Talk:Embryonic differentiation waves

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 31 October 2017 by reviewer Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs).

Anatomy: Embryology 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to embryology.

Animals Low‑importance

Embryonic differentiation waves is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

I would like to see this article developed and approved for publication as I think it is important that alternative theories and ideas of embryogenesis should be referenced in Wikipedia. There are currently multiple articles on embryogenesis which could be improved and made more balanced by referencing to this different model as well as other related models. Many of the articles in wikipedia about embryology present only one aspect or one theory of embryogenesis as if it is undisputed scientific fact with none of the other models referenced and many articles are hopelessly are outdated. Having an article of this title would allow this particular model, which has been peer reviewed and published in the literature, to be presented with appropriate references and background. The result could then be cross referencing other articles related to embryogenesis as updates are done. Since this is my own work but I feel I am an expert on the subject of embryology, I am concerned about violating conflict of interest guidelines of Wikipedia. Therefore I am proposing the article be written, I am ready to do the writing to expand it beyond its current "stub" like format, but I will not try to do so until the article has ben approved independently or I am given the go ahead to continue developing it. I would also be very happy if someone else took it up.Bjorklund21 (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! Thank you Natalie and Richard for some excellent real science, where you have noticed something new, experimented, and explained it very clearly. I just took Developmental Biology, and this new work explains many parts of it far deeper than what I was just taught as solid (like morphogen gradients!).

The book Embryogenesis Explained is a great read – well, some parts are beyond me, but mostly it is logical and starts from what we can see around us. To me this new theory is Nobel Prize level, especially since it is so big and so many of us have missed seeing it for so long. (Of course, I don't get to give out Nobel Prizes, but I will make yall a delicious dinner of luau from home grown taro leaves if you will come give a talk at either the University of Hawaii or the University of Iowa.)

(Bitch, bitch) The only thing that would improve the description would be a few more observations about the NTDs. (Or drop that part until we do.) Between the book and your 2006 paper I think you explain at least 4 big users of folate as a source of methylation, the cytoskeleton, the lipids for membranes, and the 2 DNA uses, synthesis for new cells, and all the de- and re- methylation in the first weeks of embryogenesis. OK. But only ONE of these, the cytoskeleton, affects differentiation. If that was the limiting cause of NTDs, the embryos with an NTD should have some cells in the neural plate area that totally failed to differentiate, they should still be ectoderm. (And not some lost new epidermal cells, and not some early neural crest cells, just flat out flat ectoderm. Or at least in the nucleus they should be ectoderm, even if they got scrunched into looking like the rest of the sheet. I am clueless as to how to look.) I hope it is obvious that to make this complaint I have to be a true believer in the cell state splitter, which will stand regardless of whether it explains NTDs or not. Maybe just move the NTD bit to the NTD page as another possible explanation.

My gosh there are so many good parts of the book you could add to the description. I liked the whole evolution of cell differentiation, and especially where it separated from cell division. There are many pages that “need” a link to embryonic differentiation waves, and evolution is one of them. Thank you. Pawpawseed66 (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]