Talk:Cilium

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Anatomy: Microanatomy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to microanatomy.

Biophysics (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biophysics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BiophysicsWikipedia:WikiProject BiophysicsTemplate:WikiProject BiophysicsBiophysics articles

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): C15880782.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I remember reading that smoking paralyzes the cilia in your lungs (or, apparently, windpipe). --Jack (Cuervo) 11:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of info here on the structure of Cilia but ridiculously little on their function.

As far as I can recall, they're responsible for the "tickle" when you need to cough, but I can't verify this or elaborate at all. --Johnny (Cuervo) 21:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmodium falciparum

The mechanism of Intraflagellar transport constructing cilia has now become a focus of attention, as discussed in some detail here. Apparently a Jekely and Arendt (2006) cilium evolution paper p. 193 describes Plasmodium falciparum as an exception that lacks IFT – "species with cilia that do not rely on IFT (in the parasite Plasmodium cilia assemble in the cytoplasm(48))". I've added a brief mention of this, using the panda's thumb link as I don't have access to the paper or the expertise to work from it. .. dave souza, talk 19:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

biology

  Adv. Biology is hard. I blinked and was a half a chapter behind.

PS. Write an interesting response.

Some info moved from "nose hair"- please merge it if necessary

Cilia of the nasal cavity consist of cells that form microscopic strands in the nasal passages that moisten the inhaled air (via mucosa), warm it, and trap foreign objects that flutter in its stream.^[1] Healthy cilia beat in a coordinated backward-&-forward motion on an average of sixteen times per second, unlike nasal hairs that have no coordinated motion. They draw mucus up from the epithelium by capillary action to maintain humidity in the nasal passages. This is accomplished by trapping moisture in exhaled air and humidifying its evaporation via inhaled air. Also unlike nasal hairs, ciliated cells push mucus back in towards the oropharynx where it can be either swallowed or ejected. This mechanism is much like the system by which cilia in the ear canal remove cerumen and other detritus; visible ear hairs have no such use.

Cilial motility regularly declines with advancing age, a fact that may be implicated in the higher incidence of respiratory infections in this group of individuals.^{[citation needed]}\

References

^ http://www.medicalook.com/human_anatomy/organs/Nose.html

Biology Response

I totally agree. Biology is very hard. I thought that studying the cell was the hardest chapter. Our teacher actually made us take a test on how to hold a microscope.--69.196.197.190 (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cilium vs. flagellum

The present article reads: Along with flagella, they make up a group of organelles known as undulipodia. I thought that cilia are structurally identical to flagella. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.166.91 (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a biologist but I had understood that to be the case also. Someone will need to find a verifiable source to clarify it for the article. I had understood the that both a cilium and a flagellum were structurally similar organelles but that the name given was 'flagellum' in the case of single celled organisms and 'cilia' in the case of multiple-cell organisms. There function is similar as well, handling protein transport and, in the case of the motile cilia and most flagella, having an ability to move as well through some sort of rotor/stator protein arrangement in the basal body of the cell. N2e (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagella and Cilia differ in the fact that cilia are shorter and more numerous. They also look like hairs. Their motion is similar to a rowboat. Flagella look alot like sperm cells. They have a tail that moves them along instead of hairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.197.190 (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to be a biologist and I have always been told that eukaryotic cilia and prokaryotic flagella are mechanistically different (as can be easilly seen by looking at the artcile illustrations); also, the proteins they are made of are not homologous as far as I know. Hence, the sentence "Eukaryotic cilia are structurally identical to Prokaryotic flagella, although distinctions are sometimes made according to function and/or length" is 100% wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.77.192.140 (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eukaryotic flagella ARE different from prokaryotic flagella. However, even within eukaryotes, both terms cilia and flagella are used to describe the structures. The terminology is considered to be interchangeable since the underlying structures are the same, but some people still use the terms differently based on the function and number of the cilia/flagella, as outlined by 69.196.197.190 (talk) above.--AaronM (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sentence "Eukaryotic cilia are structurally identical to Prokaryotic flagella, although distinctions are sometimes made according to function and/or length" is 100% wrong. I concur with anon editor 140.77.192.140. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

