Talk:Neurogenesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neurology. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the talk page.
Start	This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B	This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance assessment scale.

The references in this article would be clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking.

[edit] This

This article needs a lot of work. Firstly, the title is "neurogenesis," but the article itself entirely focuses on "adult neurogenesis." Secondly, the article completely ignores more historical examinations of adult neurogenesis, e.g. the work of Altman and Kaplan in the 1960s and the work of Nottebohm in the early 1980s. Thirdly, a number of the citations reflect confirmatory or seconday, rather than primary, findings. The "adult neural stem cells" sections needs a lot of work. As far as I understand, there exists controvery still on whether the cells isolated via the neurosphere method are indeed stem cells, or even bona fide progenitor cells. A formal possibility remains that these cells represent "dedifferentiated" or "reprogrammed" states induced by the presence of high concentration of mitogens.

---

[edit] Citation problems

• The citations on this article are mixed - some are cited with links in-text, others are listed by name, others are listed at the end. This should be consistent
• Also, the references listed are often to obscure examples of literature rather than primary literature or reviews. Only cite the study if it originated the idea, not if it was one of many studies to demonstrate it.
• In summary, the citations are a hodgepodge of important citations and random citations suggesting vanity reasons for including them. Citations should never say (e.g. XXX et al, 2005) for a fact which has been in the literature for almost 10 years (as in the running enhances proliferation reference)

My recommendation would be that primary references for specific ideas be cited in text with a link to PubMed, and that the reference list at the end be limited to general reviews of Adult Neurogenesis. There are plenty of excellent reviews summarizing the literature (for exmaple, Ambrous et al., 2005; Ming and Song, 2005 among many others).