![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I added the sentence about size -- useful for non-biologists to orient themselves to the scale being discussed.
The first sentence of this entry used to read "The basic cells of the nervous systems of metazoan animals, whose job is to transmit and process signals." I took the liberty of changing it, suggesting as it did that the job of metazoan animals is to transmit and process signals. (That's a notion of God that's rather different from any I had previously thought of: suppose that there is a God and that s/he created other beings merely to experience things that s/he can not, and then to report on the experience?)
This is a neutral, objective science article. Please don't input any personal Abrahamic religious belief into it. -intranetusa
From the article: "Synapses of nerves may be between two axons, two dendrites or an axon and a dendrite." Do we have any biologists, physiologists, MD or other specialist who can confirm this statement is correct? My understanding of recent reading I have been pursuing has the axon as an emitter and the dendrite as a collector. Recurrent connections would thus require a portion of the neurons in the nerve fiber or neuron cluster to be oriented roughly 180 degrees. In my current understanding, for the organic circuitry to function as the statement above implies would require multiple neurons in complex patterns rather than individual axon-axon or dendrite-dendrite pairs. mirwin 01:14 Aug 24, 2002 (PDT)
No - I don't think this is true. There can be different kinds of synapses - for example axonal-dendritic are the obvious ones, but there can also be axonal-somatic, possibly somatic-somatic etc. There is no reason why there can't be multiple synapses on a dendrite, axon or soma. There have been quite a few constraints which various researchers have imagined about neurons and their synapses - most have turned out not to be applicable. DaveM
Axons function as a conducting line that may go long distances while dendrites branch from end of the axon or directly from the nerve cell body. Electrochemical signals can only go in one direction for each type of neuron (away from the cell body); in sensory neurons signals are sent from sensory receptors (which are modified neurons), in motor cells a signal propagates from the motor cell neuron to effector cells in muscle. The quoted statement doesn't make sense to me. -- mav
I am concerned at the notion that neurotransmitters are hormones - I will have to check up on this. My gut feeling is that this is incorrect.
DaveM
So shall we remove the reference to hormones then? DaveM
Correct: neurotransmitters are not considered to be hormones. Synaptidude 01:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I rearranged things a bit and deleted stuff. The stuff about nerves and the nervous system was up too high given the topic, I thought, and not all of it really germane. Also, I've written long articles on synapses and action potentials, so I felt the paragraphs about those could be pared down. I hope people find these changes agreeable. 168...
From WordNet: 1. (1) billion, one million million, 1000000000000 -- ((in Britain) the number that is represented as a one followed by 12 zeros) 2. billion, one thousand million, 1000000000 -- ((in the United States) the number that is represented as a one followed by 9 zeros)
Which billion (US or Britain)? : 100 Billion should be avoided for the standard 10^12 representation
From http://www.nervenet.org/papers/NUMBER_REV_1988.html : "The average human brain (1350 gm) contains about 85 billion neurons. Of these, 12 to 15 billion are telencephalic neurons (Shariff 1953), 70 billion are cerebellar granule cells (Lange 1975), and fewer than 1 billion are brainstem and spinal neurons. A revision: In a beautiful quantitative analysis of human cortex using the optical disector, Pakkenberg and Gundersen (1997) have shown that the number of neocortical neurons ranges from 15 to 31 billion and averages about 21 billion. Other forebrain structures—primarily the hippocampal region, basal ganglia, and thalamus—are likely to contain an additional 5–8 billion neurons. Total neuron number in humans therefore probably averages 95–100 billion. What is perhaps more remarkable is the normal two-fold difference in neocortical neuron number among healthy adults of normal intelligence." Meduz 16:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it certain that there are 100 trillion? Any reference? Multiplying 1000 by 100 billion is not correct, as 100 billion neurons can be connected multiply. It is probably more accurate to say it is possible to have up to 100 billion to the power of 1000 connections or something similar involving factorials. I'll try to find a reference... It seems to vary between 1 trillion and 1000 trillion on the web. 500 trillion is quoted as the norm for adults. I think the number in the article should maybe be changed to 500 trillion? [5]
I constantly hear 10^11 neurons, 10^15 synapses. Sirshane13
consistentency would be good here, for instance, under connectivity:
The human brain has a huge number of synapses. Each of the 1012 neurons (1,000 billion, i.e. 1 trillion) has on average 7,000 synaptic connections to other neurons. Most authors estimate that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 1016 synapses (10,000 trillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, ranging from 1015 to 5 x 1015 synapses (1,000 to 5,000 trillion). [3]
and at the bottom of page, "neurons in the brain":
The number of neurons in the brain varies dramatically from species to species. The human brain has about 100 billion (1011) neurons and 100 trillion (1014) synapses. By contrast, the nematode worm (Caenorhabditis elegans) has just 302 neurons making it an ideal experimental subject as scientists have been able to map all of the organism's neurons. Many properties of neurons, from the type of neurotransmitters used to ion channel composition, are maintained across species, allowing scientists to study processes occurring in more complex organisms in much simpler experimental systems.
