Talk:Organelle

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Perdue104.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Old comments

Which organelles are not bounded by membranes.

None? --G3pro 12:38, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you call the cytoskeletton an organelle, it is not membrane-bound. Neither Ribosomes are bound by membranes nor is the centrioles. --Eribro 17:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I created a disambiguation for vesicle and have been going back and changing the links in all the biology articles to link to vesicle (biology). If you would modify (or enable me to modify) the link in this article to vesicle to point instead to vesicle (biology), I would appreciate it. Jared81 -- (I moved this comment from elsewhere to the correct place for him, since this page is protected. Lachatdelarue (talk) 22:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Done. Since the page is protected due to vandalism rather than an edit war, it's fine for admins to make minor fixes. -- Hadal 04:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Organelle template has been updated to reflect the movement of the Vesicle article to Vesicle (biology). Pages that use this template have had their links updated fine. however, the "what links here" page for Vesicle still lists all the pages that use the organelle template as linking to vesicle. Editing the entry, making no changes and saving it, is all you have to do to update the list of "what links here" for the vesicle article. So if you would, please edit this page and immediately save it and mark it as a minor edit. Thanks. Jared81 08:17, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys. This page didn't help me understand what 'organelles' are. Can someone add a clear, defining intro sentence? Much appreciated. martin

"An organelle is is to the cell what an organ is to the body (hence the name ORGANelle)." I Hope it made things clearer. --Eribro 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Vesicle/Vacuole

I thought only plant cells had vakoules, the picture shows one and it's supposed to be a picture of an animal cell. Does animal cells have vakuoles? --Eribro 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Animal cells do not have vacuoles, the vacuolar equivalent are the lysosomes. See this chapter of the textbook "Molecular Biology of the Cell" (also cited as a reference for the article).--Biologos 13:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A vacuole is the equivelent of an air bubble. Plant cells usually have 1 or 2 large ones, but animal cells can have several but they are much smaller. Bartimaeus 13:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ribosomes are organelles?

This definition of Organelle is strongly misleading or the list of organelles is incomplete. I understand the reasoning behind the idea of including also some non membrane-enclosed organelles such as centrioles. But to entitle ribosomes as organelles reaches out to far. First of all, their number (100000 to 10000000 per cell) is a major difference. Secondly, what about proteasomes? Degradosomes? Chaperones? Members of each family are comparable in size and importance, yet they are not considered as organelles.

Defining 'organelle' seems surprisingly difficult - literature is not united on that. But to include protein complexes, just because they are large and have a certain function, doesn't make the definition of 'organelle' useful at all. --141.61.1.25 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Stefan

I Agree Ribosomes are not organelles. Organelles must be membrane bounded. While some people stretch the definition to include the cytoskeleton, even this isn't appropriate. I am a professor at a medical school, and find that this entry is misleading students... Sludtke42 20:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say only membrane containing structures can be called organelles, and all nucleic acid and protein structures shouldn't be called organelles. The number of these structures should not be counted, as some nucleic acid and protein structures are degraded, so at some point their numbers can drop to 1, 2, ..., 10, but at other times can be in 1000s or 100000s (e.g. cyclins), or some structures like telomerase, DNA polymerase are available in very low numbers as compared to ribosome. So, I'd say that nucleolus, centrosome/microtubule organizing center/centriole and ribosome should not be called organelles. Then the definition of organelle: "organelle (pronunciation: /ɔː(r)gəˡnɛl/) is a specialized subunit within a cell that has a specific function, and is separately enclosed within its own lipid membrane" would be strict.Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have agreed with that before I found out about carboxysomes, but now the boundary is a bit blurred for me. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If carboxysome is organelle, then any protein-only coated virus inside the cell is an organelle too... Actually it's even more complicated, as any virus contains genetic material (RNA, DNA) and therefore could be even "equal" to mitochondria or chloroplasts. Did not the cell biologists by now agree what is organelle and what is not? Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Reference [14] needs to be verified. I just checked the 12th edition of Campbell Biology and it states that ribosomes aren't considered organelles because they aren't membrane-bound. Neuroesoterica (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

A carboxysome is an organelle. A virus is not an organelle, as it is by definition a cellular parasite that can be in any other cell, whereas the carboxysome is associated and encoded by the bacterial cell at hand. 2A02:8388:1643:D680:663F:A873:E90A:DE2A (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

First usage of "Organelle"?

