Talk:Golgi apparatus/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ernorris, Sarahe3141, Yvette Giannunzio, Cuteguineapig, ArynBlakeCarpenter.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Survival without Golgi bodies
Would a cell be able to function without the golgi apparatus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.96.2 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes and no to the best of my knowledge. A prokaryotic cell survives without a golgi body, and I'm sure several eukaryotic cells do exist without them (such as red blood cells) however as a general rule it is an integral part of a eukaryotic cell's organelles. --  Serephine   ♠   talk   - 00:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Prokaryotes do fine without it, but they also have two outter membranes. The inner of the two takes on many of the functions of eukaryotic membrane-bound organelles such as the golgi. Many of the eukaryotic proteins found in the golgi that embed proteins in the membrane are homologous to proteins found in the inner membranes of prokaryotes.  So in a sense prokaryotes do have a golgi, or at least something functionaly similar.  Erythrocytes, like Seraphine said, have no golgi nor most other organelles for that matter.  They are pretty much gutted before being released into the blood.  But I think even this is pretty rare for eukaryotes.  Most species' red blood cells get to keep their nuclei and various other entrails. (Mommy always said I was special.  I guess she was refering to my lack of nuclei)  But, for the most part eukaryotes need their golgis. Cells need a steady flow of proteins moving to the membrane, which, for all of us "higher" species, means we need our precious golgis. So I guess Seraphine said it best...  "yes and no." --Stable attractor 12:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What are the major unknowns left?
I just took an undergraduate module on general biology and am extremely fascinated by this Golgi apparatus. But unfortunately very little information is available in the textbook - it seems Wikipedia has more info! However, I think it would be helpful if we knew what exactly are the major areas of the Golgi apparatus that remain unknown: Are the transport systems (to and fro) fully understood? How are the vesicles formed? Are the metabolic processes all described? Is there a list of the proteins which are synthesised/modified at the Golgi?

And btw, what does "a multi joined membrane-bound accumulation" mean? Is that the way biologists describe such structures?

Alveolate 15:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the words of praise, this article is somewhat of a pet of mine. That "multi joined membrane-bound accumulation" snuck in one one of my days off by the looks of it, I'm assuming the editor just meant to say, in a round-about way, that the structure of the Golgi is basically just a bunch of joined membranes. I removed that little section as it didn't really contribute anything which wasn't already said.
 * There are still many unknown when it comes to the Golgi, you've touched on quite a few though. These are all valid questions, and a quick perusal of recent scientific literature confirms that people are indeed asking them. Use your institutional gateway to access journal articles - if you find anything interesting be sure to put it in the article! Cheers, --  Serephine   ♠   talk   - 08:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Exocytotic vesicle" should be renamed into "Constitutive vesicle". Secretory proteins that are released through the regulated secretory pathway, such as triggered by Ca2+- and cAMP-mediated signaling cascades, are released from the cells through exocytosis of their storage vesicles. Prayingmantis78 23:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell is this article locked?Realsanpaku 21:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

cis
Hello, there is factual errors in the fourth paragraph which states that, "Cis face is the face of Golgi apparatus from which vesicals leave the Golgi apparatus and proceed to further compartments like late endosome (or endosome), cell surface (or plasma membrane), secretory vesicles or vesicular transport goes to this face from late endosomes."

The correction: Cis face should be trans face.

Rowani —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowani5006 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Cis face
bananahead Shouldn't the cis face outlined in the article be described as that which receives vesicles from the ER? The description actually given appears to be that for the trans face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.47.61 (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

References section looks borked
The bottom bit looks a bit off, I'm not sure how it's supposed to be changed through editing. :) Hopefully someone else has a clue. 213.161.190.228 (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Typo in Referencing
Could someone who has access to this article please correct the spellings of the author names in reference 4? The authors are K Prydz and KT Dalen, not "Pyrdz" and "Dalan" as appear in the article. Thanks Rumple Gnome (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So last century
I came here expecting to find a brief summary of what's been learned since my old textbook was published in 2002. That's ancient history in molecular biology, but most of the references for this article are even older. This article needs a major update and expansion. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
A proposal was made 2 years ago by another user, but it seems like it was never discussed. So the proposal is renewed here. The cisterna article remains a stub since the previous proposal, so it has not been expanded within a reasonable time frame. There is significant overlap and duplication between the two articles. Arguably, cisterna is best discussed in the context of Golgi apparatus. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this appears to be an ideal merger case.--Chibibrain (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia policies for merging are located at Merging. The previous request was made by User:Tameeria: . See the revision history of the cisterna article.--Chibibrain (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems perfectly sensible, go ahead. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support merge. Shlomke (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I honestly feel that the page for Cisternae should be kept separate from the Golgi apparatus page. A good thorough definition of cisternae should be available for users, because cisternae are part of multiple organelles in eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells. If you define cisternae separately, it can be referenced throughout all the different places they are found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.76.4 (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC) If nobody adds more detail to Cisternae, then I disagree with anyone who thinks that "A good thorough definition of cisternae should be available for users" because it is not a very thorough explanation right now. EMERGE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.107.209 (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Cisternae could redirect to the Golgi apparatus page, and you could just scroll down to the Cisternae section.98.16.118.54 (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Kayrus (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC) It would be a good idea to merge the two articles, and add Cisternae as a section of the Golgi bodies article. This Section should have a link to the main article about Cisternae. :)