quite the discrepancy!
Anyone heard of these?
They are quite a revolutionary discovery, so....I don't see much mention of them in here. I'm looking for information on it as well. Not to mention the neurons' flexibility in rerouting.
From the article:
I know v. little about biology, but a neuron is a single cell, is it not. The word 'cell' should be replaced (unless the soma is a seperate cell). SgtThroat 22:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've fixed this by adding a stub at soma_(biology), but I don't know what to write there - I'm not a biologist - maybe you could add something? SgtThroat 13:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've heard a few contradicting statements about whether or not brain cells regenerate over time, so I wondered if anyone would be so kind to give me some clarification on it. Also, if they regenerate - do they regenerate faster than they die, or is the amount of brain cells decreasing all the time? Thanks in advance.
The brain keeps growing throughout childhood and adolescence. The issue is whether adult neurons can regenerate. For the most part, adult neurons cannot regenerate. There are specific types of cells in the olfactory system and in and area of the brain called the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus that do regenerate throughout life. Oddly enough, the rate of regeneration of these cells in the hippocampus regenerate faster with exersice. Scientists are devising strategies to harvest these regenerating neurons and hope to one day use them as neural stem cells to help other brain areas regenerate after injury or illness. Nrets 14:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Jeanley
04:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Since neurons do not regenerate when they die, would it be right to assume the number of neurons in our body are 'fixed numbers' at birth and they only grow in size when our body developed into a full grown adult?
User:jeanley
What is the average longevity of a nerve cell? That's what I was looking for. (I seem to remember it being that nerve cells shouldn't die, and so their life span would be the life of their organism, but if that's so it should be mentioned I think.)
The "average" longevity of a nerve cell is shorter than the life of organism. But this is more a quirk of the math than a useful measure. Most nerve cells live until their organsim dies. But some die before, and none die after, so the average will be less than the lifespan of the organism.
Synaptidude
01:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to reorganize, clean up and expand this article. I think it looks better now, but there is still some room for expansion and I'm not entirely happy with the organization. If anybody is interested in collaborating to expand this article please let me know. Nrets 16:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Nrets, thank you for your work on this article. I was hoping to get a gauge concerning how detailed it should be. There are several important features such as dendritic spines and axon collaterals that I was unable to find any reference to in this article. They should certainly be included. Interneurons should probably be discussed explicitly. The drawing of the "structure of a typical neuron" is quite inaccurate in several regards. That is perhaps a typical motor neuron, and the presence of a Schwann cell as the identifier for the myelin sheath makes that picture a typical PNS neuron but NOT the CNS. As pointed out in the article, myelin in the CNS is created by the oligodendrocytes, and many functional differences exist.
Also, the types of support structures inside neurites includes microtubules and microfilaments, not just neurofilaments. Perhaps something could and should be included about Neurofilament Tangle, which is associated with AD.