In the German Wikipedia we are currently struggling with the correct definition of Organelle. It was sort of comforting that you have the same problem here... I came to the conclusion that different Authors use different definitions, sometimes limited to membrane bound organelles and sometimes including structures like centrioles. I feel that in this situation it would be helpful to know (and then to include in the article) who introduced the term and how it was then defined. Does anybody have an idea? If so, please let me know. The oldest usage I found (through Google Scholar) was 1919, [here] but it appears that it was already accepted nomenclature by then. If anyone could help, that would be great. --Dietzel65 14:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The origin is probably lost in the mists of time. Google Books is a good resource for this sort of thing. I found a 1907 usage from Transactions of the Pathological Society of London:

From the base of the rostrum there can be seen a slender, somewhat sinuous line or tube running through the middle of the anterior portion of the body to a point about halfway between the anterior extremity and the nucleus. It appears to be a permanent and definite organelle.

The earliest I came up with was from 1903, in German, at [1].

I have a 1970 textbook (Novikoff & Holtzman, Cells and Organelles) that discusses the definition problem:

But must a structure be membrane-bounded to qualify as an organelle? As techniques improve, less and less of the cell appears unstructured, but only some of the organization involves membranes. Nucleoli, chromosomes, ribosomes, centrioles, and microtubules all are distinctively structured and have specialized roles in the cell, but no membrane surrounds them. The non-membrane—bounded organelles grade down in size and complexity to protein filaments composed of a few hundred molecules. At the lower end of the size spectrum, the distinctions between organelle and macromolecule become difficult to define and perhaps meaningless. Should a multienzyme complex, in which a few or a few dozen enzymatically active protein molecules are complexed as a functional unit, be called an organelle or a molecular aggregate? Are nucleoli to be considered organelles despite their being contained in other organelles (nuclei)? The decision appears to be a matter of arbitrary definition.

It seems that a widely-accepted definition is unlikely to be found. It really has a long history as a vague term, centering on an idea something like "a sub-cellular identifiable component". It has a vagueness similar to that of the word organ, from which it was derived (Is the skin an organ? etc etc). -R. S. Shaw 20:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's not so lost. Consulting the Oxford English Dictionary for organelle, it leads to the earlier organella, which has this interesting 1889 quote from Amer. Naturalist 23 183 (note): "It may possibly be of advantage to use the word organula here instead of organ, following a suggestion by Möbius. Functionally differentiated multicellular aggregates in multicellular forms or metazoa are in this sense organs, while for functionally differentiated portions of unicellular organisms or for such differentiated portions of the unicellular germ-elements of metazoa the diminutive{em}organula{em}is appropriate."

The OED's etymology for organella gives this:

after German Organulum (K. Möbius 1884, in Biol. Centralbl. 4 392; O. Bütschli H. G. Bronn's Klassen u. Ordnungen des Thier-Reichs (1888) I. III. 1412) < classical Latin organum ORGAN n.1 + -ulum -ULE suffix.

