Talk:Langerhans cell

Why the male bias?
The last sentence of this article fails to mention that Langerhans Cells also exist in the mucosal tissue of females, and that they are also a point of entry for HIV. The very cited source makes this statement. Please go to the source and read under the heading "The pathogenesis of sexually acquired HIV infection" just after "methods."

I think this is a bias. If it weren't, then this person would properly mention the presence of HIV suceptible langerhans cells in both the male and female sexes. The following sentence "The inner surface of the foreskin, especially the downpart," seems to be quite biased and limiting. Just what is "the down part," and why mention just the inner surface of the foreskin, when all mucosal tissue has Langerhans cells? The following link rebutts the posted study. 

The posted study also is not soley focusing on langerhans cells, but on the medical justification for a mutilating procedure imposed on non-concenting individuals. The source would be more credible if it sited that Langerhans cells were suceptible to HIV, without the immediate suggestion of circumcision.

HIV receptive langerhans cells, are HIV receptive langerhans cells, and they are found in both male and female. The suggestion that langerhans cells should be excised in order to reduce HIV infection is secondary, and subject to debate.

I fixed it, and it would be nice to see it remain fixed, or re-written if it is inappropriate. I agree that information should be UN-biased in any direction.

Jakew: Stop deleting the information regarding Langerhans cells on the female genitalia. I have provided documentation that they are there. This wikipedia article is about LC cells not HIV, so they are still relevant if they do not mention HIV. Some mention SIV which is a similar virus in primates. This material is relevant and will be restored. Millueradfa 22:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The docs do specifically mention LC cells on the vagina. Some mention T-cells which interact with the LC cells. So they are still relevant Millueradfa 22:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This does not mention langerhans cells. Nor does this. If a source does not mention them, it is original research to introduce them in an article on the subject. Jakew 22:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Two of them only mentioned T-cells which do have CCR5 receptors like LCs, however they did not mention blocking of CCR5 receptor to the HIV virus. Therefore, I will not post them again. The others either do mention LCs, one does mention them occuring on the Vagina, or they mention research on CCR5 receptors and blocking them from the HIV receptors. Since CCR5 receptors occur on LCs as well as T-cells, this research is relevant to the CCR5 receptors including those on the LC cells. There is plenty of reliable documentation that CCR5 cells are present on Langerhans cells. See this: Millueradfa 22:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read the relevant policy. It may well be relevant, but we must have a source that directly states it. We cannot interpret sources, even if we're sure we're correct. That is not Wikipedia's role.


 * As for sources that do mention Langerhans cells, by all means include them, but be careful not to extrapolate from them. Jakew 23:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting) I replaced Szabo and Short with a source that reports direct observation of the presence of Langerhans' cells in the genital mucosa of males and females. I think it's more directly relevant to this article than Szabo and Short.Zandrous 09:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Histiocyte
How are these cells related to histiocytes? If these cells are not histiocytes, then why is the disease called histiocytosis? &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 15:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

s100 positive.
can someone confirm that they are S100 positive. and if so, why are they S100 positive if they are not neural crest derrived? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.242.18 (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Langerhans HIV transmission: conflicting studies
May I draw your attention to this page?

http://www.circumstitions.com/Langerhans.html

twitter.com/jontycampbell (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Every new study done on these cells seems to be showing that, far from being a cause of viral infection, Langerhans cells attack and neutralize viruses like HIV, HPV etc. I think it's time for a rewrite, as this article clearly implies that Langerhans cells are an entry point for bacteria, when it's far more likely that they are a barrier to such infections. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Every new study? On what possible basis do you say that?  I've just made a brief search of PubMed, and the vast majority of studies seem to agree that LCs facilitate HIV infection. Jakew (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Are LCs dendritic cells?
The introduction states that LCs are "once thought to be a resident dendritic cell". Is "once thought" (in the past tense) meant to imply that they are now classified as some other type of cell? If so, what type and what is the source for this information?

The cited source appears to state that "Langerhans cells were the first dendritic cell to be described", so it is not clear that this implication is correct. Iaeen (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)