Talk:Nuclear envelope

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TArbogast. Peer reviewers: TArbogast.

Molecular Biology: MCB

	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 High-importance).

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I moved part of the paragraph on the nuclear lamina to the actual nuclear lamina article. There's also the possibility of redirecting the nuclear lamina article to this one...--Kinglz 21:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't redirect nuclear lamina to nuclear envelope, based on the fact that only the animal nuclear envelope has a true nuclear lamina. Also, this article is completely missing information on the plant nuclear envelope, e.g. its role as MTOC in mitosis. - tameeria 01:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my school, the textbook calls it "the nuclear membrane," so I was thinking if we should change it. User:yctaabpjic 10:40 10 October —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.84.233 (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the professional level, the term "nuclear envelope" is preferred, really. There is already, however, a redirect from nuclear membrane. – Clockwork Soul 16:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how do variation of the thinckness of leaves makes them fit or suvive easily in the environment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.185.7 (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removing reference to non-existent micrograph

This page references a non-existent electron micrograph of the envelope. I'm going to remove it for now, if someone has the micrograph and wants to add it back in please do. removed text:

The nuclear envelope is shown in an electron micrograph in the figure to the right. The filaments outside the envelope are not visualized with these protocols. Also, the nuclear lamina just inside the nuclear envelope is not shown well (see paragraph below for description). However, one can see ribosomes on the outer membrane and the sac enclosed by the two membranes. Dense patches of Heterochromatin are seen just inside the inner membrane.

Wingedkat (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to illustration

The "Nuclear envelope breakdown during mitosis in metazoans" section of this page contains a link to a picture of the cell nucleus, instead of an actual picture within the article. The picture also seems to be protected by copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.0.227 (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.cytochemistry.net/cell-biology/nuclear_envelope.htm. (It was inserted here.) Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Nuclear envelope/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Changed rating to "high" as this is high school/SAT biology content. - tameeria 21:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 18:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Article Review/Recommendations

• The article provides a very brief understanding of the nuclear membrane. Within the section entitled “Cell Division” the language was concise and would be understandable to someone without a background in science.

• The subsection “Reformation” clearly outlines the two theories of nuclear membrane reformation, but additional material on why that debate exists would be beneficial to the article and to future readers.

• In addition, a small mention of the nuclear membrane function during cell division should be in the introductory paragraph, to better direct readers to this information.

• The links were functioning well and didn’t direct to any stub article or misdirected information.

• I noticed for this relatively short article, the same source (#7) was used over 8 times while the other sources were only used once and were often single word additions. Incorporating other sources to be used alongside the seventh one would benefit the article greatly. Perhaps some research studies could make the article more interesting while solidifying key concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TArbogast (talk • contribs) 21:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear envelope not the same as Nuclear membrane?

Is the difference between the nuclear envelope and the nuclear membrane the inclusion of the intermembrane space? This is not very clear in the lead especially with the image. Thanks Dig Deeper (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Inner membrane

already covered on target page as is Outer membrane Iztwoz (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As "inner membrane" can refer to several different things in biology. Would you change the 'Inner membrane' to a disambiguation page, like Outer membrane? Thanks for doing this. Kbseah (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

Changed page name to nuclear envelope re other refs to this on this page. Missed out on reason when moved page - envelope is the gaining ground on ngrams and is used extensively on the Cell nucleus page.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NE, inner membrane, nuclear lamina: ...involved in-- 'entire expression'?

Please excuse my rampant ignorance, but what does 'entire expression' mean, in this sentence from the 'inner membrane' section of the article:

"The inner nuclear membrane encloses the nucleoplasm, and is covered by the nuclear lamina, a mesh of intermediate filaments which stabilizes the nuclear membrane as well as being involved in chromatin function and entire expression." UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have changed it a little, needs expanding on. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]