This suggests the original use was for "functionally differentiated portions of unicellular organisms", a broad definition. -R. S. Shaw 18:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, great answer! Thanks for the tip with Google books. I keep getting funny results though, where the publication date obviously does not fit the content of the snippets (around 1900 with heat shock protein details and the like) Anyway, I found this one [2] which claims to be from 1877, that would predate Möbius if true. I just ran another search with Organulum OR Organula OR Organella and found this [3] from 1844 but I am afraid I don't read latin. I have the impression though that this is not about biology. This [4] French snippet seems to confirm the Möbius origin though. Very confusing, I'll try to find out more some other day, night is calling around here. --Dietzel65 21:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you need to be careful about the dates Google Books presents. Apparently for serials (journals, periodicals, etc) they just give the year of the first issue regardless of when the issue of the search-hit was published. -R. S. Shaw 05:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear R. S. Shaw, would it be possible for you to check again the American Naturalist citation? I have got a copy of the article spanning page 183 in the Amer. Naturalist from 1889 (23), but this article is about Anthropology, nothing about organelles. Maybe the OED is wrong? --Dietzel65 13:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a copy and paste of the ref: "Amer. Naturalist 23 183 (note)" (but hand modified for bold/italic). I take this to indicate the quote is from a footnote on p. 183 of vol. 23. The (online) OED entry for the word is labeled "DRAFT ENTRY Sept. 2004" so perhaps the ref hasn't been rechecked or something; maybe the page or vol number is wrong. The year attributed to the quote is 1889. -R. S. Shaw 04:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Looks like we have a wrong reference then. The copy I have says in the heading of each double-page "The American Naturalist. March, 1889. Archæology and Anthropology (or Microscopy)." The copy runs from page 178 to 190. From 178 to 188, there is an article about anthropometry, on p 188 is a note about the staining of the eggs of Petromyzon, on p189 starts "Central nervous system of Lumbricus". There is no footnote on p. 183. I can't exclude that the library made a mistake and there is another volume from 1889 (not the 23) from which I got the copy, but I don't think so. I believe the online-OED is for subscribers only. Maybe you want to inform them about their mistake and they will be so embarrassed that they try to correct it themselves :-). I'll be happy to send you the copy as file by e-mail if you want it, it is only 690 k. Thanks again for your help. --Dietzel65 08:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've sent an inquiry to OED. The volume number seems to correspond to the year (judging by Google Book images for 1882 and 1894 volumes); the volumes seem to match calendar years. -R. S. Shaw 20:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Möbius origin for the term, Google Books may not have the original article, but it does have a correction to it, which is precisely of a sentence proposing use of the term 'Organula'. It is at [5]. -R. S. Shaw 20:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tried the link, but keep getting Google Server Errors. Maybe another day. For the time being I kept the citation from the OED in the new section (see below), hopefully to be corrected later. --Dietzel65 22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why it wasn't working for you (it works for me from a non-logged-in separate browser). An alternative is to try a search for "S 392 Z 17 v o" and click on the one hit. It says gehört zu „Organula" folgende Anmerkung: Die „Organe" der Heteroplastiden bestehen aus vereinigten Zellen. Da die Organe der Monoplastideu nur verschieden ausgebildete Teile einer Zelle sind, schlage ich vor, sie „Organula" zu nennen. K. Möbius. -R. S. Shaw 05:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No more Google Server errors now but I feel I still don't see what you are seeing. I am afraid this may be a consequence of this: "For users outside the U.S., we make determinations based on appropriate local laws." (Citation from Google Books help page). I don't think German an US copyright are much different when it comes to the expiration date but maybe the Google data base doesn't know that. When I do the search you suggested, I don't get a snippet view and I don't see the sentence that you cited in the paragraph just above. Anyway, this citation is most likely the first usage of Organulum, but I cannot find the exact reference. Is that from "Biologisches Centralblatt"? If so, I would probably be able to get the original tomorrow (Monday) if I had the volume and page number.--Dietzel65 15:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Google identifies the source as "biologisches centralblatt / By j. rosenthal / Published 1885 / Original from Oxford University". The masthead on page 1 gives "IV. Band.- 1. März 1884. - Nr. 1." The list of corrections the quote above is from is on page 448 (I don't know the official volume or issue number). I have emailed you an image of the page. -R. S. Shaw 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get the e-mail (got the one with the OED link twice, though) but the citation was enough to find it in the book today. I made a copy and plan to put it online later this week, as work permits. Thanks again, for the citation as well as the OED link. --Dietzel65 22:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've put the Möbius-article online and included the URL in the reference. --Dietzel65 21:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Word History and Definitions

Thanks to the help of R. S. Shaw and several others on de:Diskussion:Organell and some digging through the literature I was able to compile a short history of the term organelle and its definition over time for the German Wikipedia (see de:Organell). I think it helps a lot to cope with the question of how organelles are defined, i.e. does a structure need to have a membrane to be an organelle. My conclusion is that two different definitions are currently in use and both should be reflected in the article. Accordingly the German organelle article got a complete make over (I am not planning to do this here, though). The tables in English version helped a lot to get this done in a reasonable (well, ) amount of time.

