Talk:WI-38

	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
???	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 Low-importance).

Current use

It would be interesting if the article could also mention if and how widely WI-38 is still used today, simply from a historic perspective alone. 2A02:8388:1604:CA80:0:0:0:6 (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usage

The Article is not really clear if the cells are used in research or during production or really part of the vaccine. Can someone clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:4BC0:3D6C:C8FF:A0B3:5F6F:9ADA (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why

I don't understand why "when normal human cells were stored in a freezer, the cells remembered the doubling level" but that is not the case with WI-38 when "WI-38 was a normal human cell population". --Error (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hayflick1961

One reference is ^[1] but I cannot see any mention on WI-38 there. It goes from WI-1 to WI-25. Is it a valid reference? --Error (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hayflick, L; Moorhead PS (December 1961). "The serial cultivation of human diploid cell strains". Experimental Cell Research. 25 (3): 585–621. doi:10.1016/0014-4827(61)90192-6. PMID 13905658.

The original fetus

@Julius Senegal: reverted additions about the fetus that produced these cells and also some categories I added.

While the ampule was found to be infected a micrococcus, it was cured using antibiotics.

The cells came from a 4-months abortion performed in Sweden in 1962.

The lungs of the fetus were dissected at the Karolinska Institute of Stockholm without the permission of the mother.

They were preserved with ice to fly to the Wistar Institute.

When asked in 2013, the mother was angry and did want to leave the issue behind.

Unlike the family of Henrietta Lacks, she has not asked for compensation

It was based in an article by Meredith Wadman. Julius Senegal used as a summary:

reverted, no reliable source (also inconsistent), not encyclopedic and not correct (see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0014482761901926?via%3Dihub

Do you disagree with all the lines or the reference or something else? --Error (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources (e.g. https://wistar.org/about-wistar/our-history/timeline, https://www.lgcstandards-atcc.org/products/all/CCL-75.aspx, https://www.immunize.org/talking-about-vaccines/maher.pdf,) say:

3 month fetus (not 4)
aboration 1961 (not 1962)
1962 cell line established
1963 first WI-38 based vaccine

Just to start how many errors the slate blog (!) shows.

In addition, the mother agreed to abort the fetus because she didn't want to expand her family further (German high quality source). And then suddenly, more than 50 years later she claimed that she wanted to have kept (?) the tissue. In addition, the blog magazine slate published this 2017, but 2013 she was asked - so after 4 years slate decided to publish it.

Sorry, this is trash blogging. --Julius Senegal (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this criticism. Slate, which is listed as generally reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, writes that "This article is part of Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, New America, and Slate." Sorry, but that is not trash blogging.

The specific points that are brought up do not hold water. When a fetus is 3 months old, the mother is in her 4th month of pregnancy and thus "4 months pregnant". I do not know where you found that the abortion supposedly happened the year before 1962, but even if it did, that is no reason to discard a whole piece as unreliable. Good sources can differ such details, because people can misremember. Finally, no one is claiming that the mother wanted to keep the tissue, or that she changed her mind! She is upset that her fetus was made a research object without her permission. I think there is some other reason behind this revert. St.nerol (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will challange that.

Sorry, no, the points listed above are not subject for interpretation. It's not "just differ" in details, those facts are cleary stated in reliable sources. The blog was sloppy presenting those facts. If you say someone is "four months pregnant", no, this is not the same as "4th month of pregnancy" - it is just your interpretation. I have provided you with the source for 1961 (3rd one), here is another one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0014482761901926?via%3Dihub

While the other points could be substituted with better sources, the case about the mother needs to referenced with a different source.

What you think is - fortunately - highly irrelvant. --Julius Senegal (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a blog. It's investigative journalism from a respected magazine in cooperation with a university. You have not demonstrated that the source is unreliable in general, nor in detail. (Here is a source where 2 months pregnant is explained to mean anytime in the 2nd month of pregnancy; this seems to be common usage. Also, would you please tell me exactly where in any your sources it says that the abortion happened in 1961?) –St.nerol (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a better source, just to settle at least this issue. Some papers refer to that I have linked (1961), however, I will do further research as this is not convincing indeed. As for 3 vs. 4 months: https://www.lgcstandards-atcc.org/products/all/CCL-75.aspx?geo_country=de or https://www.basg.gv.at/en/consumers/facts-worth-knowing-about-medicines/medicinal-products/vaccines/faq-vaccines say 3 months. --Julius Senegal (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your BBC source seems good as well. Your insistence that the Slate source is unreliable seems a bit odd. I agree that the fetus was 3 months old. This is consistent with the woman being 4 months pregnant. It depends on how you count: whether you start on 0 or 1, and also the difference between gestational age and fetal age. The year 1961 might be that the series of WI-xx experiments started in 1961? St.nerol (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Hayflick1961-1] Hayflick, L; Moorhead PS (December 1961). "The serial cultivation of human diploid cell strains". Experimental Cell Research. 25 (3): 585–621. doi:10.1016/0014-4827(61)90192-6. PMID 13905658.

[1]