Talk:Satellite glial cell

Comments

My teacher said satellite cells are non-glial. Dan 17:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is another type of satellite cell--Drewlew (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Students project

Starting today, myself and two colleagues will begin to edit this page to make the stub more complete. If any deletions could be held off for today, it would be much appreciated, as we will need the time to complete the article and all of its required formatting. Thanks! LaurenMalishchak (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I would quickly like to note the first link under the "External link" heading was deleted because it was dead. LaurenMalishchak (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We are now done our first "draft" of our article and would love any suggestions from the Wikipedia community in order to make our article up to the best standards possible. LaurenMalishchak (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2011 (

You can't use the satellite cell image currently on the page until you have permission. I am removing it until such time. NeuroJoe (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review/Comments

I thought you did a really great job on your page. It was very informative, well-organized, and the topics were clearly explained. I only have a few comments/suggestions for you all. The section on anatomy was extremely long and a little difficult to read through just because of the length. I would maybe consider breaking it up into subsections based on different topics and aspects of anatomy since you discuss a wide range of topics from organelles found in satellite glial cells to receptors to different types. Otherwise I thought everything else was great. I was going to say I wish there was a picture, but I'm assuming you are having trouble finding one that you have permission to use. Katie44gb (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions- we broke up the anatomy section into subsections to make it more easily readable. You're right that we're having trouble getting permission to use an image-- we e-mailed a professor at OU a few weeks ago, at the beginning of the whole process, but he has to talk to his legal team before he grants us full permission to use it, so I'm not sure if we'll have an image of a satellite glial cell to use before the completion of the project.LaurenMalishchak (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that your article has been well-researched! I do agree with Katie, however, in that you could improve your anatomy section by adding subdivisions like “organelles,” “similarities to astrocytes,” etc. That section had a great deal of information in it with a lot of scientific terms, and I feel as though it might be more reader-friendly if you could be more concise and use more general terms. This would also apply to the chronic pain section. Also, a picture would also enhance your article, even if it is only of a basic satellite cell. Overall, however, your article is very informative and detailed-maybe too detailed for wikipedia? Your sections on future research and pharmacological properties were very well put together. LWestover (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the suggestions! We divided up the anatomy section. We have tried to get permission for use of an image of a satellite cell by e-mailing a professor at OU a few weeks ago, but he has to talk to his legal team about releasing full permission to us, so we might not be able to get an exact image of the cells before the end of the project. We have added other images, however.LaurenMalishchak (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Great job so far on this article! You cover lots of different aspects of satellite cells, providing a comprehensive overview of the concept for the reader. I will echo Katie and Lauren’s comments above: the “Anatomy” and “Chronic Pain” sections could be unmanageable for the average reader. But if there simply isn’t a ton research out there, I think including more detail about what IS known about satellite cells is a good idea. One suggestion might to be to include more in the very first section, where you broadly describe the location and function of satellite cells. Think of it like an abstract for a scientific journal article: the reader should get the gist of the whole article from that one section, and then you can go into more detail in the body (if they time or need more information for whatever reason). If you decide to break up the “Anatomy” and “Chronic Pain” sections into smaller subsections, I would also consider going from more broad aspects of anatomy, to more specific, so the reader can understand and learn from all the great information you provide. In terms of readability, I would recommend reading the article out loud to yourself. It may sound strange, but you may get a better sense of when you are too wordy, or need transitions between ideas, when you actually say it! Good luck and thanks for sharing! KelleyAmbrose (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! We lengthened the introduction to include a general summary of each of the other sections so that readers know what to expect. We combined the location section with the Anatomy section, since location was only one line. We also broke up both the Anatomy and Chronic pain sections so that they are more manageable. Additionally, we changed the order of the paragraphs under the anatomy section so that all of the location information, which is more broad, is at the beginning, while differences from other cells was moved to the bottom.LaurenMalishchak (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Awesome job, I really don't have much to critique! I though you did an excellent job linking terms to other pages and you used very clearly constructed sentences to provide easy to understand explanations of complicated topics. The anatomy section is impressively detailed. You do a good job providing examples for things you are talking about. I thought the idea of making a numbered list for Neuroactive Chemicals was good, but maybe in your captions next to the links you could explain what sort of effects those chemicals have on the cells. When something was lacking evidence you did a good job explaining what research needs to be done to find an explanation. Good work! mccartqd (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! We were actually told that the list, which we really liked, should be turned into a paragraph, so we unfortunately had to change that, but we did add more information about the chemicals. We're hoping to have a chart from one of our sources eventually added to the article, but, like the use of many images, it must first be approved, or we must find another way to use it. I think we might have figured out a better way to use the information from one of the charts, and as such, it should be appearing soon. LaurenMalishchak (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks really great guys! I apologize if I repeat what's been stated already in the above comments, but it looks really well-researched and documented. If citations are required in the introduction though, you may want to add one or two in. Otherwise, maybe just break up your larger sections, like Anatomy, into one or two more subdivisions to limit the blocking of text. I would also recommend a diagram or two, but I know that comes with gaining permission so you've got plenty of time. Good work. Geerr23 (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! We added length to the introduction and properly cited all of the information there. We added some images to the body of text, but unfortunately have still not been able to gain permission to use an image of a satellite glial cell even though we have emailed a professor at OU. He has to talk to his legal team before he can make the formal Wikipedia release, so it make take more time than we have left in the semester to get the image up there. Finally, we managed to divide up the Anatomy section to make it more readable!LaurenMalishchak (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall, a fantastic article I’m taking a class on glial cells now and I did not know anything about the SGC’s. I only have a couple comments. You describe SGC’s as expressing GFAP and saying their “main identifier” is glutamine synthetase. Both GFAP and glutamine synthetase are found in astrocytes in the CNS yet you say that enzyme is not. I may be mistaken but I believe astrocytes have the ability for uptake of glutamine through EAAT1-2, and can convert that glutamate to glutamine via the glutamine synthetase creating glutamine that is “inert” and can be sent back to the neuron where glutamate can be processed from glutamine. Astrocytes make up part of a tripartite synapse in the CNS…can the same be said for the similar SGC’s in the PNS? Because you talk about how SGC’s “enwrap” sensory neurons. You also say that the P2X7 receptor is selectively expressed by SGC’s but microglia also possess that and in fact during neuronal injury there is an increase in extracellular ATP that binds to the P2X7 receptor on microglia that activates them – seems to act as a sensor of neuronal damage. Thus, I would look into that more. Overall, I thought this was really good. There were a couple of things I found but I am not positive I am correct in my assessment just something to maybe double check. I learned a lot about SGC’s and am surprised if they have so many diverse functions, and are astrocytic like cells in the PNS that they do not get more attention. Rampreddy (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