These are just a few initial thoughts. What do you think? Sirshane13
Neuron is also an unmanned aircraft currently developed by French Dassualt in collaboration with other European partners. See [9]. Perhaps something to add on the page? Filur 07:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
As part of the Neuroscien project, I thought I'd work on this article a bit. I'd like to take issue with the Neuron Classification scheme that is currently listed in the argument. "Afferent" and "Efferent" are not really useful classifications. Neurons are generally both afferent AND efferent at the same time. The usual classification is "Principal" (those that make longer-range connections) and "Interneurons" locally projecting neurons. The types of neurons listed "bipolar, unipolar" etc. is fairly archaic and incomplete. Nonetheless, I know this article represents considerable work from other authors, so I'm going to lay off for a couple of days to see if anyone wants to defend these classification schemes. Synaptidude 01:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I am looking for a partial list of species by neuron count, neuron density or neurons per kg of body mass. Somegeek 13:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ted Bullock wrote about this in T. H. Bullock. Revisiting the concept of identifiable neurons. Brain Behav.Evol. 55 (5):236-240, 2000. and chapter 7 of T. H. Bullock. How Do Brains Work?, Boston:Birkhauser, 1993. pkatz 12:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I've done some copy editing aiming at wikifying the opening paragraph, the idea of being to summarise what a neuron is rather than stacking facts on top of each other. I'd welcome comments whether this is a step in the right direction. I dropped the word "morphologically" simply because it's unlikely to be understood by a lay audience. It may be redundant too because the sentence is talking about structure rather than function. I think this paragraph still needs plenty of work. For example what is meant by "classic view". Does this mean what the text books teach? A commonly agreed view? An out of date view? etc.-- Saganaki- 03:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The contents of this section are a reworded expansion of a section of the same name in the neural doctrine article. I think this section in the neuron article should be moved to the neural doctrine article and replaced with language that points there. Wdfarmer 04:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree that some of these are challenges to the Neuron Doctrine. I also agree that in any case it should be moved to the article about the Neuron Doctrine. pkatz 12:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
At the time I write this, the opening paragraph begins: "Neurons ... are not electrically excitable cells in the digestive system that function to process and transmit information." I don't know what to say about this. To take it seriously, I'd say, the digestive system is entirely irrelevant to the topic, and should not be in the opening gloss paragraph, although something general could be said distinguishing nerve cells from cerebral neurons. But the opening paragraph as it stands is hard to take seriously. Is this vandalism, or am I missing something? As vandalism it seems less than silly. Peter H. St.John, M.S. 14:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for alerting us to the vandal edit. I have reverted it. You can too, as with experience you will recognize it quickly. The great majority of vandalism is done by anonymous IP address editors. Hu 14:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The images NisslHippo2.jpg and NeuronGolgi.png are copyrighted. They are mislabled as NIH on their wikimedia pages. They are in fact propertiy of U.C.Davis and useable for personal or academic but not commercial use and therefore incompatable with the GFDL or CreativeCommons.
If we are to bring this article up to Featured status, this must be addressed.
-- Selket 23:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The images at Brainmaps.org are copyrighted. Just because you zoomed in on it and took a screen shot does not make you the creator of the image. We need to be very carefull on Wikipedia not to inadvertantly infringe on someone's copyright. -- Selket 22:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the current understanding on how information in the brain is stored? Do neurons themselves have a capacity to store information or is information stored by the pattern of synaptic links? Where can I find out more? Thanks.
Solicitous 06:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The caption for the picture here states: "Golgi-stained neurons in the rodent hippocampus." The information given with the article that houses the actual image states: "Image of Golgi stained neurons in the dentate gyrus of an epilepsy patient. 40 times magnification." Are we to assume that the rodent in question suffered from epilepsy, or has there been some kind of error? -- Mal 12:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Need ENK Neuron information. endogenous inhibitor of pain. enkephalinergic neuron
I removed the section on artificial neurons added by User:Amazedsaint. We already have a page on artificial neurons so I think, if anything, we should link to that page in a "See also" instead of using the section that was added (which was copied from the external link added by Amazedsaint and pointing to Amazedsaint's site), especially since the copied section made reference to other text and code that wasn't included in the article. digfarenough ( talk) 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone put in some typical feature sizes. Not just of the soma, but the axons and dendrites' lengths and diameters (60-100 nm sound right)? The sheaths? This is very important, IMHO, but I can't find numbers for these and anyway I'd rather let an expert do it.
http://www.jcb.org/cgi/content/full/170/2/164-a
I am pretty sure purkinje cells are multipolar...it says bipolar in the caption for the first pic.
