Talk:Haematopoiesis

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physiology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of cells. 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 ??? 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).

I deleted the following:

Embryologically, in about 30 feet of gestation the blood precursor cells arises from the yolk sac mesoderm. In esccense the first hematopoetic organ is the yolk sac, then the liver and spleen will take over in week 5 as a temporary but major hematopoietic tissues. Skipping over to about the 5th month of gestation, the bone marrow then becomes increasingly important as the hematopoietic organ. After birth, the blood cells are derived from stem cells of the bone marrow. The bone marrow also produces T-cells that migrate to the thymus where it becomes immunocompentent in the paracortex. Most cells mature in the bone marrow(become immunocompentent).

The main site for hematopoiesis is the bone marrow (after birth). Under normal conditions, the production of blood cells can adjust rapidly to the need of the body, increasing several-fold in a short time. The bone marrow is found in the meduallary canals of long bones and the cavities of cancellous bones. The first cavity to form is in the clavicle--this becomes clinically. Of clinical importance is the sternum when diagnosing certain types of Leukemia.

Taken from Dr. Yin's Notes at Ross University School of Medicine 11/08/2005.

The copyright status of these notes needs to be clarified, and wikification and sourcing is lacking. As for the haematopoiesis drawing - please don't upload drawings from your lecture notes on Wikipedia (unless your name is Picasso). Instead, consider OpenOffice or another graphic design package. JFW | T@lk 11:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a good schematic showing all (or as many as possible) cells that arise from haematopoiesis. I'm willing to draw this with guidance from others. But not by myself, as I'm not an expert and don't know how all these cells should look like when viewed through a microscope. Especially the progenitor cells. The schematic would contain the different cell groups (lymphoid, myeloid etc. and their progenitors) and the body compartment where these cells are found (the latter is not very hard). Optionally we can include the growth/differentiation factors that also play a part. I dunno if wikipedia already has this image, but I sure didn't find it. I've made a start at this and currently only have most (all?) of the final cells that arise from haematopoiesis. As this is yet a very rough and unorganised sketch, I haven't upped it to Wikipedia yet. You can see it here.

As I said, I'm not a haematologist and the different hematopoiesis schematics I've looked up so far differ in many ways and simply don't make sense to me. But we can collaborate and using some expert advice maybe we could come up with a correct and more "universal" schematic. You'll guide and I'll draw :D This could also be a candidate for an MCOTW. What you people say? Greets, A. Rad 09:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What nice drawings! I recommend that you look at the diagram at the top of Pluripotential hemopoietic stem cell for further guidance. The diagram there is a product of the US government so you can freely adapt it. The diagram doesn't reflect all of the needed complexity, but in conjunction with the comment at the bottom of that diagram, it should be possible for you to come up with a decent draft. I'd also recommend you read Talk:Pluripotential hemopoietic stem cell, to see some of the mild disagreements people have over classification. --Arcadian 10:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I made those in XaraX¹ ;) Thanks for the info. I read those pages and they pretty much sum up what I mean when I said that there are different schematics on hematopoiesis. E.g. looking at that image, the myeloblast can form a progranulocyte which can form a granulocyte(neutro/eo/baso), whereas some schematics suggest myeloblast > N.Promyelocyte > N.Myelocyte > N.Metamyelocyte > N.Band > Neutro, and myeloblast > eo and baso seperately. The image on PPHSC notes the Polychromatic erythroblast as the progenitor of the RBC, while other schematics say it's the polychromatic erythrocyte. Which to include? I know blast comes before cyte. Maybe include both? And there's of course the "CFU-" notation. I'm not sure how correct the schematic will become without any error checking by other wikipedians. Greets, A. Rad 08:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've found some sites that have pictures of all the progenitors (I think), so I can start drawing as soon as I've studied each progenitor carefully. I think it can be useful to keep anyone who's interested in this diagram up to date with the progress. I've uploaded an image containing a sketch of the current hematopoietic pathways (not complete) that I'm working on, along with my progress on drawing different cells. Anyone who's interested can view this image and comment on the drawing on the cells that I have drawn incorrectly. It is not complete and therefore not suitable for uploading on Wikipedia yet. Once in a while, I'll update the image by overwriting it and edit this (my own) comment by adding a new signature (~~~~) which shows the date and time of the update. Let's hope this works ;)

The image with the current progress of the schematic can be found here. Looking forward to any comments. Greets, A. Rad 12:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram is done, uploaded and inserted in this article. It still needs expert verification and/or peer review. --A. Rad 13:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has no etymology for Haematopoiesis. Haema- clearly means blood; poiesis probably means generation, but my knowledge of Latin and Greek does not allow me to name its etonym — my guess is it's Latin. Rintrah 12:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to get into an edit war, why does "Hematopoiesis" redirect to the English "Haematopoiesis" spelling instead of the other way around? Isn't Wikipedia based in the U.S. and aren't most of the readers American?