After looking back at the article, I saw that the confusion around the role/location of the P2X7 receptor was due to poor wording. These receptors are expressed on glial cells, including microglia and SGCs, just NOT on the sensory neurons, in contrast to the other types of P2X receptors. Other corrections regarding the confusion about the presence of GFAP as a marker should be made shortly. Thanks for pointing these issues out! LaurenMalishchak (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I resolved the issue regarding the expression of glutamine synthetase in astrocytes. It is indeed expressed in these glial cells as well as in SGCs, but it is used as the best marker to identify the SGCs. Also, I broke up the anatomy section into more manageable reading sections based on the information presented in the section. The first section is just all the general knowledge about the anatomy of the SGCs that are similar to the anatomy of other glial cells. Then we discuss the specific anatomy of cells in specific types of ganglia. The final section talks about the distinctions between SGCs and other glial cells. In this way, we tried to make the section organized from broad to more specific information. Furthermore, because we rearranged the anatomy section in this way, we do not feel that it is necessary to make a table outlining the anatomy information. We think it would just be very redundant, especially since the section is more easy to read now.Gdusing12315 (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall this is a great article with fantastic research. I think the introduction is perfect in introducing satellite glial cells and briefly describing their characteristics but not going into too much detail. I learned a lot that I previously did not know, for example the roles in health issues. I think this section is interesting and well constructed. I do think a few slight changes could help strengthen your article. Simple things like tables and pictures would really add an easier read and understanding. The depth of your research and explanation (specifically the anatomy) would be more easily understood with corresponding figures and tables, which put more focus on the most important information. To that effect I also think a slight restructuring of the anatomy section into several subsections would also help in breaking up the information and emphasizing the most important facts. But again I think the article is very effective and well researched. I learned a lot and look forward to seeing the final article. Manninpk (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

