[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Talk:Autofluorescence: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
inserted call for review
RameMun37 (talk | contribs)
24 edits
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{WikiprojectWikiProject MCBbanner shell|class=Start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Molecular Biology|MCB=yes|MCB-importance=Low}}
 
}}
==Comment==
Uhm... what? Can someone please explain what this is in plain English for those of us without a PhD in Science? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.227.87.61|68.227.87.61]] ([[User talk:68.227.87.61|talk]]) 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I've attempted to simplify some of the jargon! [[User:Jebus989|'''<fontspan colorstyle="color:#81BEF7;">Je</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:#58ACFA;">b</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:#0080FF;">us</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:#0174DF;">9</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:#045FB4;">8</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:#084B8A;">9</fontspan>''']][[User talk:Jebus989|<fontspan colorstyle="color:black;"><sup>✰</sup></fontspan>]] 18:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 
== Addition by 98.253.29.254 ==
Line 16 ⟶ 17:
The term autofluorescence is also a trademark which can be written in many forms.</nowiki></blockquote>
 
I will try to locate the article referenced in the header, and see if useful information can be incorporated form this block '''[[User:Jebus989|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#000000;">Jebus989</fontspan>]][[User talk:Jebus989|<sup>✰</sup>]]''' 21:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 
== [[:File:PaperAutofluorescence.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon ==
Line 33 ⟶ 34:
 
So is it in biological structures only? [[User:Basilosauridae|<span style="background-color:black; color:#00FA9A"><sup>†</sup>Basilosauridae</span>]][[User talk:Basilosauridae|<span style="background-color:black ;color:#ADFF2F">❯❯❯Talk</span>]] 20:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 
:Autofluorescence is typically seen in biological organisms and structures that being said many synthetic materials such as certain plastics can also fluoresce under UV light the same as many biological structures. Autofluorescence then I would say is a property of many materials, but is most commonly found in biological materials. If you'd like I can attempt to find sources for synthetic materials that auto fluoresce. [[User:RameMun37|RameMun37]] ([[User talk:RameMun37|talk]]) 19:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 
== Converted summary table at end – it needs checking ==
I converted the summary table to have columns with marks in them, to replace the written name of the "organism" (former column heading). Many of the rows were listed as "All". My problem with that is that neither fungi nor bacteria were ever listed as a separate category (although the fungi were taxonomically included via "Eucariotes").

Bacteria / Archea seem such a vast category that I would expect to find an example of ''any'' biological characteristic in ''some'' of them (excepting, of course, cell nuclei). SoE.g., I wentexpect throughthat andfluorescence takingseen ain clueanimals' frommitochondria will be duplicated in at least ''some'' [[Rickettsidae]] bacteria, and that some of the singleautofluorescence "eukariotes"shown lineby plants has to come from their chloroplasts, treatedso "All"very assimilar meaningautofluorescence "allprobably eukariotes"would be found in cyanobacteria (they're packed full of similar photo-active molecules, after all).
 
Rather than tearing down the changes I made, I took a clue from the single "eukariotes" line and interpreted "All" as "all eukariotes". I'm leaving it as-is (with "All" = "Animals + Fungi + Plants", and not fretting about more obscure kinds of Eukariotes). It needs someone competent to check it. And in any case, I believe that some of the "All" lines might be wrong, based on the lines I did check:
 
I looked up Zipfel, Williams, ''et al''. (2003). It's the most broadly cited article for the lines marked "All"; briefly searching through that article I found '''''no''''' mention of [[kingdom (biology)|kingdom-level]] taxonomic categories of organisms, just names of biomolecules. So the in-place citations aren't obviously helpful for checking the legitimacy of the categories. At least, not without some other reference.
 
I checked that against ZipfelHowever, Williams, ''et al''. (2003) the most broadly cited articles in the "All" lines, and with a brief search I found '''''no''''' mention of categories of organisms, just names of biomolecules. Checkingchecking up on the Wikipedia reveals that [[riboflavin]] (vitamin&nbsp;B) article reveals that it is not produced in animal tissues,. soThat Iseems findsuspicious itto me: possibly suspectthe "All" mark might have been a mistake. However I can easilyalso imagine allthat since animals needingneed it, someeven ofif they don't produce it, and so accumulatingmaybe animals keep enough ofstored itriboflavin in their tissues to autofluoresce without having made it on their own. So rather than tearing down the changes I made, I'mjust leavingaccumulating it as-isfrom (withtheir "All" interpreted as "Animals + Fungi + Plants", and not fretting about more obscure Eukariotes)food.
 
Could a competent biologist please review the table, please?
 
Regards<br/>
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autofluorescence"