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Neuron/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.
rated top as high school/SAT biology content - tameeria 14:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC) The article seems fairly complete to me, but I'm no expert on neurology. If the B rating seems wrong, please adjust. - tameeria 19:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 19:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but is this article appropriate for information regarding the endocannabinoid system? It's a chemical used by neurons, but I don't know enough about it to know if it should be classified as a neurotransmitter, or if it acts in another capacity, or if it isn't really germaine to this article. Well, if someone smarter than me knows, maybe you can let us know. Thanks. Rhetth 20:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert on wikianything, and I would go in and add this image directly, but I don't know how to do it and make it look decent. Here's the picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Complete_neuron_cell_diagram.svg It's a featured image, and it visualizes a couple dozen essentials about the nerve cell. I don't know why it's not already on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ornen ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
In the section titled "The neuron doctrine", there is this text, "the Law of Dynamic Polarization, which states that neural transmission goes only in one direction, from dendrites toward axons". Shouldn't that be "from axons toward dendrites"?
Gruhl ( talk) 19:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe you are right, it is backwards if it is reffering to communication BETWEEN two cells. If it is reffering to transmition WITH IN a cell, then it is correct; however, it is need of clarification. If no one proves that it is right the way it is writen, i'll change it in a couple of days. -- Marvuglia ( talk) 20:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Like "transmission of signals between neurons goes in one direction" ? X10 ( talk) 23:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Clarified Richwil ( talk) 10:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
if some one could add sections for different types of neurons, ex.presynaptic. not really a type but still very important, also need the section as a link to other articles im working on thanks Roy Stanley ( talk) 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
One part of the article says 100 billion total cells but then it later says 100 billion synapses. Which is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.250.91 ( talk) 03:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Fixed: the number for synapses was much too low Richwil ( talk) 10:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, The article on neurons ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron) mentions how many connections they have with other neurons. The connectivity section of the article is labelled as needing reliable sources. I found this passage from Principals of Neural Science, 2000:
"The nervous system obtains sensory information from the environment, evaluates the significance of the information, and generates appropriate behavioral responses. Accomplishing these tasks requires an anatomical plan of considerable complexity. The human nervous system is comprised of several hundreds of billions of neurons, each of which receives and gives rise to tens of thousands of connections. Some of these connections are located nearly a meter from the cell bodies of origin."
This quote is from page 294 of the 2000 4th edition of the text. The section is The Neural Basis of Cognition> The Anatomical Organization of the Central Nervous System. There is a later edition but I don't have access to it. The major editor of the book is Eric R. Kandel who won a Nobel prize for Physiology and Medicine for his work on memory.
The quote gives a non-specific number to intimate that different neurons have different numbers of connections, and to get the sense of the vastness of the networking in the brain. the quote above modifies the number of input connections.
Cheers, Rick
67.69.19.250 ( talk) 20:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
maybe a little more serious and scientific than the cited ones: Gerd Kempermann: Adult neurogenesis: stem cells and neuronal development in the adult brain. Oxford University Press, New York 2006.
-- 89.247.127.232 ( talk) 10:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
the numbers of synapses in the human brain are hugely different between this artical and this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapse so witch one is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.149.231 ( talk) 05:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Fixed: there are many more synapses than neurons Richwil ( talk) 10:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
i'm not a person who study a lot about humans anatomy, but anyway all the explanations in the article and its associated ones are somehow not easily been captured to the common readers. i mean readers without scientific knowledge like me.
so, to enhance the interactions here between the science editors and the common readers, someone should put the simpler words for easy basic understandings, more direct approach & less scientific explanations that only among the specific group of scholars like scientists, medical field would understand. "e=mc^2", although it's a famous but somehow a notorious formula that doesn't mean everyone understand what does each of these variables do. i believe you got the ideas now. i think i gave my tips already for useful approach to wikipedia.
There seems to be a large contraction in this section:
So what is it? Digital or Analogue?
