Talk:Cluster of differentiation

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

(Untitled)

(A note ... from a presumbly alleged well-informed colleague who dumped it, unsigned, above earlier talk)

Thus those interested (and sufficiently patient to deduce, from the edit history, which revision it applied to) are welcome to consult this talk page’s edit history, and reply to or comment on, any concerns that seem relevant. —JerzyA (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]

A lot of the information on the sample cd molecules was simply wrong. Suggest checking out the other ones.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ? (talk • contribs) ?/?/? (UTC)

That which thou sowest, wilt thou also reap.
Sarcastically yours,
—JerzyA (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(An (untitled, tho otherwise orderly) content discussion)

Yippee, finally some expansions, including common-sense explanations about some CD molecules. Will there ever be a page on CD117 (c-kit)? For now, most material is on gastrointestinal stromal tumor.
JFW | T@lk 12:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But for now, a link/redirect to Tyrosine kinase would do. The last paragraph there on c-kit/CD117 looks pretty good. ;-)

PFHLai 03:02, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

You've made judicious use of the Edit History!
JFW | T@lk 09:22, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Some important info is missing

The info about CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4, CD7, CD8 is missing. Important because this relates to T cell development and function. Just wanted to remind. --Eleassar777 08:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They were deliberately left out to not give the false impression that CD molecules are all about white cells. Only CD4 & CD8 were briefly mentioned. The short list that followed is intended to show the diversity. However, a complete list with the names (& mostly red-links for a while ...) of all two hundred or so CD molecules may be useful. It can be a new page List of clusters of differentiation, and linked from a yet-to-exist 'See also' section in the page Cluster of differentiation. IMO, T cell development & function deserve their own pages. Please consider 'beefing up' the page on T cells. -- PFHLai 21:24, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

I think at this point that the list of CD molecules has gotten beyond "prominent examples" and is beginning to constitute a list on its own. Should a new article List of clusters of differentiation be created? I think so and may go ahead and do this. People can revert my changes if they'd like. I would be happen to leave a few "prominent" examples though. JeffreyN 05:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005

Boys and girls, the Blood this week lists all CD molecules. See here. Sadly, this important document is not available for free. I'm considering mailing the editor. JFW | T@lk 10:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Blood only lists the newly classified CD factors (primarly those numberd 190 and above). Also, while it doesn't help now, it looks like Stanford University's Highwire will be making it available for free in October '06. MarcoTolo 17:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List Name Change

Please note the change of the list from List of clusters of differentiation to List of human clusters of differentiation at the request of an anonymous user (see the history of the article). The original list however still links to the new article. Maybe someone would like to change this to a disambiguous page? Create a list with mouse and other organismal CD linked off the original page? JeffreyN 02:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient context

I think that this article is completely fine for anybody who would actually be interested in cluster of differentiation molecules, as this is really an artificial distinction of cell surface molecules that applies only to biologists. I'm going to delete the warning, and if you want to reinstate it, give reasons why.66.65.7.197 17:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are they?

The article doesn't tell us what CDs actually do! What is their role in the immune system?!

You should forward that complaint to the CD comitee because these names do in fact not say anything about the function of each molecule. I suspect that the comitee is populated by the same kind of people that likes to memorize telephone numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lassefolkersen (talk • contribs) 12:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article, CDs have a wide variety of functions, the only thing they all have in common is that they are on the surface of cells allowing for labelling by antibodies. The CD nomenclature is just a method of naming and numbering.Philman132 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake on Diagram

In the diagram on the right of the page, a CD3+CD8+ cell is mis-labelled as a "Suppressor T-lymphocyte" when it should be a "Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte." Besides being incorrect (or am I missing something?), it also clashes with the table on the left of the article.

I'd fix it myself, but I'm not sure how. Photoshop and re-upload?

-tretcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.22.30 (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suppressor T cells are also CD8+. I have asked the image creator to review the image. Revising the original, if deemed necessary, is generally superior to photoshopping. I have taken the liberty of removing the "tag" on this section because it is not wrong, it is cumbersome, and changing section titles can defeat links to sections. (I linked the section when I contacted the image creator.)Novangelis (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a modified version and credited the original author, though the diagram is now smaller. I understand that certain sub-populations of regulatory T-cells are indeed CD8 positive, but if you have a CD3+CD8+ cell, typically it's cytotoxic (or at least assumed to be initially). There are a couple of weird populations of suppressor T-cells, but including one in the diagram for the "Cluster of Differentiation" page seems confusing and potentially mis-informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.22.30 (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm logged in now. I guess my primary concern is that the previous diagram presented three ultimate populations: Suppressor T-lymphocytes, Helper T-lymphocytes, and Activated T-lymphocytes. This seems misleading not because it is "wrong" per se, but because that is not generally how you would categorize T-cells (ie are T-cells primarily divided between CD4+ Helper T-cells and CD8+ Suppressor T-cells? What about to Cytotoxic T-cells? Why is one of the two primary categorizes of T-cells excluded?) As someone who's new to immunology, the diagram was confusing. I showed the diagram to members of my lab and all of them had the same initial reaction: this picture is wrong. For those reasons, I feel the image warranted changing. Tretcher (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vector image is now updated/corrected. /Lokal _Profil 18:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos!

I LOVE this page! doctorwolfie (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CD15 outdated?

Dear all,

it seems the CD15 data may be outdated in the image. The Uniprot CD list http://www.uniprot.org/docs/cdlist does not show CD15 to be a valid protein.

I suggest editing the figure as it is misleading - what are other people's views ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.174.111.250 (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename proposed for CDnnn articles

Please visit Talk:List_of_human_clusters_of_differentiation to consider rename proposals for CD articles. -Kyle^(talk) 02:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thrombocyte Megakaryocyte marker wrong

It js CD41 and not CD45. PLZ correct it. Or i will do But i dont have valid citations Drajaytripathi (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need further explanation of + and - designations

What is the point of the + desigation on a CD number? For example, CD8 means that the cell expresses CD8. What is the meaning/added value of including a + sign? "CD8" alone should be sufficient, shouldn't it?

Relatedly, what is the purpose of the - (minus sign) designation? Does it imply the absence of the molecule when it would otherwise be expected (for whatever reason)?

Could someone add the answers to these questions to the appropriate paragraph of the article? Thanks.

− 2603:9000:ac08:a600:48f7:d91e:4989:e04e - 18 April 2020‎

From my understanding, there are way too many CDs in a cell. They are also expressed in different quantities. So my guess this is not exactly to say all CDs that are present in a cell, this would be mostly to help a researcher identify a cell, if they just test two or tree of the most common CDs, they could already know which cell it is. This explain the minus sign (-). But I don't know why there is the plus sign in some, and there no sign at all on others.

There is a lost more info in this article that can be of some help:

Kalina, Tomas; Fišer, Karel; Pérez-Andrés, Martin; Kuzílková, Daniela; Cuenca, Marta; Bartol, Sophinus J. W.; Blanco, Elena; Engel, Pablo; van Zelm, Menno C. (2019-10-23). "CD Maps—Dynamic Profiling of CD1–CD100 Surface Expression on Human Leukocyte and Lymphocyte Subsets". Frontiers in Immunology. 10: 2434. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2019.02434. ISSN 1664-3224. PMC 6820661. PMID 31708916.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

−Arthurfragoso (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cell in Cd

I don't know 2405:201:A426:D013:204C:B5DD:1DE1:7624 (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]