Talk:HeLa/Archive 1

Ethics
No discussion of the ethics involved in the matter - companies used the cells to make millions in patents, and the family didn't see anything out of it.
 * Well, as pointed out in Henrietta Lacks' article, the United States Supreme Court has ruled, for better or for worse, that:

There was then as now, no necessity to inform a patient, or their relatives, about such matters because discarded material, or material obtained during surgery, diagnosis or therapy was the property of the physician and/or medical institution. This problem and Ms. Lacks' situation was brought up in the Supreme Court of California case of John Moore v. the Regents of the University of California. The court ruled that a person's discarded tissue and cells are not their property and can be commercialized. --Rajah 18:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Coining of term HeLa
The article mentions that the woman died from the cancer in 1951 but does not mention when the term "HeLa" was coined. Was it at this time or much later when commercial applications were devised? On Usenet the earliest mention I can find was in 1983: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/net.flame/msg/4029972e4544a6fc?hl=en&

This term is interesting as it pertains to the CamelCaps article. &mdash; Hippietrail 12:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This is an example of why Wikipedia is ridiculed.
"HeLa cells are perhaps an example of biological devolution, in which a complex multicellular organism has devolved into a simple, self-replicating, single-cell organism. It may also represent the first documented creation of a new species."

And deservedly so.


 * Introduced on December 8. Removed on December 9. MichaelSH 03:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"   There is NOTHING in modern evolutionary theory which dictates that "complex" organisms may not develop into "simple" organisms. Specialised structures are often diminished or lost altogether where the evolutionary selection pressure is not great enough to balance or overcome the developmental "energy" required to maintain these specialities, hence the loss of flight in birds with no ground predators, or the loss of eye structures in cave dwelling organisms. Technically, if the organism's chromosomal count is different from a human, then there are grounds for saying that it is no longer of the same species. This could be checked in theory, by trying to crossbreed the two organisms. Unfortunately, it would be quite difficult to cross a unicellullar organism with a human being. (Bear in mind that a HeLa cell is NOT a haploid gamete; rather it is an organism in its own right.)" 81.145.241.104 14:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Michael Gold, book Conspiracy of Cells:
Michael Gold is not Mike Gold(died1967). Wikilink has been to Mike's article.

Michael Gold's middle name may (or may not) be Evan. SmithBlue (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also Gold, M. "The cells that would not die." Science 81 (April), 2(3): 28-35. and Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences:Michael Gold. A Conspiracy of Cells: One Woman's Immortal Legacy and the Medical Scandal It Caused. Reviewed by Patricia Harris. JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF MEDICINE AND ALLIED SCIENCES ISSN OO22-5O45VOLUME 41 JULY 1986 NUMBER 3 PG 368 SmithBlue (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The present outline of Golds's book could be improved upon to throw more light on HeLa and its contamination of other cell cultures leading to misnaming of cell cultures. 203.59.177.245 (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead: contamination mention
As I understand it the lead should be a brif scan of all the important aspects of a subject. The contamination by HeLa of a significant proportion of cell lines over some 40 years seems important to this topic. SmithBlue (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, done. Note that you're always welcome to be WP:Bold and edit the article.  -- Scray (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Helacyton gartleri
"With near unanimity, evolutionary scientists and biologists hold that a chimeric human cell line is not a distinct species." Shouldn't be that hard to find a citation if there's near unanimity! - ∅  ( ∅ ), 11:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * lol citation needed, what is a species anyway?

Cell line contamination
The statement "The remarkable durability of this cell line is illustrated by its contamination of many other cell lines used in research" may not be correct. In an interview of Rebecca Skloot who wrote The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks (New York, Crown Publishers 2010), she mentioned this was disproved by DNA testing. Perhaps, the use of word "contamination" was misused or this should be updated. The contamination emphasized in the article has references to old sources. In any case, this contamination should be checked for the latest info and clarified. Exactly what is meant by contamination is not clear either. Link to interview at UIC Thursday March 04, 2010, will.illinois.edu/focus580/weekly/   172.163.17.238 (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources continue to support the frequent contamination of cell lines with HeLa, e.g. . Neither an interview nor a (non-peer-reviewed) book would outweigh peer-reviewed secondary references.  -- Scray (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sentence I don't understand
I don't understand this sentence in the contamination section:


 * Rather than focus on how to resolve the problem of HeLa cell contamination, many scientists and science writers continue to document this problem as simply a contamination issue — caused not by human error or shortcomings but by the hardiness, proliferating, or overpowering nature of HeLa.