Anyway, to get back to the point, I felt I should give back to the English speaking and international community by translating the respective chapter and here it is. A problem that arose is that the new part does not really fit into the structure of the rest of the article. Which is suffering from the definition problem anyway and thus could use a make over.... Obviously, my selection of text books cited is leaning to German ones, maybe not appropriate for the English version. Feel free to improve this or my English, it's a wiki.

In case you care, I found the following structure helpful to reorganize the German Organell article:

membrane bound organelles

semi autonomous Os

other frequent membrane bound Os.

animal cells

plant cells

specialized membrane bound Os

cell type specific Os from multicellular beings

Species specic Os from protists and mosses

eukaryotic Os w/o membrane

procaryotic Os

--Dietzel65 22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm coming around to the idea that "membrane bound" should be avoided, using "membrane enclosed" or "membrane bounded" instead. The problem is that bound normally means attached to, and is used this way in biology, as in the phrase "membrane bound protein". If one accepts that "organelle" may include non-membrane-enclosed things, then those things might well be attached to a membrane (and thus be membrane-bound). One could imagine a membrane-enclosed structure attached to a separate membrane (perhaps that's fantastic, but why add confusion?). And if one were to say that if it's a membrane-enclosed organelle than the word bound means enclosed by but if the context is other things like proteins, then bound means attached to, the problem is that it presumes that the reader already knows what is meant; if he does not, he is totally lost by the usage rather than being informed by it. Hence I'm thinking of changing most usages to "membrane-enclosed". -R. S. Shaw 01:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this clarification (membrane enclosed/bounded/bound/...[some of them with DNA/RNA some of them wihout] vs. without membrane) is very useful, but on the other hand calling all (biological) macromolecular complexes (those without membrane) organelles is not the clearest way. Because calling only some of these ("important", protein producing...) (macro)molecular complexes organelles while others are called plainly (macro) molecular complexes, or just proteins made from many proteins or ribo-nuclear particles or RNA-protein complexes, or what-not... Because why should ribosome be an organelle while spliceosome, proteasome (and many other -somes & large macromolecular complexes), or even Titin (a single large protein!) be NOT called organelle? Or even why not the single chromosome (made of DNA+protein+(maybe RNA?, or some other like lipids?, inorganics?)) be called "organelle"? Then any stained thing in a cell could be called organelle, and when it would be possible to stain any single protein/RNA/DNA/lipid/... of interest in the cell very specifically, then these will be called organelles as well? Just my random thoughts about this "developing" definition and the fact that there are at least two major definitions with some minor qualifications (like DNA containing lipid compartments). Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Compartment and DNA containing

The first paragraph of "Examples" contains two statements I would like to discuss:

• 'While most cell biologists consider the term organelle to be synonymous with "cell compartment" '. As a cell biologist, I would argue that this is plain wrong, meaning: whoever wants to make this statement should cite robust references that 'most' cell biologists think so. A compartment is some sort of reaction room, e.g. the inside of Mitochondria, all right. However, I found one text book definition that said the respective compartment would be the sum of all respective rooms within a cell, i.e. there may be many Mitochondria in one cell, but only one mitochondrial compartment. The cytoplasma is a compartment but not an organelle. The interchromatin compartment in the nucleus is not an organell. Flagella may be defined as organelles but I doubt they can be regarded as compartments.
• 'other cell biologists choose to limit the term organelle to include only those which are DNA-containing'. Is there any reference for this? We had a discussion about this on de:Diskussion:Organell but nobody could come up with a citeable source. So we dropped it for the time being. If substantiable, I think it should be incorporated in the previous chapter about terminology.

