Talk:Membrane fluidity
 | A fact from Membrane fluidity appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 July 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
"Changes in membrane-dependent functions, such as phagocytosis and cell signalling, are hypothesized to depend upon the cell-membrane fluidity.[1] This hypothesis lost favor" I don't see any evidence that it has lost favor. Recommend to change wording --Biophysik (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Suitable for an individual article, or better within lipid bilayer?
Make no mistake: membranes fluidity is of paramount importance in molecular biology/biophysics and in chemical properties of lipid bilayers, and it is obviously notable. And I praise the article author(s) for putting this information on Wikipedia. My concern is on how do we present this. Fluidity is one of the many properties of lipid bilayers. Having a standalone article devoted to it sounds to me a bit like having an article on metal melting point: while massively important, it is a property of a material best described in the context of other properties (We have melting point, but it is different, since it is about the physical property in general, not about the one of a specific material or class of materials). I feel all this information should be of course preserved and improved, but better presented within the main lipid bilayer article. What do you think? -- cyclopiaspeak! 10:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I am confused because this article seems to contain contradictory statements. In the 2nd paragraph it says "The double bond increases fluidity" but later it says "Lipid chains with carbon-carbon double bonds (unsaturated) are more rigid than lipids that are saturated with hydrogens". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.85.195 (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)