| WikiProject Molecular Biology | (Rated Project-class) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||
Welcome to the WikiProject Molecular Biology talk page. Please post any comments, suggestions or questions. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!
- Please remain civil, be respectful, and assume good faith.
- Put new text under old text. (Start a new topic
). - Threads older than 90 days are automatically archived.
Help with updating articleEdit
I proposed a few updates to the article about neurologist Leslie B. Vosshall here: Talk:Leslie B. Vosshall#Proposals October 2022. I have a conflict of interest as a paid consultant but believe these changes are obvious improvements to address sourcing issues pointed out in a maintenance tag. A review by a project member would be very much appreciated. Thanks.W12SW77 (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Same notice forum-shopped to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women scientists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Requested changes have been made. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
LoD considerations when an analyte is a tested with a matrix type that differs from the sample matrixEdit
Cross-posting here due to relevance. See WT:MED#LoD considerations when an analyte is a tested with a matrix type that differs from the sample matrix for details. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
New article in need of attention from this projectEdit
Hello! I just created the page Cortical alveolum and I think it belongs in this taskforce's scope. ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 17:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Organ on a chip; MISLEADING (And for this reason inaccurate) INTRO; PLEASE CONSIDER MY SUGGESTIONEdit
Hello, Peace, I was reading the Organ on a Chip page and the introduction is soooo misleading. The basic concept is that OoCs are defined as ADVANCED IN VITRO MODELS and not (at all) as ARTIFICIAL ORGANS; these are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT visions, and there could be misconceptions. Moreover OoCs are not only 3D, but also 2D, and they can also be single channel. The definition ARTIFICIAL ORGAN doesn't fit the OoC;
The problem is this source: Moyer MW (March 2011). "Organs-on-a-chip for faster drug development". Scientific American. 304 (3): 19. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0311-19a. PMID 21438480. The part that refers to this article is conceptually misleading the idea of OoC
So I suggest instead of
An organ-on-a-chip (OOC) is a multi-channel 3-D microfluidic cell culture, integrated circuit (chip) that simulates the activities, mechanics and physiological response of an entire organ or an organ system, a type of artificial organ. !!!!!REF[1]!!!!!! It constitutes the subject matter of significant biomedical engineering research, more precisely in bio-MEMS. The convergence of labs-on-chips (LOCs) and cell biology has permitted the study of human physiology in an organ-specific context, introducing a novel model of in vitro multicellular human organisms. One day, they will perhaps abolish the need for animals in drug development and toxin testing.
To write something like that
An organ-on-a-chip (OOC) is an advanced in vitro model based on a microfluidic cell culture in an integrated circuit (chip) that simulates the activities, mechanics and physiological response of an organ or an organ system. It constitutes the subject matter of significant biomedical engineering research, more precisely in bio-MEMS. The convergence of labs-on-chips (LOCs) and cell biology has permitted the study of human physiology in an organ-specific context. One day, they will perhaps abolish the need for animals in drug development and toxin testing.
Moreover also instead of this:
"Nevertheless, building valid artificial organs requires not only a precise cellular manipulation, but a detailed understanding of the human body's fundamental intricate response to any event. A common concern with organs-on-chips lies in the isolation of organs during testing. The body is a complex network of physiological processes, making it challenging to simulate a single organ. Microfabrication, microelectronics and microfluidics offer the prospect of modeling sophisticated in vitro physiological responses under accurately simulated conditions."
I suggest this:
"A common concern with organs-on-chips lies in the isolation of organs during testing. The problem is in simulating the complex network of physiological processes that characterize the body. Microfabrication, microelectronics and microfluidics offer the prospect of modeling sophisticated in vitro physiological responses under accurately simulated conditions."
Instead of that source I would suggest these two, MORE VALID BY FAR
@article{zhang2018advances,
title={Advances in organ-on-a-chip engineering},
author={Zhang, Boyang and Korolj, Anastasia and Lai, Benjamin Fook Lun and Radisic, Milica},
journal={Nature Reviews Materials},
volume={3},
number={8},
pages={257--278},
year={2018},
publisher={Nature Publishing Group}
}
@article{bhatia2014microfluidic,
title={Microfluidic organs-on-chips},
author={Bhatia, Sangeeta N and Ingber, Donald E},
journal={Nature biotechnology},
volume={32},
number={8},
pages={760--772},
year={2014},
publisher={Nature Publishing Group}
}
PS: In this microfluidic field it is easy to get caught by hype and let us be drawn by the fantasy (and this is nice, for sure), there is plenty of possibility with this technology and this is why I like it. But the fantasy should never be misleading, and talking about artificial organs it is. Also the microchip section in the Artificial Organ Page
And also in the Italian Page Gio9797 (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've had a bit of a read through those sources and I think you're right, the emphasis isn't really accurate in the article lead as currently written. I'll implement the edits you suggested with a few minor modifications. To be honest, the applications sections of the article could also do with a bit of an update with the more modern research. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Edit review requestedEdit
Hello. Consider this diff→https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PCSK9&diff=1135221926&oldid=1127977863&diffmode=source . This might or might not be a misrepresentation of content in the cited article. However, I do not have access to the article full text, which is in the journal Cardiology in Review. Request that someone a) more familiar with the topic and b) with access to the article full text evaluate to see if the edit is accurate or in error. Thanks for your help. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)