--Dietzel65 16:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Those sentences definitely need weakening, if not removal, in my view. Further, the very first sentence of the article, saying an organelle "is separately enclosed within its own lipid membrane" has to be modified. Some of the information in the new History and Terminology section shows these statements are way too strong. There are plenty of current usages of the term for non-membrane-enclosed structures. For instance, I have a 1998 book in front of me by Lynn Margulis which says early on, "Any visible structure inside a cell is an organelle." Google locomotion organelle and there are many scientific hits.

On the other hand, I'm sure some people are led to believe only membrane-enclosed structures can be organelles. For example, take Alberts et al. 4th edition (2002), a 1450-page mol bio college text. In the main text, the word is only used for membrane-enclosed structures (without regard to DNA), but the phrasing does not rule out other usages for organelle. However, the Glossary appendix, perhaps prepared by junior staff, defines organelle as "membrane-enclosed compartment in a eucaryotic cell that has a distinct structure, macromolecular composition, and function."

The W. article needs to make clear that the word is at times applied to non-membrane-enclosed structures since this is fact a long-established usage. I may do some rewriting of this stuff soonish if no substantial objections show up.

-R. S. Shaw 00:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you get around to the rewriting you may also want to have a look at a paper that suggests that Centrosomes have an RNA Genome: Alliegro, Mark C. (2006). "Centrosome-associated RNA in surf clam oocytes". Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA. 103 (24): 9034–9038. doi:10.1073/pnas.0602859103. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help). Maybe they are semiautonomous after all... --Dietzel65 23:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Does the fact that their cnRNAs do not show sequence similarity to RNAs from most other organisms with centrosomes suggest that these are not likely to be more than some kind of molecular fossil? Could a reverse transcriptase provide enough genetic stability for an autonomous genetic component of an organelle? --JWSchmidt 01:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it could be that this centrosomal RNA is homologous to centrosomal RNAs in other Organisms which is just not yet discovered. I would assume that the group who has published the article is working on that right now. If there is more to it than an obscure finding in an obscure organism, we should see more articles about it in the upcoming years. Concerning the reverse transcriptase, I don't see why there would be a problem with stability? --Dietzel65 21:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverse transcriptase is a rather error-prone polymerase. --JWSchmidt 04:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Chloroplasts in kleptoplastic organisms

In the table of Major eukaryotic organelles, I inserted into the Chloroplast row the fact that kleptoplastic organisms are counted among plants and protists as containing chloroplasts. But because they are an unusual exception, I included it in small, parenthetical text. I found this to be permissible because 1) it is true and 2) it does not say anywhere that we are only allowed to list organisms which contain the organelle at birth. Kleptoplastic organisms may not be born with chloroplasts, but they do contain them and instead of consuming them, use them beneficially. Blue Danube (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Granule (cell biology)

Short question: Should not Granule (cell biology) have a note in thie article? Hubba (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

organelles are these weird fingz in biology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.109.122 (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR

The following content is someone's WP:OR, where the history is constructed from WP:PRIMARY sources. We don't do this in WP.

It would take several years before organulum, or the later term organelle, became accepted and expanded in meaning to include subcellular structures in multicellular organisms. Books around 1900 from Valentin Häcker, Edmund Wilson

and Oscar Hertwig still referred to cellular organs. Later, both terms came to be used side by side: Bengt Lidforss wrote 1915 (in German) about "Organs or Organells"

Around 1920, the term organelle was used to describe propulsion structures ("motor organelle complex", i.e., flagella and their anchoring) and other protist structures, such as ciliates. Alfred Kühn wrote about centrioles as division organelles, although he stated that, for Vahlkampfias, the alternative 'organelle' or 'product of structural build-up' had not yet been decided, without explaining the difference between the alternatives.

In his 1953 textbook, Max Hartmann used the term for extracellular (pellicula, shells, cell walls) and intracellular skeletons of protists.

Later, the now widely used definition of organelle emerged, after which only cellular structures with surrounding membrane had been considered organelles. However, the more original definition of subcellular functional unit in general still coexists.

In 1978, Albert Frey-Wyssling suggested that the term organelle should refer only to structures that convert energy, such as centrosomes, ribosomes, and nucleoli. This new definition, however, did not win wide recognition.