We were able to find some good images that relate well to the information presented in the article. Furthermore, we broke up the anatomy section into smaller subsections so that it's easier to read. We also arranged it so that it goes from most broad to least broad information regarding the anatomical features of SGCs in different areas of the PNS. For this reason, we decided that it would be unnecessary to add tables outlining the anatomy. It would be repetitive, especially since the section is more manageable now with subsections.Gdusing12315 (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys. Very good article with a lot of interesting material, y'all definitely did your research. For the introduction, it seems a bit strange that the sentence regarding Schwann cells is just out on its own. It should probably be in that paragraph or there should be more info there. As well, the last sentence in the first paragraph seems like a bit of an afterthought. As well, the anatomy section seems far too long. I think you should split it up a little bit with different sections of the anatomy. I would also put the Physiological Role section before the Anatomy section. The Location section seems far too short to me. I would add a couple more sentences regarding the actual location of the peripheral nervous system. Just because you say they're located in the ganglia doesn't help someone who has no idea where these different types of ganglia are in the body. For the Roles in health issues section, take out the first sentence. It's pretty self-explanatory that herpes simplex and chronic pain are health-related problems. Other than that I was very impressed with the research and learned plenty. Thanks guys! Swjohnson8 (talk) 4:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved the Schwann cell sentence so that it is part of the previous lines. The anatomy section will soon be split up as per your and others' suggestions. After checking on other similar pages, the convention seems be that the physiology section follows the anatomy section, so this will remain as is. We are also hoping to briefly describe what a ganglion is, though we recognize it is not our job to fully explain them, as they are not the main concerns of this article, and we have already linked to the articles of each type of ganglion. I removed the first sentence under Roles in health issues, as I think you're right- it's not really needed. Thanks for the suggestions!LaurenMalishchak (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I could not read the article completely, but after a quick look some comments:

*You have found a great amount of bibliography. Also most used articles are reviews which is great. Congrats.

• All has a dark side: Probably due to the quantity the quality of some of the sources is not that great: The article would probably improve if some of the oldest sources are substituted with newer ones (I see sources only used once from 1955, 1970...). Similarly I am not too sure about the reliability of obscure journals such as "Z Zellforsch Mikrosk Anat."

We have replaced many of the oldest articles with more updated sources, however some are anatomical observations that have not changed over the years so we decided to keep them. In reference to the obscure journal you mentioned, we cited the author a couple other times throughout the article and has published in reputable journals therefore we decided to keep the citation. Burgart (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• On format: I do not think that that the section called Neuroactive chemicals affecting SGCs is really needed since it is short, the only subsection of the section and mainaly a list. On the other hand the anatomy section is really long and quite dense; could it be broken into sections?
• The last section should be renamed to research directions, which is the conventional title for such section in wikipedia.

Done, thanks!LaurenMalishchak (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

*Some images would greatly improve the article: an example would be an image of a dorsal root ganglion for the location section.

