Talk:Exocytosis

The images are inappropriate!
I would rather put an image on any other simple cell doing exocitosis, because a synopsis is an example too complicated to explain such a simple idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.240.42 (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge?
I don't know who put in this suggestion, but there's no thread for this so I made it. Why do you think they should be merged? Actually, in reading the two, it looks like alternative spellings. I'd go with the 'Y' because other articles regarding cellular biology use this spelling. Tyciol 07:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not merge, DO delete + redirect link!
This is NOT 2 different spellings in ENGLISH!!! Do a GOOGLING and you will get: The article with the WRONG spelling "i" is absolutely useless, and should better be deleted immediately. There is NO new information in the "i" article, that is currently missing in the "y" article. Please do the DELETE, and then redirect link. Somebody else already voted for my suggestion on the "i" article talk page. Danko Georgiev MD 06:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * exocytosis - English articles
 * exocitosis - Spanish articles

I decided to merge the articles and created redirect link from "exocytosis" although, the spelling is wrong and not the accepted English spelling. Now the information is presented together, and can be edited easily. Danko Georgiev MD 06:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Exocytosis" needs overhaul
The article is confusing and lacks context in a number of respects. For instance, in "Types", the calcium-+ vs. calcium-(-) distinction is not a useful one, as a topic and concept in neuro- and cell biology, ion-channels are a separated from the ER-Golgi-cell membrane pathway. Also, in "Steps", the various sub-headings actually refer to components of membrane trafficking (tethering, priming, etc.), not of exocytosis per se. My goal is to correct these problems and add further context. Any help is appreciated! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tabascoj (talk • contribs) 00:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree. For instance, secretory vesicle exocytosis is regulated by signaling pathways that use Ca2+ or cAMP as second messengers. As soon as I finish my thesis (which is on this topic) I will try and help to expand this section. Prayingmantis78 23:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, it is good to see some future experts on the topic :-) I think that Ca2+ dependent and Ca2+ independent distinction is good one. It is just necessary for one to consider the role of neuronal synaptotagmins and function of Ca2+ channels in the process. The major issue is the fast coupling in a period of say less than 0.2 ms, with Ca2+ spikes through voltage gated Ca2+ channel. If one tries to be "greater saint than the Pope" I might successfully argue that ALL processes in the body are Ca2+ dependent, and always point out some cascade or protein whose enzymatic activity is modulated at least partially by Ca2+. So such arguments are useless, one can always separate exocytosis into two groups and put explicit norm on the Ca2+ dependence, i.e. how strong the Ca2+ influx should be in order to have exocytosis. Be carefull that spontaneous release in synapses is not suitable to be called Ca2+ dependent, because there is NO really Ca2+ spike, despite of the fact that certainly some of the Ca2+ binding sites of synaptotagmin are saturated, and thus it is "dependent on Ca2+". Regards, 04:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is an old discussion but I think there are some valid points and the article is somewhat stagnant in it's development. I think that while the distinction between Ca2+-triggered and Ca2+ "independent" is useful, perhaps it would be more useful to describe the two types as constitutive and regulated, and to provide subsequent elaboration as to the role of Ca2+ and other second messengers, with emphasis on regulation of the actual membrane fusion step for regulated exocytosis. Chanceyvil (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There are also a few othe problems with this article. at the begining, someone put: "...also known as 'The penis-cytosis', is the durable process..." This information is clearly of doubtful quality.

Case of Self-promotion
Lately someone has been editing many articles related to exocytosis, including the articles on SNAREs and Kiss-and-run fusion, to include references to "porosomes" and citing the same pair of publications. The "porosome" is a neologism referring to a hypothetical stable opening in the cell membrane. Such a construct is only referenced in a few papers stemming from a single lab (and researchers who graduated from that lab), it is not widely accepted in the field, and I would be amazed if anyone could find a single textbook referencing a "porosome." It would be a simple matter to contact a few experts in the field, which I don't mind doing, but I'm not familiar with Wikipedia ground rules so I don't know what would be necessary to prove what the current understanding is in the field of exocytosis. Obviously there are going to be cases where cutting-edge researchers disagree on certain mechanics in any field, so it is important that Wikipedia reports only well established understanding of biological phenomena in such fundamental pages as Exocytosis. TyphonAwake (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC).there are

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Say what?
Could someone explain what this sentence means? "Tethered vesicles are also involved in regular cell's transcription processes". Thank you.