I think it should be left up to whoever expands this article. There's enough known about the Golgi that it should be broken up into main articles on each of the sub-topics, but that doesn't mean that cisterna should necessarily be one of them. Get encyclopedic coverage of many aspects of the Golgi, and the question will probably answer itself. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[Javed] I don't think the two articles should be merged, since Cisternae can also be found in the Endoplasmic reticulum. This could create a lot of confusion and would mean the Cisternae article should also be merged with the Endoplasmic reticulum article. (30th August 2010, 09.28am GMT)

I agree. If cisternae is put with golgi apparatus, people could assume that it is only found in the golgi apparatus. 17:07 9th October 2010 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.217.206 (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove the template, since it seems the prevailing position is to keep them separate. --Bsherr (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

project 2
I'm doing that project too and i agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.22.1 (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

about the mitochondria
Mitochondria provide the energy a cell needs to move, divide, produce secretory products, contract - in short; they are the power centers of the cell. They are about the size of bacteria but may have different shapes depending on the cell type. Mitochondria are membrane-bound organelles, and like the nucleus have a double membrane. The outer membrane is fairly smooth. But the inner membrane is highly convoluted, forming folds called cristae. The cristae greatly increase the inner membrane's surface area. It is on these cristae that food (sugar) is combined with oxygen to produce ATP - the primary energy source for the cell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.142.96 (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

golgi apparatus
(116.71.152.22 (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC))

Because of its large size
And yet no mention of its size in any cell type is mentioned. Sloppy. I'd add it if I knew what it was...71.31.149.105 (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge Golgi voltage gates
The content from this relatively recent and not widely studied or multiply confirmed should be merged here and not a full stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Before that happens I think the article should go through AfD first. This article has no credibility and I cannot locate any reference to it. Mrfrobinson (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 April 2013
There's some confilicting info in the first couple paragraphs:

"It was identified in 1897 by the Italian physician Camillo Golgi and named after him in 1898." "It was discovered in 1898 by Italian physician Camillo Golgi" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.1.66 (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Vivian26 (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Minor edit only. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Some things about capitalization
Some section titles aren't capitalized, not sure if this is a continuity error or something.75.156.68.5 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess you were referring to "Function of a golgi body"? I've simplified that to "Function" per MOS:HEAD.  If you were referring to any other heading, note that titles in Wikipedia are in sentence case.
 * Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Expansion
Consider more enveloped introductory paragraph to section 3, "Structure". The fundamental structure of the Golgi is still a little unclear. "A series of compartments consisting of two networks" is ambiguous. Is the Golgi apparatus a single body or a network of individuals?ArynBlakeCarpenter (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Enzymatic processing is a little muddled and resultantly hard to follow. Consider numbering post-translational modifications and adding figures for clarity. (e.g. Figure 9.15 )ArynBlakeCarpenter (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Golgi apparatus article critique
Overall, the article covers the golgi apparatus thoroughly. The initial paragraphs cover the structure and purpose of the organelle. The article would be great for a cellular biology class, but the later sections (current models of vesicular transport and trafficking and brefeldin A) are overly complicated in the topic. The links are from credible sources, giving the article significant educational quality. Brefeldin A seemed to be out of place in this article. It would be better discussed in an article specifically covering the secretion pathways of the Golgi apparatus. Sarahe3141 (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Recommendations for Improvement
Hi all, just a couple of suggestions to resolve questions I had while reading over this article:

Under the subcellular localization heading, there is no discussion of quantity of Golgi apparatuses in plants. It is mentioned that mammals typically have one Golgi apparatus and yeasts are known to have several, but there is no discussion of how many Golgi apparatuses a plant cell possesses. There is also no mention of the typical size range of the organelle. While it is mentioned that Golgi apparatuses are larger in cells that have increased secretion, there is no value to tell just how large the organelle is.

The sections of function and vesicular transport are very informative on the subject of cis and trans faces of the Golgi. These sections not only detail what functions occur specifically at each face, but also give detailed examples of carbohydrates and sugars that may be added or removed by the Golgi during protein modification. These sections do a nice job of detailing one of the most important functions of the Golgi apparatus.

