Talk:Natural killer cell

Natural Killer cell → Natural killer cell

As an Natural Killer cell researcher, I believe that "Natural killer cell" should be the prefered wikipedia entry name. "Natural Killer Cell" is the universal nomenclature when describing natural killer cells. "Natural killer lymphocyte", while a techincally correct term, is rarely, if ever used by researchers and should be merged with "Natural killer cell".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clermeil (talk • contribs) 07:00, 27 June 2006

I agree that "Natural Killer (NK) cell" should be the Wikipedia entry name. Indeed, the term lymphocyte is best restricted to those cells that rearrange their antigen receptor (immunoglobulin or T-cell receptor [TCR]) genes. Thus 'Natural Killer lymphocyte' would be incorrect for classical NK cells under this definition. There is a population of cells with NK cell characteristics that do rearrange their TCR genes and these are referred to as NKT cells.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Regfpjd (talk • contribs) 01:37, 30 June 2006

Natural killer T cell

A clear distinction needs to be made between "Natural killer cell" and "Natural killer T cell", with their own wikipedia entries. They also need to be mentioned separately within the lymphocyte and white blood cell articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.232.242 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 9 July 2006

They do have their own pages now.--DO11.10 01:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is it not a bit misleading that typing in Killer T cell gets redirected to NK Cell page - i thought that they were actually 2 different cells; the former requiring MHC1 to recognise the antigen and the latter not requiring it? 04:45, 7 November 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryhanc (talk • contribs) Please sign your posts.

Yup you are right, it has been fixed--DO11.10 01:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice cut and paste

from a textbook, but this whole article following the first few lines is by and large useless to those of us who followed links here hoping to learn something about the rudiments of the subject in an encyclopedia setting. Personally, I don't have time to get an MD or a PHD in this or every single topic in the encyclopedia just to understand anything past the first few lines. (Maybe you guys above could expand on a couple of the points in the article which you find most intriguing in an attempt to make it intriguing (and understandable) to the rest of us (I occasionally cut and paste one line or so from my own esoteric, academic journals, and then, however, take the effort to expand and clarify in another few lines with the aim that the reader of an encyclopedia will find it anything from interesting to intriguing.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.31.160 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 22 September 2006

Some Changes

I added the section on discovery, and I hope to do some significant restructing and organizing of this article. Let me know what you think! Cacofonie 04:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]