Is it saying that the contamination problem has not been adequately addressed by scientists? And if so, can it be changed to make it clearer or deleted entirely (as the next sentence implies that the problem still exists)? There are two citations on it so I wasn't sure whether I should change it outright. —Squandermania (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I also do not understand it, so I tagged it with clarify, requesting specific quotes from the cites that would aid verification. -84user (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * After reading the cited sources, I'm leaning towards removing it. If the editor who added it is still active, I'll contact them and let them know.  It seems like an editorial interpretation. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the original:
 * "Rather than recognize or focus on the problem of HeLa cell contamination, or on how to resolve this problem, many scientists, researchers and science writers continue to document this problem as simply a contamination problem, caused not by errors, or shortcomings of scientists, physicians and other personnel in public health, medicine, or science, or researchers, but by the hardiness, tenacity, proliferating or overpowering nature or other characteristic of HeLa."
 * And here's how it appears now:
 * "Rather than focus on how to resolve the problem of HeLa cell contamination, many scientists and science writers continue to document this problem as simply a contamination issue — caused not by human error or shortcomings but by the hardiness, proliferating, or overpowering nature of HeLa."
 * Originally, it was sourced to Wang et al. but I don't see how. On the one hand, this sounds like an editorial not supported by the sources, and should be removed. On the other hand, it could be a legitimate issue found in another source. Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Texas case relevance
I have removed the following section on the Texas blood sample case as I could see no direct relevance to HeLa mentioned in the cites. However, the information looks suitable for other articles, maybe Genomics and Civil and political rights?

''Although recently in Texas there was a court case won by the Texas Civil Rights Project and several plaintiffs against the state for storing baby blood samples without consent, which resulted in millions of samples being destroyed by court order. ''

I found the inline citation confusing (see "1" below), and it would need splitting into separate citations. The page at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13 does not mention the Texas or the blood sample case. For possible use in an article here is a completed template for the genomicslawreport cite:



Finally, the Texas Department of State Health Services seems confused about dates: 2010 in the title and May 2009 as the destroy-by date.

-84user (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

sentence makes no sense

 * What does this sentence mean?: "This was the first human cell line to prove successful in vitro, which was a scientific achievement with profound future benefit to medical research."  To prove successful in vitro WHAT?   --98.70.142.120 (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See link in vitro. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (chuckle) This is a humorous comment. We may want to collapse it though.... NickCT (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Extent to Survivability
Though it has contaminated many other cell lines, is it know to what extent can HeLa exist outside of a lab environment?


 * To the same level of survival that any other human body cell survives outside of a lab or organism.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Telomerase
The section on telomerase needs better sources then the biography of Henrietta Lacks. People seem to think that the telomerase thing is something specific to the HeLa cells. There must be plenty of scientific papers on the genetics of HeLa cells. --Siden (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Exchanged the biography for nobelprize.org and a scientific paper - but the second one is not a very good reference, really. It does mention the telomerase activity of HeLa cells, and the article is exploring details of it, but it was known long before this article. I really think a textbook on cancer would be a better source. --Siden (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are they immortal?
Anybody know exactly what it is about these cells that make them immortal? Regulated telomerase? Self generated super efficient antioxidants?
 * The article now states that it is due to persistent telomerase activity so that the telomeres are never degraded. --Rajah 18:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the individual cells are immortal but that the cell line is immortal. If you consider the cell line to be all part of one creature rather that a multitude of individual creatures it's immortal in that sense. Thus it's really no more immortal than any single celled asexual organism. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here cus this isn't my field. - Arch NME 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're wrong. These cells are immortal for the reason given by Radjah. It's not just a point of view.

--Both are correct. The cells are constantly dividing so they are like a single celled prokaryotic organism, always dividing into daughter cells. The reason that they go past the Hayflick limit of most other eukaryotic cells, that can divide only around 40 times, is most likely a mutation in their telomerase. The cells don't behave in unison like tissue, they act more like single celled organisms. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

These cells are called "immortal" because they don't grow old like every other cell in our bodies. They must be fed in order to live, but once fed they keep doubling and doubling. Every other type of cell can recreate itself for so long and then it stops. That is why we age because each cell has an internal clock. It must be remembered that these cells are cancer cells so they do not act the way our other cells do. The trick is to discovered why cancer cells have no internal clock, we might be able to turn off the internal clock in our other cells? Tim Hesse, Mena AR. 02-26-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.243.2 (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Controversy over publication of HeLa genome
I don't have time to write this up, but the HeLa cells are in the news now Aelfgifu (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * genome published: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=famous-hela-human-cell-line-gets-its-dna-sequenced
 * and then withdrawn due to objections by her family: http://www.nature.com/news/hela-publication-brews-bioethical-storm-1.12689
 * Done! Also with resolution of the issue. Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

