 17977457 is much more comprehensive. You may find some useful material at endosymbiotic theory, not forgetting to cover both primary endosymbiosis and secondary events. The evolution of the cell nucleus is interesting, with what I regard as "far out" ideas involving viruses (see for example PMID 11443345). Hope this helps Tim Vickers (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another point to think about is how the endomembranes are divided during cell division. For example, the cell nucleus is usually completely dissembled and then reassembled in the daughter cells, while the mitochondria divide independently early on in mitosis and remain intact during the entire process. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your advice and for the incredibly helpful links. Where do you think such information should be incorporated? Should I add it to the section of the cellular structure being written about or should I create a new section based on the evolution of the membranes?

I'd go for a separate evolution section, perhaps at the end, so that your readers will already have a good grasp of what the structures are and what they do? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see I finally got around to adding the evolution section. Do you think I should incorporate something about how the components possibly evolved in the lead section? --VivaLaLacy (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the system?[edit]

To a large extent this article comprises a set of introductions to some organelles where a membrane is an important constituent. The article includes little description of the system. How do these organelles function together? What is the reason that these organelles are considered an entity together that is worthy of its own Wikipedia article? Ribosomes function in close cooperation with ER when producing certain proteins. Why are the ribosomes not considered constituents of the system? Why are neither mitochondria, flagella nor cilia discussed? I am not suggesting that they should be, just that the article should make it obvious that they are not part of the system. Here and there, the article does describe cooperation between organelles. But it does not seem to focus on the system, although it purports to be about a system. --Ettrig (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Under the current definition I don't see why the mitochondria are omitted. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concept of endomembrane system is based on the fact that the structures mentioned in the entry are all derived via the exchange of a common phospholipid membrane. The ER membrane is a continuum of the nuclear membrane and with the vesicles which in turn fuse to form Golgi bodies and eventually lysosomes and plasma membrane. They are all interconnected via exchange of membranes. The mitochondria is not derived from the endo-membrane phospho-lipids. The article is not about random cell organelles with membranes. Perhaps a better job of stating this information and what connects these structures - which would exclude cilia, flagella, and mitochondria - is needed? --JimmyButler (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the line from the article that perhaps needs to be elevated to a higher status in the intro: The organelles of the endomembrane system are related through direct contact or by the transfer of membrane segments as vesicles. --JimmyButler (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with the article about the Supreme Court. The court comprises a number of judges. Indeed the article does contain a list of current judges and does give some facts about them. But this list does not constitute the bulk of the article. And it should not. As a contrast the endomembrane system article consists to about 90% of descriptions of the organelles in themselves. All these organelles have their own articles. So this article is not needed for descriptions of the organelles. The organelles in themselves are not the subject matter of this article. It is about a particular system, that these organelles take part in. But up to now it seems that nobody has even started to describe this system. The book "The world of the cell" by Kleinsmith, Becker, Hardin and Bertoni has a 60 page chapter about the Endomembrane system and peroxisomes. This chapter contains most of the books information about the constituent organelles. This is OK for a textbook, but not for an encyclopedia. Paragraphs concerning system aspects are Glycosylation, Protein trafficking, Exocytosis, Endocytosis, Transport within the cell. --Ettrig (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the theme in the previous post. Agreed. Unless there is a focus on the relationship of these parts to each other (within the system); the article is merely an assemblage of pre-existing articles on cell organelles compiled on one page. The emphasis should shift now to the relationship that ties each organelle together- what makes it a system. Is there enough information to do this? If not; then the reason behind it being a stub becomes apparent.--JimmyButler (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the concept of lipid flow is a central one. We need to outline the concept and initially define the system as a whole - membranes that are made from each other and exchange components freely. Next, in each section on a component organelle, we describe the organelle and summarise the evidence for this being considered part of the system. We could even have a section on plastids and summarise the evidence that they are NOT part of the system. Lots of material here for a long article, but rather a technical one. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tim Vickers' last post. I seem to have left out some information on exactly why these organelles are considered a system. In my defense though, one would need a decent description of what the organelles themselves do before comprehending how the organelles work as a system.--VivaLaLacy (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

The first proposal of the "endomembrane system" was in this book chapter

MORRE, D. J. & MOLLENHAUER, H. H. (1974). The endomembrane concept: a functional integration of endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi apparatus. In Dynamic Aspects of Plant infrastructure (ed. A. W. Robards), pp. 84-137. London, New York, etc.: McGraw-Hill.