If someone is going to write something on the scientific history, it may be interesting to know that it was discovered in 1898, and the article that is usually referenced, is "Beiträge zur Kenntnis einiger Drüsen und Epithelien" by Zimmerman in "Archiv für mikroskopische Anatomie", 9, pp. 163-168. Probably ISSN 0176-7364 or ISSN 0176-7356. I haven't been able to get it online, yet. --WvEngen (talk) 10:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary cilia

There is a misconception that primary cilia are non-motile. Primary cilia refers to the structure of an axoneme WITHOUT the central pair, i.e. 9+0. --kupirijo (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Length

The article has cilia length as 5-10 micrometres, but the length is given as 2-3 in the histology texts I have to hand [e.g., Junqueira & Carneiro]. Can someone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.104.2 (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the uncited assertion that cilia length are 5-10 micrometres in the lede paragraph. If you have a verifiable source you can cite, like a book or journal article, I hope that by all means you will correct the article with your information and add the citation. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please but the length info back, it is roughly correct. Alberts:Molecular biology of the cell should do as a reference. Cilia are found in all 5 domains of life! So some variability in length should come as no surprise at all. In its current state the article does not state diameter, length, no scalebar, ... ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.240.227.15 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Light Micrographs

I am removing this image again. I think that this image would be very confusing for a lay reader, especially without any labels. For someone who doesn't know any better, they would probably confuse the bands of connective tissue as the "cilia" in the picture without knowing to look at the apical surface of the cyst. And even they, you can't see the cilia at the apical surface very well. Is this the best light micrograph we have access to in order to represent cilia to the wikipedia reader? I think we should keep looking.--AaronM (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the image, as it stood, was not fully ready for prime time in a lay-reader encyclopedia. I could imagine that the image could be enlarged and labelled to clearly illustrate the ciliac cross-sections, but then that is not what that image had. And better images could and probably should be found to illustrate the axial cross sectioned cilia. Thanks AaronM for being bold to improve Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you guys are being to rigid. Also, I'll point-out that:

The SEM doesn't have a label either.
A longer caption for the image could just as well do... or you could have labeled the image. I think the LM is actually quite informative - you see the cilia in relation to the rest of the cell's structure and how darn small they really are, i.e. the LM makes the point that they can be over looked. Neither of the images in the article show how small the cilia are in relation to the nucleus, or the cell as a whole.
I think you underestimate what the Wikipedia reader can understand.
Why not put the image into a gallery at the bottom?
I think you ask the wrong question. The image may not be perfect... but there isn't one at all. The image has a good deal of information.
The micrograph is close to the limit of LM -- without going to oil and fancy techniques,[1] - I have one at slightly higher mag but it isn't oriented as well, I'd have to re-shot it.

You didn't mind WP:AGF and WP:REVERT. WP:REVERT makes the point that you shouldn't just up and revert something - WP:REVERT#When_to_revert.

In any case... to answer your question more to the point (Is this the best light micrograph we have access to in order to represent cilia to the wikipedia reader?) Currently, yes... and I made an effort to address a need. If I were a noob... this would be called a bite. Nephron T|C 02:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nephron, if you have any images that could show cilia as clearly as this[2], then I think it should absolutely be part of this article. I have nothing against light microscopy! Of course none of my comments were meant to be taken personally - I just don't think the image that you loaded before added much to the page. And sorry if my use of reverting was outside of the bounds...I'm not a full-time wikipedian, and may not be up to date on the polite way to do things. --AaronM (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration

In the initial image, there is nothing labeling the axoneme. I presume that the purpose of the image is to illustrate the axoneme, but the reader would have to be an expert already to identify the axoneme in the image.

If it's not possible to alter the labeling within the image, the subscript text needs to be expanded so as to clarify which part is the axoneme. Since I am not an expert, I leave it to the author(s) to make the changes. Thanks. KC 20:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cilium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017161257/http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/of_cilia_and_si.html to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/of_cilia_and_si.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Location within the human body

Due to the significance for the diagnostics of Covid-19 I would like to add a new section about the location of cilia in the human body (especially about the location in the nose itself). Does anybody know good sources for that? Greetings, Tresznjewski (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try the respiratory epithelium page.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.medicalook.com/human_anatomy/organs/Nose.html

[1]