We have included several more images of the location of SGCs, Thanks for the suggestion Burgart (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• I miss a development section: only a line is commented in the lead

I am not sure what you mean by this. Do you think we should include information on the when these cells are initially expressed in infants? Burgart (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope it helps, I have to say that basic anatomy is not my field so I can not be of much help.--Garrondo (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Notes

The section labeled External links was removed because in our peer review we were advised that we were not supposed to have a like to just a picture. They were also included in the article when it had "stub" status and thus we deemed them unnecessary after we edited the article.Burgart (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

End of Boston College BI481 Project

Hi guys, nice job with the article. Just a few issues:

• In the anatomy section, you refer to erythropoietin as a neurotransmitter. It can control neurotransmitter release but in itself it's not a neurotransmitter.
• In the Function section: "An established mode of controlling the microenvironment in sensory ganglia is the uptake of substances by transporters, which carry neurotransmitters into cells when coupled with Na+ and Cl−". This makes it sound like most or all neuronal or glial transporters are responsible for transporting neurotransmitters, which isn't correct. Only a small proportion of all cellular transporters will move neurotransmitters. They don't all require coupling with Na and Cl either.

NeuroJoe (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Satellite glial cell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AIRcorn (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to review this article. Judging from the talk page Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Biology and Medicine noms deriving from university assignment and recent contributions the nominator might not be active. If someoone is willing to address or at least respond to any concerns that I raise I will do an in depth review. If not I will review it as either a quick pass as it currently is or fail it. Will leave a note at WP:MEDS, nominators talk page and the articles talk page. It looks in pretty good knick so hopefully someone can adopt it if necessary. AIRcorn (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be willing to come back to the article in order to make the article a Good Article. I haven't been on Wikipedia, just as you seem to have guessed, because the assignment is over and it is now summer vacation. That being said, I would still like to get it up to the Good article status. LaurenMalishchak (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. I will give it a thorough review. First impressions tell me it looks good. AIRcorn (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Initial Comments

Nice article. It does a good job of explaining SGCs. It's unfortunate that no picture was available as it would have greatly enhanced the article. My major concern with an article like this is to make it accessible to the general reader. Sometimes that is not possible, but the use of wikilinks does make it easier. My suggestion would be to wikilink any technical term that you can. If something can't be wikilinked a short non-technical explanation in brackets might suffice. An example would be "...cells in sensory ganglia are laminar cells (flattened cells) that most...". Some might benefit from an extra sentence, especially if they are important to understanding the subject e.g., perineuronal processes. If possible it might even be useful to use less technical terms that have the same meaning. Instead of "cellular environment" maybe just use "within the cell".

Not a good example. AIRcorn (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as wikilinking goes my preference is to wikilink everything once in the lead, everything once in the body, everything once in pictures, and everything once in each table. That is because this roughly corresponds with what people read, i.e. some will just skim the lead, others will skip the lead and start straight onto the body, while others will just look at the tables/pictures. There is no hard and fast rule on this however and as far as the good article criteria goes it is not required, but I think it might help the reader. As a whole most of the terms are well wikilinked, but there are a few words where I think it they could be added.

Also avoid the use of potentially ambiguous times, i.e currently, now, yet, future etc. This is because the article will hopefully survive for a long time and, especially with these types of articles, the research could move so fast that something that is not "yet" available might be in a year or two. Where posible use "as of 2011" or something similar so it will still be accurate in 2020. Also if you wish to continue contributing there is an easy way to add journal references. Simply add <ref>{{cite doi|?????????}}</ref> (????? is the doi of the journal article). A bot should then fill in the rest. Not all work and not all journals have them, but on the whole it saves a lot of time. There is something similar with the pmid.

I have made some general comments next to each of the criteria, and have gone into more detail on individual sentences under comments. I tend to treat all my points as negotiable, although some will be less than others, so if you disagree or are unable to comply with any just leave a comment under it and we can discuss it further. Also if any of my comments are not quite clear let me know. I knew nothing about glial cells before starting this, so a lot of my comments are ways in which I think they could have been explained better. The major concern in terms of the GA is the lead. It needs to be expanded to provide a better overview of the topic.

