Talk:Phagocytosis

In immune system

This section could do with some work. There is an attempt to describe some of the molecular and signalling details, but it is not accurate. It reads as if nuclear transcription (activation of NFkappa by pattern recognition receptors) is required before phagocytosis, but it is not. Indeed, neutrophils can be manipulated such that they loose their nucleus entirely, and these cells can still phagocytose. JustAnotherKinase (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of phagocytosis

A minor point I am sur--~~~~Insert non-formatted text heree, but wondering if any Greek linguists could clarify if phagocytosis actually means cell eating or whether it is derived from phagocyte which would suggest the action of an eating-cell, the difference being whether cell is the object of subject of the verb to eat. Actually now I think of it, it must be the latter, as phagocytosis doesn't refer to only cells being consumed. Can anyone think of a better way to phrase the ambiguous cell eating in the article? -- postglock 09:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Cellular eating is probably a better term. Richard001 01:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a Greek linguist but the roots do make a distinction between "the eating of cells" and "the cellular process of eating", the latter of which scentific use of the word phagocytosis refers to -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Aaron Horton

A note about the videos

There appears to be a bug (reported) in the Wikimedia Player that returns an error when "Watch in browser" is attempted from the link in the article. However, the Watch-in-browser (Play-in-browser) feature does appear to work from the link provided on the image description page (i.e. the "(file info)" link).--DO11.10 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for expansion

This article would not be complete without a mention of the role of phagocytosis in eukaryote evolution. Verisimilus T 14:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Vague sentence

middle of first paragraph, this sentence is pretty unnecessarily vague and complicated. If I knew more about the subject, I'd fix it myself. "Phagocytosis is a specific form of endocytosis involving the vesicular internalization of solid such as bacteria, and is, therefore, distinct from other forms of endocytosis such as the vesicular internalization of various liquids." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.182.131 (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is especially vague, but I do see how it might be difficult to understand. This entire article contains many explanations that would require a layperson to click on the many internal links within just to discern the meaning of one sentence, which I suppose hearkens back to the "too technical" tag.

"Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so. Also use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence, especially if this requires going into nested links (a link that goes to a page with another technical term needed to be linked, which goes to a page with a link to another technical term, and so on). Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all, as, for example, they might have printed an article and be reading the hard copy on paper."

Manual of Style: Linking Guidelines

While I would hate to go destroying another editor's hard work, and I agree we should keep all the technical elements, perhaps we could add simpler summaries alongside the more technical details? As well as offer short summaries of terms defined through internal links?

Luckily, while this thought is somewhat complex, it is easily broken up into shorter sentences (per Wiki's suggestions).

e.g. (Here is my attempt at breaking up and clarifying that sentence): "Phagocytosis is a type of endocytosis (a process by which cells take in particles). Phagocytosis, specifically, can be distinguished from other forms of endocytosis (like pinocytosis and receptor-mediated endocytosis) by the type of substance it takes in and the way it does so. All forms of phagocytosis involve the formation of vesicles (tiny sacs within the cell that function like transport vehicles by engulfing particles and moving them). In phagocytosis, vesicles engulf solid particles like bacteria and viruses, rather than liquids. In pinocytosis, vesicles are non-specific and absorb nearby droplets of liquid outside the cell. In phagocytosis, the formation of vesicles is triggered by signals from receptors indicating the presence of nearby particles to ingest. In contrast, pinocytosis processeses happen continuously and require no trigger. Phagosomes are somewhat selective (they will not take in live animal cells), but they have been known to take in inanimate particles such as asbestos fibers (cite:1). By comparison, receptor-mediated endocytosis is triggered by more complex processes that are very selective and extremely efficient at taking in only certain targeted particles, such as cholesterol (cite: 2)."

Some additional explanations and examples I added are referenced from:

Molecular Cell Biology, 4th Edition. Lodish H, Berk A, Zipursky SL, et al. New York: W. H. Freeman; 2000.

Does that make more sense/ seem less "vague"? Fetters of ennui (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)