Ernorris (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
Subcellular localization: “Tubular connections are responsible for linking the stacks together” You may want to consider explaining what a Golgi Stack is. Ex: Main processing area, consisting of cisternae. Depolymerized, may need to be defined for entry level biology students. Overall the section is written with a comfortable reading level and organization. Structure: You may consider choosing a different link for “cisternae”. The link is short and doesn’t go in to great detail. Stacks still haven’t been described or defined. Citations all seem to be accessible and properly placed. Personally, I would prefer more realistic diagrams for this section. Function: This section is organized well and contains good detail and description. The readability level might be difficult for in intro biology student to follow, but with prior knowledge on the subject the function is presented in a suitable manner. Vesicular Transport: No suggestions for improvement on this section. I found it to be informative, easy to comprehend, and the table is formatted properly.

Yvette Giannunzio (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Yvette Giannunzio 9/30/2016

Review Golgi apparatus article
This article is understandable, not too technical for people who are non-expert. It covers general information about the Golgi apparatus. The information is from the various reliable sources which are journals and books; however, not all reference links get directly to the article. For example, the reference number 9 ("Passage through the Golgi." of Nakano A, Luini A) is an article has to be purchased or rented to access or the reader has to have login credential. Brefeldin A part seems to be out of the topic. It is really nice to have pictures demonstrating model 1 and 2, which makes the models be easier to understand. The Model 5 part is quite technical and the description is short, I can understand the strength and weakness of the model but the idea of the model is mysterious to me. Moreover, I don’t understand the word “megavesicle” and I cannot find the definition in the dictionary either.Cuteguineapig (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

2604:2000:9016:5800:3CB9:125D:AA53:8DA1 (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

reference 1 isn't working
Hello. I am a newcomer, so I may be doing something wrong, but it appears to me that ref 1 isn't corect. I think that the source is http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783211763094. Could somebody with experience please check this? JeanOhm (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to the google books page, since that includes a larger free preview of the book's contents. To do so, either add |url=www.example.com in the markup code, or you can use VisualEditor to add the url parameter when you've clicked the reference (relevant tutorial here). T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 00:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to learn more about the Golgi....
I find this article poor, at best. I've written a new version. If you want to learn about the Golgi, feel free to read it in my sandbox. If you want to incorporate any or all of it into this article, go ahead. However, I have completely exhausted my ability to navigate around the dog and hog crap that is arbitrarily dropped in this animal park to get in the way of education. JeanOhm (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

golgi complex
It is used for cell wall formation? Scienty sundar (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's part of the system for packaging and transporting proteins. Animal cells don't have a cell wall; that of plants is made of cellulose, not protein. But it's best if you read the article: talk pages aren't forums. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Pronounciation
How is Golgi pronounced? Soft or hard 'g's. Does it matter? Jenks 20:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * it is pronounced with a hard g.
 * Goal-guy. This does matter because what if you were in an operating theatre and you said the gauljee body is not functioning? bananahead You could be discussing the laws of gravity!The Director 16:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Goal-guy?? only if you're from long island, try Goal-Gee--NY101 16:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What is your source for that pronunciation, because according to http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0821208.html, the guy's name is pronounced with a soft j, so I'd think the organelle would be pronounced the same way.--CallmeNiel 20:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Oxford English Dictionary Online lists the entry with a soft j. It's pronounced, according to the OED as sort of the "gol" (from "golf") + "ge" (from "genie") ---> "goljē" [*Mike Duron]
 * Slightly off topic, but under what circumstances would an operating theatre need to refer to a subcellular organelle anyway? Unless you're talking about microdissection (which is a lab technique rather than surgery)... I tend to use "gohl-ghee" (hard g), but I'd understand if someone used a soft g. - Confuseddave 143.167.134.103 16:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is definately pronounced goal-gee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.132.89 (talk • contribs)
 * Definitely is definitely spelled 'definitely'. The correct pronunciation is more akin to "goll-jee". 84.9.15.2 (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this is unfortunate. In high school in the late 80s, we were told it was hard G, ending in ee.  Always assumed Golgi was a surname.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.180.18 (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

It's ˈgôljē


 * The page previously gave the pronunciation with no source. Per the above discussion, there is clearly not a consensus, and I couldn't find a reliable source as to the correct pronunciation, so I removed the pronunciation from the lead.Nloveladyallen (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Golgi body
Is Golgi body an organelle ? Abdullah Mudathir (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2019
Hello, I wanted to add 2 references to the following statement : "The TGN may act as an early endosome in yeast" After "yeast" please add the following references: doi:10.7554/eLife.03307 doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2017.12.014

thanks Contributor3210 (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Seeing as it's a generally uncontroversial fact, from what I can tell, we don't need too many citations, but one more doesn't hurt. Sceptre (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2023
yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.253.179 (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

contradiction in first naming
intro says 1898, discovery chapter says 1910, both giving the same reference [2] 46.232.229.52 (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for noticing this. You are correct about there being a contradiction – the cited source makes no mention of it being named after Golgi in 1898, or of him discovering it in 1897. I have now corrected the lead to fit the source cited. The Discovery section already accurately reflected the source. Toadspike   [Talk]  10:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)