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead needs expanding. Some minor prose issues under comments.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Good references

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused): }

   Good

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Lead

• The lead should basically summarise everything in the article as well as being able to stand alone. For an article this size it should be at least two to three paragraphs. My general rule of thumb is to at least mention each section in the lead. Also nothing should be in the lead that is not in the body of the article. There are exceptions to this and if some important information will not fit elsewhere it is usually okay to have it solely in the lead. Since it summarises everything that is in the body you usually don't need to reference the information (exceptions are quotes and anything that is likely to be challenged)
• I would add a few more sentances about the anatomy. It would be good to have a description of them in the lead. The roles in health should also be expanded on a little too. A paragraph on each (anatomy, function, health) with a sentence on research at the end would be perfect. If you can only get two paragraphs out of it that would be fine too.
• The last sentence is a little problematic. There is much more to be learned about these cells, and research surrounding additional properties and roles of the SGCs is ongoing. It is a bit essayish. Maybe it can be reworded?

Anatomy

• Each side of the cell body extends outward, forming perineuronal processes. As there is no wikilink to perineuronal processes could a simple sentence be used to describe what they are?
• Despite their flattened shape..... The flattened shape is not really mentioned before this. Maybe more could be said in first paragraph as to their form. Also would it be possible to split this paragraph to make it match the others in the section better? Or I guess you could combine the two small ones.
• The plasma membrane of SGCs is thin and not very dense, and it is associated with adhesion molecules, receptors for neurotransmitters and other molecules, and ion channels, specifically potassium ion channels. Would consider rewording this slightly so that "receptors for neurotransmitters and other molecules" is mentioned last and possibly put "specifically potassium ion channels" in brackets. This could make it clearer what is being referred to.
• The cilium, however, only has the nine pairs of peripheral microtubules while it lacks the axial pair of microtubules, making its structure very similar to the cilia of neurons, Schwann cells, and astrocytes of the CNS. It is not obvious why this is important. Wikilink Schwann cells and astrocytes. Would spell out and link CNS this first time.
• Satellite glial cells in sensory ganglia are laminar cells that most often lack any true processes extending from the cell body. That most often? Would it be better to simply say "often"? What are laminar cells? Are they just flattened cells?
• This indicates that the SGCs play a role in the synaptic environment, thereby influencing synaptic transmission. Does this have a reference?
• Many people liken SGCs to the astrocytes of the CNS because they share certain anatomical and physiological properties, such as the presence of neurotransmitter transporters and the expression of glutamine synthetase. Many people is ambiguous. Can it be made clearer who these people are.
• SGCs most often surround individual sensory and parasympathetic neurons with a complete, unbroken sheath while most neurons of sympathetic ganglia lack a completely continuous SGC sheath Not sure how this or the next dentences relate to differences between astrocytes and SCGs? It may not be the intention, but as the paragraph starts by comparing them to astrocytes I was expecting this to relate to them.
• Although SGCs express glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP)[20]and different S-100 proteins,[21] the most useful marker available today for SGC identification is glutamine synthetase (GS) Edits here are not obviously dated unless you look up the history, so saying today, currently, now etc is usually avoided. It is better to say something like "as of ..."

Function

• Additionally, SGCs contain the glutamate related enzymes glutamate dehydrogenase and pyruvate carboxylase, and thus can supply the neurons not only with glutamine, but also with malate and lactate. Lactate leads to a disambiguation page.
• Unlike their adjacent neurons, SGCs do not have synapses but are equipped with receptors for a variety of neuroactive substances that are analogous to those found in neurons Earlier it is said that SGCs in the sympathetic gangelia receive synapses. So I assume this means that they just do not send synapses?
• The research is ongoing and SGCs role in injury repair mechanisms is not yet fully understood. Needs a ref and should be dated (similar argument to using today). Same goes for the current in the previous sentence
• Would consider wikilinking each term the first time (even if it is linked previously) and maybe even spelling out IHC, TG, DRG etc. I would not spell out the proteins though. If it will make the table look messy they can be kept as acronyms.