Xmlv (
talk)
15:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The two statements are compatible: a neuron fires in an all-or-nothing fashion, the rate of firing increases with increased (excitatory) stimulation. Richwil ( talk) 10:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This article needs some serious reorganization. It appears to make some attempt at splitting information into the categories of anatomy and physiology, but this is a difficult (and if not impossible, then surely pointless) task. Also, there are sections that clearly should be merged (e.g. # 3 Anatomy and histology and # 8 Histology and internal structure). Fuzzform ( talk) 00:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The claim: "the neurotransmitter dopamine in the striatum have excitatory effects on some target cells, mediated by D1 receptors, and inhibitory effects on other target cells, mediated by D2 receptors" has been disputed, but without citation of specific references. Before this sentence is deleted, I would like to see a list of sources that argue against it. Xargque ( talk) 20:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The statement " Interneurons connect neurons to other neurons within the brain and spinal cord" it unhelpful. Nearly all neurons connect neurons to other neurons; the point is that they do it within the same region, i.e. they are not projecting. Bilz0r ( talk) 02:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the neuron figure can be replaced by this one :
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neuron-figure.svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.81.13.141 ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 28 September 2009
I am removing the newly added sentence " Neuronal connectivity is an important aspect of brain´s ability to process information", because it doesn't actually say anything more than "neuronal connectivity is important", which is not a good way to introduce a paragraph. I am also reverting the section title back to "Connectivity" in accordance with the MOS principle that section titles should not recapitulate article titles. This is of course open to discussion -- it may well be that a better introductory sentence is needed; but if so, it ought to be one that has some actual information in it. Looie496 ( talk) 18:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is for a reason, but there is not a see also section...it seems like it would be helpful to many? Grouphug ( talk) 10:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi I think that a section of "History of neuron" and its origins in evolution should be addressed near the beginning of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.128.134 ( talk) 10:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
This suggestion has been made here. Any objections? There is a lot more to say about WDN neurons, but I won't be expanding the article any time soon. Anthony ( talk) 08:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
is there a reason why the term "principal cell" or "principal neuron" never comes up in this article? in my understanding, the main division of neurons are interneurons and principal cells. cf: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Interneurons
watson ( talk) 21:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The current citation for cell sizes (ref 3, Davies, Melissa (2002-04-09). "The Neuron: size comparison". Neuroscience: A journey through the brain. http://www.ualberta.ca/~neuro/OnlineIntro/NeuronExample.htm. Retrieved 2009-06-20) is very weak - it simply states a bald fact ("Most cells range from 0.01 to 0.05 mm in diameter") without any backing or (more usefully) any sense of distribution of sizes by neuron type. Can someone improve this, please? Many thanks. P.r.newman ( talk) 11:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Needs a section about how age influences the brain, and recent discoveries in brain plasticity, especially in new research and new drugs in AVC patients. -- 79.168.11.181 ( talk) 23:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I find no references to 'McPherrin cells' as mentioned here, anywhere, even directly in Nature, is it possible for someone to add this citation. JamesGrimshaw ( talk) 10:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, Why are a couple of the pictures not embedded in the text? You can click on them and get them on a separate page, but not within the article. Thanks WikiUser54 ( talk) 13:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The first couple of images on the page quite explicitly show Schwann cells as the sole myelination objects. My (admittedly limited) understanding is that Schwann cells are primarily found in peripheral nerves, not CNS (central nervous system) nerves, which are myelinated by oligodendrocytes. Thus, the images depicting CNS neurons as being myelinated by Schwann cells are a bit wrong. The distinction is explained in the text correctly. What would the best approach be to rectifying these errors? My first instinct is to caption the images so as to explain them, but I'm a bit nervous about stepping in on an area I'm not yet expert on. Could someone verify that I'm a) understanding the differences correctly, and b) the appropriate response to change the image caption(s)? Thanks! Cephas Borg ( talk) 06:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that it would be helpful to have a brief section introducing the idea of neural differentiation that links to the cellular differentiation page and includes some of the most recent theories behind the mechanisms of neural differentiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.43.125.138 ( talk) 03:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This article discusses how the signals get transmitted in a fixed neural network. Does the neural network change with time to remember new things, or memory is only bound with the set of the currently active neurons? If it does, then how it does so, in what ways, that is, on what this process depends? I think this topic is important enough to discuss it in the article about neurons. Mostly it has to do with how the neuron functions. - 91.122.2.229 ( talk) 07:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The article does not contain any mention of mathematical models of neurons. There are articles Artificial neuron and Biological neuron model but none of them is refered to here. -- rtc ( talk) 20:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Since this page is of interest to a larger group of people, I recommend that it should be Semi-locked to prevent any attemps by new users to vandalise the page. Monnor ( talk) 23:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Although the article looks generally excellent -- and I know that whole textbooks can be written about the neuron -- but why can't I find anything in the article that tells me all the places in the human body that neurons are found? (Or bodies of other animals.)
