Talk:Merkel nerve ending

Untitled
I have tried to tidy up this page, removing inconsistencies and repetitions. Still needs more. I suggest that the Receptive field section at the end should be moved to the somatosensory section of the Receptive Field article. DeCaux 22:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good: go for it! Peace, delldot | talk 01:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The article claims 'merkel cells also have two point discrimination.' Surely all mechanoreceptors have this, just with differing limen magnitudes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.207.172 (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Are Merkel cells encapsulated?
The opening sentence of the Electrophysiology section says that Merkel cells are not encapsulated. I have seen conflicting information online about whether Merkel cells are encapsulated or not:


 * No? "Merkel’s disks are unencapsulated nerve endings in the epidermis." &mdash; StatPearls online article on Mechanoreceptors, Franklin Iheanacho; Anantha Ramana Vellipuram (via NIH)
 * Yes? "Four major types of encapsulated mechanoreceptors are ... Merkel's disks," &mdash; Neuroscience. 2nd edition., Purves D, Augustine GJ, Fitzpatrick D, et al., editors. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates; 2001. (via NIH)
 * No? "Mechanoreceptors include the nonencapsulated Merkel’s discs" &mdash; Clinical Anatomy of the Spine, Spinal Cord, and ANS (Third Edition), 2014, Susan A. Darby, Robert J. Frysztak, Cutaneous Receptors (via ScienceDirect)
 * Yes? "receptors include bare nerve endings ... and encapsulated endings. The latter include ... Merkel's discs" &mdash; Netter's Atlas of Neuroscience (Third Edition), 2016, David L. Felten, M. Kerry O'Banion and Mary Summo Maida, 9.11 Cutaneous Receptors (via ScienceDirect)

As of this writing (March 11, 2024), the OpenStax open Biology textbook, 2e even disagrees with itself, with the text saying they are, "Merkel’s ... are slow-adapting, encapsulated nerve endings", but the Figure 36.5 caption saying they are not, "Merkel’s disks, which are unencapsulated". (I made an OpenStax errata submission pointing out the discrepancy.)

I do not have the expertise to decide if the current Wikipedia content is incorrect. I just wanted to point out the possibility.

''New editor, feedback welcome, but note that I am a layperson without access to the primary sources, which is why I used NIH and ScienceDirect links. Thank you.''

Dean.E.Peterson (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)