Talk:Muscle fiber

Attempted rough clean-up of content and structure of the page, but realized it should be redirected to skeletal muscle instead. Redirect proposed. Smr1 (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Attempting Wikification of this page, however requiring some clarification of content, to avoid misinformation-

1. Is the table near the foot of the article (following comment "...divided, as follows...") specifically referring to heart muscle tissue, or some form of reposting of previous content?

2. Is the subtitle "Type I" near the bottom of the page referring to the same "Type I" as discussed previously in the article in the section where the text reads "So we expand further:  Type I,  Red fibers,"

Please note, no offense is intended to those who posted the material originally. Cjw89 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Type III fibres section be heavily elaborated on heavily? Mandom Rix 08:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How diverse is the term "muscle fiber"? Does it only describe the single cell of a vertebrate skeletal muscle? Is is general to all skeletal muscles (including those of insects and other invertebrates)? Or is it general to all muscle, including smooth muscle? My inclination is that it only describes vertebrate skeletal muscle, but am not sure. --Mperkins 03:12, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the term is very general and would apply to insects and other invertebrates. Googling for "insect muscle fiber" would seem to confirm this. Cheers, David Iberri | Talk 20:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Huh?!? Why are the cardiac and smooth muscle cells even mentioned in this article? -- Boris 13:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

do muscle cells do mitosis? -- Isabelle
 * I need to be a bit picky about your question here. Mitosis is the process by which the nucleus of a cell divides, and then the whole cell divides by cytokinesis. A muscle fiber (myocite) is a single muscle cell with many nuclie. So yes, the nuclie have to undergo mitosis, but not necessarily cytokinesis. Raul654 23:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the part that mentioned (what I think is) a subdivision before the main division, but if this is wrong, please correct. Type I and II are a subgroup of skeletal muscles, which are a subgroup of all muscle (fibres), right? Also, does anyone know if skeletal of Type IIb fibres, a type (by myosin heavy chain) not present in humans. It could certainly be mentioned in the article that Type IId/x used to be called Type IIb, but that the terminology has been superseded. However, I don't want to make such a major change without consensus, so I'm asking for opinions. My request for change makes an assumption that this article is aimed at human muslce fibres over any other species.

There seems to be a lot of contradiction between the mitochondria levels. One part states the high concnetration in type I then the other the high concnetration in type II someone want to double check that?--Mrmisanthrope 06:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

For reference, see Pette, D., Peuker, H., & Staron, R. (1999). The impact of biochemical methods for single muscle fibre analysis. Acta Physiologica Scandinavia, 166, 261-267.

Tidied up the article a bit. Hope it's alright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.244.65 (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)