New species?
I can't find the paper they are referring to, but there are references here and here to a paper stating HeLa is a new species. Though googling that doesn't give many hits. Anyone know more? --RE 21:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That citation does not exist in PubMed, and it appears that the journal Evolutionary Theory closed down in the late 1980's. The closest I can find is this: VANVALEN LM, MAIORANA VC, PATTERNS OF ORIGINATION, EVOLUTIONARY THEORY 7 (3): 107-125 1985. Unfortunately, that journal not accessible to me, so I can't check it out.  No matter what the proper citation is, the classification of HeLa as a new species is not broadly accepted in the scientific community.  This is because it is not clear how the term species applies to such organisms, and the fact that HeLa cells cannot survive outside the lab.  I am changing the article to reflect this, and also to remove the misunderstandings concerning what an immortal cell line is (immortal just means that the cells can reproduce indefinately, not that they do not 'age'). -- Beardedstoat 11:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think someone has since removed the fact that "the classification of HeLa as a new species is not broadly accepted in the scientific community." I've added it back in. Miken32 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is someone looking for the Van Valen article? I think I have a scanned copy of it. Someone sent me a scan, and he sent me a snailmail copy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that since the HeLa cells are all of Heinretta Lacks origin, that they should be considered to be descendents of Heinretta Lacks and treated as members of the Lacks family.204.52.215.107 15:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that this cell lineage should be a second species in Homo, such as Homo helacytos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.195.57.97 (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

50 million tons of HeLa
This innumerate claim is made in the preface to Rebecca Skloot's book, and on the dust jacket. The endnotes attribute it to a email from Leonard Hayflick, saying that this is the weight of cells that would result from 50 generations of doubling, if all the cells survived. The email says "clearly this is impractical," so Skloot misinterpreted the email. According to Wikipedia there are 10^14 cells in the human body, and 2^50 is only about 10^15, so it seems that 50 generations would only weigh as much as 10 people. On the other hand, 50 generations isn't many if the cells can double each day (see http://www.springerlink.com/content/r7347834r388362j/) - in 60 years this would be about 20,000 doublings. It would take less than 200 doublings for the weight of HeLa cells to exceed the weight of the universe (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/KristineMcPherson.shtml). In other words, the calculation is completely irrelevant. Here's a better one: this Wikipedia article says that there have been 60,000 papers published on HeLa. If each of these experiments grew a ton of cells on average (extremely unlikely) Skloot's estimate would be an exaggeration of a thousandfold. Here's another calculation: HeLa is used in vaccinations. Suppose that every man, woman and child living on earth had been injected with a gram of HeLa in the form of vaccine (extremely unlikely). That's only another 6,000 tons. So where are the other 99.9% of Skloot's HeLa cells? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelStanford (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree the claim seems dubious, however neither the wording of the original sentence "One scientist estimates that the total weight of HeLa cells now exceeds 50 million metric tons. " nor the revision "The claim that the total weight of HeLa cells now exceeds 50 million metric tons is based on a misunderstanding." make any sense. I don't think either one has any place in the article at all. My case for removing it entirely:


 * The first rendition doesn't even offer the name of the "one scientist." Secondly, it offers no reason for anyone to even care what the scientist supposedly said. Who cares? Why is this snippet of information important to the subject? More information as to the pertinence is required. This is mere trivia and doesn't belong here.


 * The second rendition offers no explanation as to importance either. Worse, it offers an argument to a statement that is no longer in the article. (i.e. "The claim..." What claim? Oh! The claim you just removed from the article! Okay, but what makes this important? Give me a reason to care that their is such a claim.


 * The second rendition then claims it's all based on a "misunderstanding." What misunderstanding? Explain please. The word misunderstanding is linked to the article "Wheat and Chessboard Problem" as if that is all anyone would need for an explanation. The proverbial dots need to be connected here! Tell us who makes the claim, why it is significant, and what the misunderstanding IS.


 * Also, the placement of both sentences in the "George Otto Gey and Henrietta Lacks" section is totally erroneous. If it's to be mentioned at all it should be in its own section. Possibly a "Controversy" section(?).


 * At any rate, it simply servers no useful purpose as is in the article in either rendition. I don't normally remove anything without discussion but this case seems like a simple one. It's gone.


 * I don't agree the issue shouldn't be here at all, I just think it needs its own section, or at least better placement, and a LOT more information as to what its significance is. --SentientParadox (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reference 9, given for "20 tons of HeLa cells" in the summary, isn't a valid citation as that article still only claims the "50 million tons". Reference 4 only asserts "could weigh more than 20 tons" but unsubstantiated claim. ( see also: http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=73163 and  http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/h967s/how_many_tons_of_hela_cells_have_been_grown/ )  [sorry, I'm new here]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.19.221 (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference mixup
Reference #27 and #29 are the same, #27 is just incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4CA0:4FFF:1:0:0:0:D5 (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)