Talk:Arp2/3 complex

The information in this article is now out of date. New evidence has arisen that the 70 degree branching by the Arp2/3 complex is an artefact from critical-point drying for electron microscopy. This article should be updated with the new findings. Please see "Unravelling the structure of the lamellipodium" by Small, et al 2008, Journal of Microscopy 231(3):479 Marv101 (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The above statement is not correct. Evidence from many laboratories has established that the Arp2/3 complex nucleates new filaments from the sides of pre-existing filaments. These experiments include electron microscopy of various fixed samples as well as bulk biochemical studies and real-time observations of filament branching by TIRF microscopy. The controversy created by Small et al. 2008 regards the degree to which this branching persists at the leading edge of migrating cells and it is fair to say that large majority of the field is skeptical of the extreme position represented by Small et al. 2008 (Higgs HN. 2011 Trends Cell Biol. 21(1):2-4; Insall RH. 2011 Trends Cell Biol. 21(1):2). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Actinman (talk • contribs) 04:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In further response to the first comment above, it now appears that the results of Small et al. (2008) suffer from significant data processing artefacts and/or observer bias. For details, see Yang and Svitkina (2011, Nature Cell Biology 13, 1012–1013). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.230.6.120 (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I am not sure if the article is that good yet. I am planning to keep improving it though. --Splette 15:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it should say that in the barbed-branching model arp2/3 associates with the pointed end. I couldn't access the article.

amulekii

• Hi Amulekii, no that appears to be wrong. Just as written in the article in the barbed-branching model arp2/3 associates with the barbed end. Here is a good article from Biochem J, freely accessible: Signalling to actin assembly via the WASP-family proteins and the Arp2/3 complex In the article they summarize the existing models: "Despite the popularity of the dendritic-nucleation model, data obtained by other groups have led to the development of an alternative barbed-end branching model. Pantaloni et al. proposed that activated Arp2/3 complex binds to the barbed end of the actin filament, rather than at the side, and that the rate of Arp2/3-mediated actin polymerization is proportional to the number of free barbed ends, not the total length of the actin mother filament." I hope this clears things up a bit. Thanks for contacting me on my talk page about it. --Splette ^Talk 13:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I got you. I should have looked more carefully at the pictures you provided. Amulekii 21:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it say Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome Protein family instead of Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome family protein? Amulekii 21:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, in the summary it is said that "[the Arp2/3 complex] is found in most eukaryotic organisms, but absent from a number of Chromalveolates and plants.[2]" This is misleading because plants do have an Arp2/3 complex.

But then in the section "Cellular uses of Arp2/3" one can read: "Moreover, recent studies show that the Arp2/3 complex is essential for proper polar cell expansion in plants. Arp2/3 mutations in Arabidopsis thaliana result in abnormal filament organization, which in turn affects the expansion of trichomes, pavement cells, hypocotyl cells, and root hair cells.[21][22]"

The article from reference [2] says that WASP is not found in plants, but they do have SCAR/WAVE proteins.

Best, N1K0W1N (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I have added the AI generated tag here, specifically regarding this recent edit. It displays many strong indications of LLM use -- please read that page thoroughly, particularly the "AI vocabulary" and "superficial analyses" sections, and then compare.

Thus the text needs review for source-to-text integrity, hallucinations, editorializing/original research, tone problems, and the like. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I've started editing the article with an eye to the sourcing, and so far damn near every statement with a citation cites an off-topic reference. This subject is within my area of expertise so I feel compelled to clean it up...but it's going to take a while. I have lost all sympathy for editors using AI. Ban them all, zero tolerance. This is completely unacceptable and it is spreading misinformation that the vast majority of readers are not able to pick up. To anyone reading the article who happens to stumble on this talk page: Consider every statement in this article a made-up lie until the AI template has been removed from the top. Sam Altman, you are a piss puddle. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I think I have now checked all the AI-generated material and eliminated all the unsourced, unverified, and irrelevant statements and off-topic references. I just removed the AI template. However, if anyone else with expertise in this subject area happens to find anything off please correct it because it is possible I have missed some details. @Chris the speller: Please do not ever do this again. If you have expertise in this subject area, read your damn references (articles about siRNA should not be cited for claims about immune synapse formation, for one). If you do not have expertise in this subject area, do not edit articles on this topic. You are misinforming the public and wasting editors' time with your laziness and carelessness. But since I see you had close to 90 edits on the 4th of this month alone, on topics ranging from Moroccan government agencies to marine mollusks, I suspect I'm shouting into the void here. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@WeirdNAnnoyed:Please do not ever again try to talk down to me, especially using boldface type, and you have no standing to try to prevent me from editing any articles.. You are also implying that since I have edited many articles on many topics that I lack sufficient intelligence or education to edit certain articles where you have styled yourself as an expert. If you get off your high horse for a minute and go back and look at the article's history (carefully this time), you will see that I only added a missing hyphen, in "70-degree angle". I hope I don't run into many more editors who have a lot of experience, such as in complaining about another editor's "laziness and carelessness".Chris the speller ^yack 04:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Chris the speller: D'ooohhh, I apologize. I was so infuriated at the edit that I read your name from the previous diff, rather than the editor who actually added the offending content. Please disregard my message from above. Your wikignoming is appreciated. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)