Talk:White blood cell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
vvv
IMO, the contents of Immune cell should be here, and that page should be a redirect.
'Immune' implies the response is specific to something you've experienced before. (e.g. The HepB vaccine will make you immune to hepatitis B)
Neutrophils/Macrophages aren't really thought of as being 'immune cells'.
Contents |
[edit] Leucocytes
I am sure that it spell leuCocytes--that's how we spell it for As-level Biology. Our text bood "Biology1" endorsed by OCR and our revision guide "Lett's Revise" both spell it LeuCocytes.
Are you sure that LeuKocyte is a variety spelling instead of spelling mistake? Cherubfish 19:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Leukocyte 5.6 million Google hits, leucocyte 1.23 million hits. JFW | T@lk 22:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
hm...then that's probably a US UK variation. The proper UK spelling is leucocytes anyway. I'll add that in. Cherubfish 17:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] where is the name come from?
How come white blood cell is called as it is?
Leukocyte is the medical term for white blood cells. Leuko- means "white" and -cyte means "cell". These "white cells" are found in the blood. Hence, "white blood cells". Rdbrd82 20:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Because it's not red. Seriously, it is because the Buffy coat after centrifugation of blood looks white, while the hematocrit looks red. The leukocytes (literally: white cells) hang out in the Buffy coat. JFW | T@lk 13:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
No it's not a UK-US variation, the UK term is also leukocyte..
[edit] 50 000 cells per drop of blood
This would be clearer if it was replaced by the amount per liter, or the first amount per liter be converted to amount per drop. a thing 01:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
A drop is about 1/15mL. So 50 000 cells per drop is 7.5×105 per mL, or 7.5×108 cells in a litre. But the article says "There are normally between 4×109 and 1.1×1010 white blood cells in a litre of healthy adult blood." It seems that 50 000 in a drop is a big decrease, not an increase? Something is wrong here. Cafewalter 07:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] PICTURES FOR WBCs
- Yes, would be nice. But I don't have a photomicroscope and a set of blood smears. If you can find any PD images we'd be grateful. JFW | T@lk 21:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
New pictures for the leukocytes at the top of the page is imperative. The eosinophil (as stated below as well) does not have the characteristic orange coloring that one would see under a microscope. Also, the basophil is a much more splendid cell to behold under a microscope as it has large granules and a beautiful magenta-blue coloring. One of the ways I can tell the difference between lyphocytes and monocytes is that monocytes commonly contain vacuoles. The picture has none of these. I'm unsure of the rules for adding photos into an article. Does anyone know? Rdbrd82 19:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Move to "leukocyte"?
Every1blowz (talk • contribs) just moved the article from "white blood cell" over to "leukocyte"; I undid the move since it was done using cut-and-paste and thus destroyed the article's history; it also created numerous double-redirectes. Every1blowz writes on Talk:leukocyte:
- My rationale for moving the article is based on the fact that the word leukocyte is both the original, and the “scientific” name of white blood cells. Most, if not all scientific and medical organizations formally recognize and prefer the word leukocyte, not white blood cell, although both are used in the media. Further, the word “white blood cell” is a layman term, per se, and is inappropriate for an encyclopedia which should aim for accuracy and consistency. You wouldn’t call a lymphocyte a “lymphatic cell”, would you? --Every1blowz 07:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
If people agree with this reasoning, then we should initiate a proper move. AxelBoldt 19:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I agree here. The term "white blood cell" is in very common use, even amongst experts (some haematologists regard themselves as "white" haematologists because they deal with white blood cell disorders). The terms are synonymous. JFW | T@lk 00:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hi. Thanks for catching my bad move AxelBoldt, I wasn’t aware there is another method. You learn something new everyday I guess.
-
- As for the whether the article should be on leukocyte or white blood cell, for now it should stay here I suppose as there is some disagreement. But my main hope is to get people to start using the more formal name (which is leukocyte, I think), if not throughout Wikipedia than at least for the individual article itself.
-
- JFW, you’re right, the terms are synonymous, but I’m going to play the Devil’s advocate for a second and mention that many Wikipedia articles use the more formal term when possible. For instance, baby redirects to infant, venipuncture instead of blood draw, automobile instead of car, etc. I just think Wikipedia should be as consistent as possible.
-
- For the meantime we should wait for a few more people to voice their opinions and than decide whether to move from there. Again, I apologize for my move last time, it was a bit premature and incorrect. Regards, --Every1blowz 01:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I have previously argued that scientific precise terms are to be favoured over imprecise lay ones. I personally moved [[heart attack]] to myocardial infarction, because not every "heart attack" mentioned in the public discourse refers to myocardial infarction. In contrast, when the terms are equally precise, I'm open to persuation whether the scientific term should be used. I gave the example that while few doctors would use the term "heart attack" in professional meetings, the term "while blood cell" is in common use in clinical settings. Perhaps a Googlefight is necessary to guide us in this discussion. JFW | T@lk 00:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eosinophils
The photograph of the eosinophil does not look like an eosinophil. It should have eosinophilic (orange) granules when stained with H&E. Or it should have an explanation saying what stain has been used. Does anyone have a better photograph? Snowman 10:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed random fact
"A leukemia patient may have as many as 50000 white blood cells." When adding this type of information to an article, a reference needs to be included.--DO11.10 23:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How to help white blood cells?
Can someone find out, and write up what to eat to help your white blood cells?
Example; Milk --> bones(calcium), beans --> muscles(protein).
What helps your white blood cells?
Human physiology really does not work in this facile, reductionist manner. Yahoo questions or a physiology class might be more useful.Lesotho 14:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] would there be any medications that could cause the decrease in WBC ?
Recently a elderly woman at the age of 65yrs, was diagnosed with pneumonia. When her CBC`s came back the WBC - 4, then after afew days of receiving antibiotics by I.V. her WBC- 7, then after 2 days her WBC- 0. Dr.`s were very alarmed at the decrease. After the DR. talked to a specialist in the city, it was decided that the patient will be taken off her meds. Now at this point i don`t remember what all her medications are. The Dr.`s are saying there is a possiblity of a certain med. that might be the destroyer of the WBC`s. So my question is there a few or a lot of medicines out there that will destroy the production of WBCs ? and if so how many? What and how do they destroy the WBC`s?
LorraineR
When treating pneumonia a kind of cortisone is sometimes prescribed in order to decrease the inflammation of the lungs. Cortisone will, by hormonal action, decrease the amount of leucocytes formed. This could explain the sudden drop in WBC. TokeS
The phrase "...produced at the rate of 1,000 million per day..." at the beginning of the article is scientifically awkward. I propose changing it to "...produced at the rate of 1 billion per day..."Lesotho 19:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)-1