Am copying this here in case anyone wants to re-work it based on one or more sources that describe the history of the use of the term. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Review

The introduction to the organelle is concise, and very easy to follow along with. The article has a nice flow throughout, which makes it very easy to read, and the charts listing the different major and minor organelles really helps in the overall organization. There are a few issues that I ran across though in reading through the article. Even though all of the information presented was relevant to the article, there were a few items that I feel should be omitted for clarity. Looking specifically at the section dealing with most biologists say organelle is synonymous with cell compartment, and some biologists refer to organelles as only those that contain DNA, these claims seem to be very broad. The claim that other biologists believe only those containing DNA are organelles, also seems to be a claim with very little evidence to support. In looking at several dictionaries and other reliable sources, no real evidence was found for the claim, and I felt this was a distraction in the article. In looking at the sources for the article, the sources seemed very reliable, but more up to date sources could really help in the improvement of this article. In just the last few years, the term organelle in itself seems to have been a term that is very difficult to pinpoint a precise definition of. Since the newest source in this article is from 2009, a look at the new definitions and standards of an organelle could greatly improve the quality of the article. Also, recent research and publications on organelle properties could help better distinguish what properties should determine the definition of an organelle. For instance, a more well rounded, textbook defined definition of the term organelle, could greatly improve the opening of this article. Overall, I found the article very easy to understand, but with a better defined definition of organelle, the omission or rephrasing of the opening paragraph in the types of organelles section, and more up to date sources for organelle properties, this article could continue to be improved.Perdue104 (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Review

Reading through this article I feel that there are both good and bad qualities. The article is easy to follow and contains important sources that pertain to the subject at hand. Reading prior comments I agree with Shaw, that the term "membrane bound" should be omitted and replaced by another term such as "membrane bounded" or "membrane enclosed" <R.S.Shaw></R.S.Shaw>. Another improvement that could be made would be to clarify vital concepts such as the main definition of an organelle. The definition in this article seems to be vague and could be specified by prior research findings. I think it would be highly beneficial for dictionaries and research projects to be addressed and utilized toward a citeable, substantial term. I also think a vital addition to this article would be to add a labelled photo of a plant cell along with that of the animal cell. Overall, I think that this is an informative article. The only thing that I could think of enhancing would be the pinpointed organelle clarifications and older educational sources. Gabrielle Worley (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Flint16

Review

The opening paragraphs of this article is critical to introducing the significance to organelles in cell biology. The article had great great flow of introductory information. However, I am on agreeable terms with the <Perdue104></Perdue104>. The article seems to have trouble determining a predominant definition to an organelle. Something that could improve on this cycle would be to omit statements that just seem like speculation of scientist with more scholarly valued statements. Most of this articles are cite with with the information pertained to the article. However, science is constantly developing and discovering new ways to explain underlying properties in cell biology. In <Perdue104></Perdue104>, I can only partially agree with the statements about updating some sources supporting the article. Specifically, in the the history of the organelles it is significant to retract to primitive attributes that helped illuminate the discovery. As a general article of organelles, it is appropriate to keep a general idea of what organelles are. Though, one suggestion could be the introduction between proteins and organelles, it could be interpreted as irrelevant to the article considering it introduces it in a couple of sentences. The statements could be best represented in the historical section of the article instead of its own section or expanded on its relation. This review is just critical analysis for an assignment in a cell biology course. Most of what is being reviewed is some suggestions to be looked at to improve the scholars reliability on the article. Smith2152 (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Smith2152

Vandalism

Apparently there was an edit war, so I am suggesting that the admins make it so that only confirmed accounts can edit it. Thanks Captain Chicky (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Eukaryotic organelles ("Major/minor")

The tables are divided into Major and minor, but there seems to be no description of what this means. Please add a statement giving some idea of what it means, even if it is kind of subjective. Or alternately change the titles to be more descriptive, such as "Most common in number", or "Most universal among all Eukaryotic cells", or "most critical in function", or whatever the meaning is. DKEdwards (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

Organelle#History_and_terminology badly needs rewriting into coherent, good English with accurate, referenced information. Zaslav (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)