Yes, I noticed references to the "central nervous system", muscles, sensory organs and skin, and glands. Are there any parts of the human body where neurons are absent?
I think this general question -- Where in the body are neurons found? -- is so basic that its answer should be specifically included in the article as a separate section. This should include which types of neurons are found in which parts of the body. Several scattered references to this issue do not suffice. Daqu ( talk) 15:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
While I think this is an excellent article, the first sentence in it says that "A neuron...is an electrically excitable cell...", which seems to suggests that a neuron is only electrically excited, which I don't think is true. The rest of that beginning section does mention sensory neurons (which are variously excited by touch, pressure, light, heat, etc), but I think the term 'electrically' should be removed, which I will, unless it's desired to retain it. GeezerGeezerGeezer ( talk) 05:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I just edited the sentence about adult neurogenesis from "recent research.." to "research starting around 2002.." The reference is 2002, but I have no idea what the earliest*published hint of adult neurogenesis was.
"Recent" to me would mean "in the last 2-3 years", which obviously isn't true as of 2015. But "ca." (circa) doesn't seem appropriate, and the Circa talk page doesn't have any discussion of "near-present usage". I haven't checked Wiktionary or OED. Jimw338 ( talk) 21:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neuron has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to use
either as one of the side image or as an additional image.
I also request you to visit my github and see if any additional images can be added to the article. DrJanaOfficial ( talk) 10:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so I made a different one now, its a 3d image of a neuromuscular junction. What do ya say?-- DrJanaOfficial ( talk) 14:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neuron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I came from the article on ALS which is also called Motor Neurone Disease. Is there a rationale for distinguishing between neuron and neurone? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 16:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Neuron has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states, "Neurons do not undergo cell division." New research has proven that this statement isn't true. For example, a recent study from the University of Pennsylvania found that in dogs with inherited blindness, retinal neurons actually go through a period of heightened cell division before succumbing to cell death. ( https://news.upenn.edu/news/retinal-cells-die-they-regenerate-penn-vet-blindness-study-finds ) The phrase "neurons do not undergo cell division" should be deleted and replaced with the phrase: "While it was previously believed that neurons do not undergo cell division, recent research shows that they do."
50.233.158.98 ( talk) 19:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
At 12:23, 1 February 2017, VeniVidiVicipedia removed the section titled "Computational power", calling it "vague". I believe that section contained very important and significant information, and I politely request that it be returned to the "Neuron" page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.162.23.189 ( talk)
I was reading the source for last paragraph on the number of synapses in the human brain. All but one of those sentences are backed up by the [21] citation. The sentence still requiring a source is:
"It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 10^15 synapses (1 quadrillion)."
I'd add a 'citation needed' tag, but this is a protected page. Hope I'm doing this right; it's my first talk item.
ColanR ( talk) 20:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC) colanr
I read an interesting article on sciencenews.org about little stubs on cells called cilia, and about how the cilia in nerve cells seem to play a bigger role in the functioning of the brain than previously known. I came to this wikipedia article on neurons to learn more about the anatomy of a nerve cell. All in all I learned a lot, but I also noticed that this wikipedia article doesn't mentioned these cilia at all. It probably should. Here's a link to the sciencenews article.
Gekko513 ( talk) 01:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
This article requires significant clean up. Its introduction seems to be heavily based on human neurons, with only cursory mention of "other species". It makes very general claims that aren't even true in the human nervous system. For instance, that neurons produce an all-or-nothing response. This is not universally true of all human neurons, as some of them are graded. Also, there are many species, for example C. Elegans, that only have graded, non-spiking neurons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstachowsky ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi
Neurone was listed as "British spelling", but it is definitely not.
It definitley was used a lot more, back in 1910, but not now.
This is shown by Ngram ... Neurone v Neuron
I have changed it to "Old British spelling" Chaosdruid ( talk) 17:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
It is the main part of the body 2001:8F8:183D:B59D:F8A2:114B:F49E:F0F8 ( talk) 03:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
On this page it says 'neurosis' stops in early childhood.
My guess is it should say 'neurogenisis'. 2403:6200:8810:CF7C:4C74:9F68:E139:29E5 ( talk) 16:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
There are no any citation in the Introductory part of this article. 212.174.115.197 ( talk) 12:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)