Talk:Alveolar macrophage

Typo

Problem with "inorganic materials such as carbon".

Was this a typo?

AkashAD (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I presume it's talking about /elemental/ carbon (soot), which is not an organic material any more than diamond or graphite. http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch10/carbon.php#inorg . 79.123.73.245 (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Classification

While this article is quite long (probably too long), it is very difficult to read and need significant improvement, so I classed it as a stub for now. Schu1321 (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent Additions

I'm not sure how others feel about the large text submission to this article, but I think it was almost easier to read when it was the shorter version. I'm not opposed to adding in some of the information from the paper, but perhaps restoring it to the previous version and selectively adding information might be a better route to go? Comments? Schu1321 (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

it's not cited that dust cells migrate back up to be swallowed after phagocytizing particles. also, read somewhere that on average we swallow about ten thousand a day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.235.17 (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Title renaming

I think it would be closer to actual usage to have "alveolar macrophage" as the primary name and not "dust cell". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.69.225.13 (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Title renaming

I fully agree.

Kr daneg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.133.50 (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Releasing the Brakes on Alveolar Macrophages

Reference 17 has been withdrawn by the authors (link here). The reason given is that some of the figures have been duplicated. Not sure what the policy is on citing withdrawn publications. Reference 6 is a commentary piece on reference 17, and so is of questionable value.

I don't doubt the principle that alveolar macrophages are maintained in an inactivated state by TGFbeta, but I think the references should be better.

Nifjohnston (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)