Roles in health issues

• SCGs have specifically been implicated in a new role involving the creation and persistence of chronic pain, which may involve hyperalgesia and other forms of spontaneous pain. I think this can be said a bit more simply. I had to re-read it a few times before I understood what was meant. Are specifically and role needed? IThey appear redundant. Same with new? It won't be new in a few years. "SCGs have been implicated in the creation and persistence of chronic pain,..." If correct is much simpler and goes straight to the point.
• Neurotrophins and tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) are other cellular factors that work to sensitize neurons to pain Are these released by SCGs too? If so might pay to say that. If not I am not sure why they are mentioned.
• Additionally, several research groups have found that SGC coupling increases after nerve damage, which has an effect on the perception of pain, likely for several reasons. As far as I can tell only one reason is presented. Might be better to not say for several reasons?
• Normally, the gap junctions between SGCs are used in order to redistribute potassium ions between adjacent cells. Is in order redundant?
• However, in coupling of SGCs, the number of gap junctions greatly increases. Doesn't read right. In coupled SGCs? When SGCs couple?
• The increased levels of glutamate lead to over excitation and an increase in nociception. What do you mean by over excitation? An increase in activity?? What is getting over excited?
• The receptor has been implicated in the release of interleukin IL-1β from macrophages or microglia and astrocytes. This could have two meanings depending on how the or is interpreted. 1) They are released from either macrophages or microglia as well as astrocytes. 2) They are released from just the macrophages or both the microglia and astrocytes. Might need rewording to make clear which is meant.
• ...making it a non-ideal target when using pharmacological strategy Probably a bit too complicated and ambiguous way of saying "making it not an ideal pharmaceutical drug target". Could add "or for other pharmacological strategies" on the end if there is more to it than drugs.
• SGCs also express a specific type of channel, the Kir4.1 channel, which works to maintain the desired low extracellular K+ concentration in order to control hyperexcitability, which is known to cause migraines I assume you mean ion channel? Could this sentence be spilt into two to make it more readable? Also instead of K+ could the first use include potassium ion. Wikilink and potassium ion if they are correct.

Research directions

• In the future, researchers plan to give more time and attention to the SGCs, which have many supportive and protective functions essential for life. Future won't be the future in a couple of years.
• Finally, the possibility of an influence of SGCs on synaptic transmission within autonomic ganglia provides another direction for future research. Ditto

Possible wikilinks that have not been mentioned

• purinoceptors, Microglia, antagonist, organelles, extracellular space, neurotransmitter transporters, Neurotransmitter receptor
• The ones linked in the lead could be relinked in the body (it is a long way time before we get to herpes simplex
• Wikitionary cross-space links: homomultimer heteromultimer

Thanks for the review, Aircorn- I will get working on these changes ASAP. Just wanted to let you know that at the current moment, I am studying for an entrance exam and will be unable to make the changes for about 2 weeks. After that, I will attempt to fix everything possible! 70.22.62.165 (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Will give it a couple more days, otherwise I will have to fail it. The lead probably requires the most work, the rest is reasonably minor. AIRcorn (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Failing due to no edits since review started. AIRcorn (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Satellite glial cells have AXONS?!?

This sentence, near the end of Structure section, referenced by ref. 10, seems to say that SGC have axons: "These filaments are found in greater concentrations at the axon hillock and at the beginning portion of an axon in an SGC of the sympathetic ganglia." Perhaps it could be rewritten? Maybe, "These filaments are found in greater concentrations in SGC of sympathetic ganglia which are surrounding neurons at their axon hillock and at the beginning portion of a neuron's axon." Or, better, "In sympathetic ganglia, these filaments are found in greater concentrations in SGC which are surrounding neurons at the neuron's axon hillock and at the beginning portion of the neuron's axon."UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)