Talk:Cyclopia

i

i dont think it is about the fusion of the orbitals but more the failure to separate the one embryonic orbital to 2 orbitals does any body know? --M siterman 17:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. I'm going to try and fix it. The wording of this article is confusing anyway.--Joe Jklin (T C) 15:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

40 cases per 10000 embryos? That's 1 in 250, which makes it more common than down's syndrome. If this is true, why have I never seen anyone with this condition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.41.115.215 (talk • contribs)

Most likely because most embryos either die or aborted neonatally. I think that statistic may be wrong, I think it actually refers to the number of embryos with Holoprosencephaly, which is the cause of cyclopia. Either way that statistic is somewhat confusing and probably should be removed (which I'll do).--Joe Jklin (T C) 22:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually found a more realistic number (1 in 16,000) here.--Joe Jklin (T C) 22:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

+1 either remove or explain more the 1 in 250. --MarmotteiNoZ 23:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot more information http://www.wired.com/news/technology/medtech/0,71569-0.html?tw=rss.index 24.213.197.5 03:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The incidence rate is 1:250 in embryogenesis and 1:16000 in born animals. I think it might be for holoprosencephaly rather than cyclopia though. Thomasiscool 23:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Which animals?--Dojarca 22:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It is confusing that the article states that it is 1 in 2500 miscarriages, but 1 in 250 embryos. Are the rest aborted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.182.121 (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

picture

maybe i'm just not seeing it right but that picture looks completely fake, the other examples i have seen looked nothing of the sort, that picture looks to me like crap from ripley's believe it or not, but again maybe i'm not seeing it right so i will make no change -i think it should be replaced with a different one though -c 67.23.125.138 18:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I can barely see the picture eather. I am going to remove it. Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw_talk 17:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

How to revert?

I don't know what happened with the last - or rather the last-but-one update. I'd (Roger) added my bit on 6/10/2007 (which all went ok), then on 19/10/7 person '216.180.184.73' (not me) made a change but I think it went wrong - it seems to have chopped out a whole section and a half!

I thought it'd be easy to revert it back to the previous (my) version but it didn't work; I'm at the limits of my current abilities I'm afraid! So I think we need to get it back to the 6/10/7 version (and then person '216...' needs to retry adding whatever they were trying to do). I'll have another look into it next week but if someone with more nouse knows offhand how to revert, please do!

Roger M.E. Lightly 16:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well durrgh. It now appears the page is how I'd tried to make it after all (ie revert person 216..'s entry)! Maybe I needed to wait a while, or log out before looking again. Anyway, think it's back how I was after. If person 216.180.184.73 wants to try updating with whatever they were trying to do, please do so. Roger M.E. Lightly 16:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

New Link

Yesterday, I added a statement saying that there "has been at least one case of someone with cyclopia surviving to adulthood" along with a reference to support it. When I looked today, both had been removed. I had also put a warning about graphic images in the references section, and this was not removed, so it wasn't because something went wrong in the editing process. Does anyone know why this happened? Thomasiscool 13:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the link is now dead, but The Internet Archive shows that it was a screenshot from The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad. Whoever said it was proof of an adult with cyclopia was having a little fun with you, I'm afraid. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sonic Hedgehog

My understanding is that this can be caused by lack or inhibition of Sonic Hedgehog (the missing signalling protein). Should I add that, or is that too much? Rex Manning (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is true. Sonic hedgehog protein from the notochord induces the floor plate in the neural tube. When sonic hedgehog is absent it results in no floor plate, which means defects in midline structures. The floor plate is needed for left/right symmetry of the neural tube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.27.221 (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A new possible link?

Today, I was looking for the picture of a monster for a project, and I found THIS:

!!!Click here!!!

How it happened, I don't know.

And if it ends up being a hoax, then I was a fool.

--Colonel Valh ala-112 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidence figures seem contradictory?

> Its incidence is 1 in 16,000 in born animals, and 1 in 250 in embryos, 1 in 2,500 that end in miscarriage.

If the incidence is 1 in 250 in embryos, and the great majority of such embryos miscarry, then its incidence should be much greater than 1 in 250 in miscarriages. Maybe the "1 in 250" and "1 in 2,500" figures should be flipped?

—Ruakh_TALK 21:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to just yank the 1 in 2500 number. It was added well after the rest of that sentence, and doesn't make any sense. 2602:306:3BAE:1330:3DE7:9345:BD87:714B (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Addition of older record of cyclopia (for the second time)

Last year my contribution to this article was undone by User:Yobol via this edit as apparent OR.

I accepted that undoing. I have now made a similar edit.

In order to avoid a similar undoing, I will point out that I have photographed a reliable source (in Swedish) and to the best of my knowledge performed a faithful transcription and translation of that source. I have then quoted from the translation. As far as I can understand our policies this does not constitute OR.

Anyone can inspect the original source, the transcription (in Swedish) and the translation into English and modify the transcription or translation or quote as necessary.

I consider the mentioned case notable because it is an early yet accurate record of this phenomenon in a human. Thank you. Lklundin (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrators please consider removing photograph on this page.

As a lay person who googled the term “cyclopia” having been reading about brain disorders I was disturbed to find that the picture on this page appeared at the top of my search results, it appears to be an autopsy photograph which does not seem appropriate as is potentially upsetting. Perhaps there is a way to at least hide & clearly label it as potentially upsetting content, so that people can choose whether to view it, if not remove altogether? Otherwise I appreciate the content and philosophy behind Wikipedia. Thank you. Roseofthe80s (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)