Template:Did you know nominations/T-tubule
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Mifter (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
T-tubule
- ... that T-tubules allow heart muscle cells to contract more forcefully by synchronising calcium release? Source: The rapid spread of the action potential along the T-tubule activates all of the L-type calcium channels near-simultaneously. As T-tubules bring the sarcolemma very close to the sarcomplasmic reticulum at all regions throughout the cell, calcium can then released from the sarcoplasmic reticulum across the whole cell at the same time. In cells lacking T-tubules such as smooth muscle cells or diseased cardiomyocytes, the calcium that enters at the sarcolemma has to diffuse gradually throughout the cell, activating the ryanodine receptors much more slowly as a wave of calcium, resulting in reduced force of contraction
Improved to Good Article status by PeaBrainC (talk). Self-nominated at 19:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC).
Substantial scientific article, well beyond what I can understand, but well sourced, written and formatted, no copyvio obvious, offline sources accepted AGF. I understand that this is your first DYK nomination, so you don't need to review another article yet (only after #5). Thank you so much, larger-than-pea-brain! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this, but I do not see the hook fact in the article. I see that it says that lack of T-tubules results in reduced force of contraction, but not that T-tubules allow cardiac muscles to contract more forcefully. Thank you, 00:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. I had assumed that the statement regarding the loss of T-tubules impairing contraction was enough to say that their presence improved contraction but I appreciate that as it was worded this was potentially unclear. I have reworded the lead in to explicitly make this point.PeaBrainC (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- @PeaBrainC: Thank you, but it needs an inline cite. Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: I have provided an inline cite in the lead to a review article and reworded the excitation contraction coupling section within body of the article with an inline citation specifically referencing a paper which confirms this fact. Hope that's ok. PeaBrainC (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
