Talk:Dendritic spine

References and Developmental Causes

The references are "floating", it is difficult to see what each reference points towards - could anyone remedy this? Also, it would be nice with a description of the developmental causes of the change from one morphology to another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.51.119 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the developmental changes from morphologies; I've added that rapid morphological changes occur because of the dynamicity of the F-actin cytoskeleton in my major revamp of the article, and I'm talked about the filopedia maturation into spines...dunno if that answered your question. ^^ Cheers, RR ^[iTalk] 20:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Needs discussion of why they are important, what studies have been done (the recent works with two photon microscopy in particular). Discussion of the computational models such as Baer and Rinzel and Spike Diffuse Spike would be good. I might get around to it at some point, but someone else is welcome to go first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.184.116 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

20 spines/10 µm ?

Dendritic spines occur at a density of up to 20 spines/10 µm stretch of dendrite.

is this correct, shouldn't this be relative to a surface area instead of a dendritic stretch length? Do you have a reference specifying this number, that we could check for verification? -- 89.247.78.201 (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference: http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/reprint/3/2/383.pdf 124.30.235.62 (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Madhur Parihar,India

For what it's worth, measuring the surface area gives rise to much larger relative errors than measuring length, so even if surface area were the right thing in principle, it would be hard to work with in practice. Looie496 (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, linear density is the most useful number, but even 20/10 um is too low: in Purkinje cells density can reach 16/1 um (i.e. 160/10 um): work of K. Harris

and even in neocortical pyramidal cells a recent report : Saturated Reconstruction of a Volume of Neocortex. Kasthuri N, Hayworth KJ, Berger DR, Schalek RL, Conchello JA, Knowles-Barley S, Lee D, Vázquez-Reina A, Kaynig V, Jones TR, Roberts M, Morgan JL, Tapia JC, Seung HS, Roncal WG, Vogelstein JT, Burns R, Sussman DL, Priebe CE, Pfister H, Lichtman JW. Cell. 2015 Jul 30;162(3):648-61. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.06.054. PMID 26232230 the linear density is around 5/um Paulhummerman (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Receptor Activity

I'm not happy with the discussion of compartmentalization. While it is correct that spines help isolate plasticity signals, they do not do so completely. This may have important implications. The word "necessarily" is not ideal here. This bit may need rewriting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulhummerman (talk • contribs) 02:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Go for it if you feel like it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Typical spine size

I have not been able to find a citation for the line that says the spine size typically ranges from 0.01 µm³ to 0.8 µm³. I saw these same numbers published in the "Handbook of Neurochemistry and Molecular Neurobiology", however it seems that these statistics were taken from Wikipedia, seeing as a) they weren't cited, and b) they show up on Wikipedia before the book was published. Can anyone find an peer-reviewed reference? [1] seems to suggest a 0.02 to 0.4 µm³ range, though it isn't explicitly stated. I saw a very old paper that said .001 µm³ to 1 m³

Trombonechamp (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Table 1 in this review shows spine volumes ranging from 0.004 to 2.0 cubic microns, and that's just in mammals. Since spines are nearly ubiquitous across the animal kingdom, the true range may be larger. Looie496 (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Wording of the function section sounded awkward, and pasting the whole paragraph into google seems to indicate that comes from a nature article: Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2, 880-888 (December 2001) | doi:10.1038/35104061. Dentritic spines : structure, dynamics and regulation Fast check of history indicates that it has been recently added by a new editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.219.27.80 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing out the problem. I have reverted those edits. Looie496 (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yuste Book

The article should cite the R. Yuste book : "Dendritic Spines" , MIT Press, 2010 I am not Yuste! Paulhummerman (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)