This book section link gives a good overview of the concept. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best reference I could find link, it is a review with one of the authors being Morré, one of the original proposers of the concept. If you need the Pdf e-mail me. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to incorporate an overview of what makes these organelles a system in to the lead using this link. Then I/we, like Tim Vickers wrote above, could write something about why each particular organelle is included in the system under the section of the component being explained. It may not really be necessary to devote a section to why some components are not included, its a little obvious. The mitochondria is not included simply because it has nothing to do with the proteins and lipids that go through the endomembrane system, its main purpose is to generate ATP. Maybe a couple sentences in the lead would suffice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VivaLaLacy (talk • contribs) 23:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just now noticed the changes made in the lead section, so disregard the first sentence of the comment above. --VivaLaLacy (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but feel free to improve that bit. I might have been a bit too technical? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really good comments and additions by Tim. Thanks. This article will become even more beautiful. The conclusion about mitochondria above is probably right. But the argument is wrong. A large percentage of the proteins used in the mitochondria are coded in nuclear DNA, synthesized in ER and transported to the mitochondrion. See e.g. Protein targeting#Sorting of proteins to mitochondria, although it is a bit obscure. --Ettrig (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesised in the cytosol, up to the point where the import signal is exposed, then synthesis stops, the ribosome then docks onto the mitochondrion, and protein synthesis resumes. The important point is that membrane vesicles are not involved in this process so lipids will not flow from the ER to the mitochondrion. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was wrong. --Ettrig (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on mitochondrial proteins at the moment, so the topic is much on my mind! Tim Vickers (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

This article may be beneficial, Organization of the Endomembrane System. Is there anyway to get free access to the pdf?

By the way, would you mind emailing me the pdf for this article. If you click here you should be able to email me. --VivaLaLacy (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peroxisomes[edit]

The article specifically excludes peroxisomes from the endomembrane system, but the peroxisome article states that they are derived from the endoplasmic reticulum. For what reason/by what criterion are peroxisomes excluded from the endomembrane system if they are derived from a portion of it? --Khajidha (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I have looked up several references and apparently peroxisomes are not part of the endomembrane system as they do not originate from its structure. Also, they have proteins added from the cytosol. I think this needs to be edited, but I am not an expert on this topic.Paigemiller1 (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glycogen[edit]

Glycogen hydrolysis does not require "glucose phosphate" as the article states. Glycogen hydrolysis requires glycogen, phosphate, and the enzyme glycogen phosphorylase; glucose-1-phosphate is the product of that reaction. Glucose-1-phosphate is then turned into glucose-6-phosphate by the enzyme phosphoglucomutase. Glucose-6-phosphatase, present mostly in the liver, then can remove the phosphate from glucose-6-phosphate, forming glucose and phosphate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.155.218 (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just came to the talk page to note this, not good that this error has remained for almost a whole year. See glycogenolysis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zynwyx (talk • contribs) 11:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Endomembrane system/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Changed rating to top as this is an overview of important cell organelles (Golgi, ER, vacuoles etc.) and mechanisms (endo- and exocytosis) that are high school/SAT biology content. - tameeria 21:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 21:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Zoology[edit]

Frog 2409:4073:313:641:2CDF:4B55:142:DBB5 (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Potenetial Resources[edit]

History[edit]

Nuclear Envelope[edit]

Endoplasmic Reticulum[edit]

Golgi Apparatus[edit]

Vacuoles[edit]

Vesicles[edit]

Lysosomes[edit]

Cell Membrane[edit]

Citations[edit]

Citations[edit]

Reference Help[edit]

Spell Check[edit]

To Do[edit]

Reference Help[edit]

Copyedit anyone?[edit]

Citations[edit]

Spitzenkorper[edit]

FA[edit]

Where is the system?[edit]

History[edit]

Links[edit]

Peroxisomes[edit]

Glycogen[edit]

Assessment comment[edit]

Zoology[edit]