From Wikipedia:How to copy-edit: Note that the English language edition of Wikipedia has no preference for American, British, or other variants of the language. It is important, however, for usage to remain consistent within a single page.. I, myself, prefer British spelling, although I am an Australian. Rintrah 03:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that I would like to modify this page so that all of the spellings used in the article correspond to one variant - consistency is always a good thing, and I believe that it's also policy. Should I bother, or would it be better just to leave it? If I do so, what spelling should be used? Jeyradan (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the spelling of "haematopoiesis" to maintain consistency within the page (which was fairly random before). I chose to use the British spelling due to user preference, the preference of the Wikipedia spell-check tool for the British option, and because the original page title uses the British spelling. If there are any real problems with this, let me know and I'll revert it. Jeyradan (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the article should use the most-common form of the spelling, which seems to be the American one. For reference, a Google search reveals 1,280,000 million results vs. 174,000 (American vs. British), and a Google Scholar search reveals 133,000 scholarly references vs. 17,500 (American/British). Shouldn't we change it? --Honkon (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most common spelling of the term in British publications for the last 30 years has been hematopoiesis (per Ngram), and hematopoiesis is also dominant on .uk websites (estimated 37,100 hits for hematopoiesis versus 25,100 hits for haematopoiesis). Doremo (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haematopoiesis is hard for the unscholared to know, and he/she will search for "blood formation" or the like; How do we make this page available for those who search for it? 84.42.163.144 06:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Blood formation now redirects to this article. Maybe there's similar titles that should be added? E.g. blood creation... I wonder if it would also work if blood creation would be added to the blood formation page after the redirect. Then all similar user searches (e.g. formation of blood, formation of blood cells, blood creation, creation of blood cells etc. etc.) could be added to blood formation to "funnel" all users towards blood formation and consequently, to this article. Do other Wikipedians have any experience on this? :) A. Rad 15:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I have uploaded this image showing locations of fetal hematopoietic stem cells from Plos Biology to commons because I needed the German version of it. Just in case you would like to also include it in the English article, this note. the original figure legend is included in commons. --Dietzel65 (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In recent years a new model has been proposed for haematopoiesis.

Read more: [1]

Shouldn't this be discussed in the article?

Pstragier (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a small thing itself, but keeping in mind that the image is huge, I suggest moving the textbox to inside the chart to reduce the size. Is the latter image better? Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the layout is nice, but these diagrams are old and WRONG! They should be updated with recent and correct overviews of haematopoiesis!!!

Shouldn't this image have the names:

1. "rubriblast" instead of "proerythroblast"
2. "prorubricyte" instead of "basophilic erythroblast"
3. "rubricyte" instead of "polychromatophilic erythroblast"
4. "metarubricyte" instead of "orthochromatic erythroblast"

? --Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 16:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.1111/bjh.13445 JFW | T@lk 11:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be added that haematopoiesis also occurs in scapulas and clavicles? I don't remember at the moment, I'm going to check in a book later. Ai Leen! (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current date format is not consistent and appears in several formats. Looking through early versions of the article, intial date format was all numeric, then a YYYY MMM DD format appeared in February 2014, which is not acceptable according to WP:DATE. The next format to emerge was a D M Y format, in version 593783192 in February 2014, an accepted format. I'll toss on a hatnote related to this date format momentarily. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to learn about bird blood. (Turning elsewhere, apparently not all of their bones are hollow.) Unfortunately, everything here seems human-specific, or if it isn't, it's mixed in enough to not be easily distinguished. I think this page should either be renamed Human Hematopoiesis, and the same thing done for the Hematopoietic System page and anything else with the same problem, or it should be rewritten to account for other animals. In either case, I think it's a lot of work and also a big decision, so I'm opening a Request for Comment.

Horatio Von Becker

101.100.148.176 (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{rfc}} tag, for the following reasons: (i) I cannot find any evidence that WP:RFCBEFORE has been exhausted, let alone tried; per WP:RFCNOT, RfCs are not for discussing a page rename; there is no WP:RFCCAT (did you not see the big red error message "Error: No RfC category specified"?). Just discuss the article content in the normal manner, there is absolutely no need to go straight for a full-blown thirty-day formal WP:RFC at all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]