Talk:Adult neurogenesis

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.

---

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).

So go ahead and be bold! and fix it--Amaher (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a source (number 6), it is about neural stem cells. It relates to adult development. Do you agree?Aileenacosta1 (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Reassessment

Per the problems described above, I have lowered the quality assessment for this article to "Start" class. It needs a lot of work to deal with the topic appropriately. Looie496 (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is 2011, and the article does not appear to be B-Class, but rather closer to C. No lead section that summarizes the topic, violation of MOS best practices, with section headers duplicating the title, and a history section buried in the second paragraph. Sources are used haphazardly with some possibly misused. I'm lowering the assessment level. Viriditas (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

OK to add notable scientists in the field?

Would it be reasonable to add links to notable scientists in this field, or is that outside the scope of this article? I would like to make Brian_Christie_(neuroscientist) and other such scientists connect to articles in the fields they work in, but I'm unsure as to whether or not this article would be a good place for a link. -moritheil^Talk 09:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I really think we should avoid this -- those sorts of lists always degenerate over time. If he has done some particularly notable work in the field, the article can mention him by name and link to him that way. (It's my intention to remove all those crufty lists of people and labs from neuroscience articles if I can muster the support to make it stand.) Looie496 (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. What do you mean by "degnerate over time?" -moritheil^Talk 02:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

They steadily accumulate names, and it's almost impossible to tell which names actually belong. Looie496 (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's OK. But I am not sure if cannabis should be mentioned here in neurogenesis. There are clearly some positive effects of some cannabis constituents in certain conditions, for example cannabidiol (CBD) in schizophrenia, but I don't think it is not correct to claim that cannabis use per se contributes to neurogenesis in healthy human brains. I needed to add this human study because we know for quite awhile now that hippocampus volumes are clearly reduced in chronic cannabis exposure. Again, that does not mean that some cannabinoids might be useful in certain conditions. Also, if citing an article, please use correct protocols, just inserting a link is not the way to do it. I will observe this page for awhile, and I am tempted to delete the cannabis section in neurogenesis altogether. ML — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osterluzei (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Theres a local woman whom I'm familiar with who has consumed on and off from approximately 7 years of age, the only thing I can tell you is that in the first 5 years of her life, this person had above average mathematical skills, after the death of her father she started exhibiting violent tendencies and emotions towards men, the death of her husband about two years after their marriage led to further cannabis use, with the occasional cocaine consumption, this person was not psychologically nor physically stable during any time of her life. The cannabis made her obese, then later resulted in her being psychotic and homicidal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.158.151 (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Role in behavioral sensitization

This entire section needs to be reworked. The statements made in this section are not only farfetched, but also unfounded. The sources are cited in inappropriate contexts. Not one of those studies looks at neurogenesis in the VTA. They mention synaptic plasticity, neuroprotection, and growth factor expression, however, none make such claims that amphetamines increase neurogenesis in the VTA. While there definitely could be involvement of neurogenesis in behavioral sensitization, until a working explanation is put together with both reliable and pertinent sources, I propose the section is removed from the article.Serotonick (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Serotonick (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Us! Our guys! Our school done it! We're so proud!

I was struck by a statement in an article at phys.org, "Adult brains produce new cells in previously undiscovered area" [1], saying:

"Professor Bartlett's discovery overturned the belief at the time that the adult brain was fixed and unable to change, ... "

Checking the linked page at the The University of Queensland, Queensland Brain Institute, "Adult neurogenesis" [2] contains the statement:

"Integral to this realisation was the discovery in 1992 by Professors Perry Bartlett and Linda Richards that the adult mouse brain contains neural stem cells."

And that page links to a paper "De novo generation of neuronal cells from the adult mouse brain" [3] that was supposedly the revolutionary paper.

Strangely, none of these people or articles are referenced here. Is this yet another example of colleagues promoting work by colleagues, and institutions making broad claims of the 'shocking' 'stunning' importance of the work by their researchers? PR excesses in the sciences? Who'da thunk it! Shenme (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Human hippocampal neurogenesis drops sharply in children to undetectable levels in adults

Contrary to what the article says this Nature article contradicts it: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25975.epdf   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)