Talk:Naive T cell

Untitled

Trying to expand the phenotypic characterization of naive T cells, in particular -- to more readily distinguish this state from the activated and memory-differentiated states. Jbarin 12:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Out of naive T cell" syndrome

I'm taking out the following:

As there are a limited number of T-cells in the body, eventually the amount can be taken up by memory cells for pathogens encountered in the past that may no longer be needed in comparison to more widely spread modern strains of pathogens.

Please find a reference for this mysterious disease, in which no naive T-cells exist because too many memory cells do; it rather sounds like CAM mumbo-jumbo to me.

RandomP (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 8 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. This move request has been open for almost 4 weeks and there is no consensus for a move. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

---

• Naive T cell → Naïve T cell
• Naive B cell → Naïve B cell
• Vaccine-naive → Vaccine-naïve

– In immunology, the word is traditionally written with the double dots (diaeresis), as in "drug-naïve". Glen Spearleat (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I would've assumed from personal experience you were right, but opon a Scholar search, Naïve T cell amasses 200k less results. Diaeresis use is rapidly disappearing. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Glen Spearleat raises a good point, but as FoCuS noted, it seems to be falling out of use. Also, I'm not sure WP:MOS requires us to use it. I don't mind moving the page but I think it might just confuse the average reader who isn't familiar with it. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Doesn't matter. No preference either way, both work so well with the other redirecting. Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• I personally use the diaeresis, but WP:TITLECHANGES does not support this proposal, and I'm not inclined to push my personal preference onto the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Searching Pubmed here finds the same papers with or without diaresis. The five most recent are all with, though number five has a few instances without, perhaps because it is in a rapid publication journal. PMID 26284078 PMID 26264693 PMID 26260210 PMID 26252014 PMID 26226423 LeadSongDog come howl! 04:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Prefer diaresis in the articles, with redirects from plain-text, due to both the prevalence abovementioned, and the simple fact that a naïve reader seeing "naive" would mispronounce it as "nave". Hilarity ensues. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Not for it as they are not commonly used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• not used (per last two comments)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not even close to being the most common name in reliable sources. See ngram results: T cell, B cell. And yes, ngrams do pick up the diaeresis, but in these cases the results were so minimal so as not to register. Jenks24 (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.