-1
$\begingroup$

Every now and then I'd like to know some typical numbers (mostly concerning cells) but I regularly get as an answer that these numbers are not well defined and depend on a) the type of cell, and b) too many other circumstances and factors (which is perfectly clear to me), so an answer could only be given when I specify all of these circumstances and factors, otherwise the question is too broad.

But that's not what I want: I am looking for a general answer, to get a feel for ranges and orders of magnitude.

Here are some of such questions:

A perfect answer I am looking for would go like this:

"X-cells in hibernate mode produce only some tens of proteins per second, Y-cells in normal mode produce some thousands of proteins per second (which is also the average number over all cells in normal mode), but Z-cells under extreme conditions (e.g. so-and-so) produce up to some hundreds of thousands of proteins per second."

But more often than not I get the mantra-like answer: "Specify which type of cell in which region in which state of development under which conditions! Only then your question can be answered."

I am looking for a way to ask my questions such that they have a good chance to be answered without doing so.

Asking just for an average number would not make much sense. To ask for a typical and somehow average model neuron would give no feel for possible extremes. So I would tend to make explicit in each and every question that I am looking for

  • the range of a given number (e.g. number of proteins per second)

  • not restricted to a given type of (human) cells and to specific circumstances and conditions

  • with lower and upper bounds as powers of ten,

  • one specific example (with respect to cell type and conditions) for the lower and for the upper bound,

  • optionally some sensible average number (if ready to hand),

  • optionally/additionally some arbitrary examples (with respect to cell type and conditions), especially when no extreme cases are ready to hand

Since this would be cumbersome and would blow-up the questions unnecessarily, I'd like to know a technical term which is much shorter but unequivocal and would prevent my questions from being closed as too broad, too unspecific, or otherwise unappropriate.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

The fact that you are asking for a general answer does not make the question less broad. The person answering may have to survey decades of research spanning many different sub-fields of biology as the answer often does not exist in a database. You shouldn't reasonably expect that someone will put the effort required. You need to also consider that some of these questions are misplaced, i.e. those numbers are not very useful for much. Say that you got all your estimates: would you be able to built a model that would teach you anything, given the variation? In case you are convinced that they will be useful for something, it may benefit the question to clearly state that fact. It may often prove to be the case that the community can help you with the underlying question even though the estimates you asked for do not exist.

Additionally, questions such as these do not really require any biological knowledge, it's just a matter of putting the work to try and find the answers. That means that anybody, including you, can do it. We have, over time, given you a series of accessible resources that could help you in your search, including:

and you may also find these useful:

If an answer exists, it is likely that you will be able to find an estimate in one of those sources.

Since this would be cumbersome and would blow-up the questions unnecessarily, I'd like to know a technical term which is much shorter but unequivocal and would prevent my questions from being closed as too broad, too unspecific, or otherwise unappropriate.

Given what I wrote above and the feedback you got on some of these questions, I hope you can see that some of these questions are indeed "too broad, too unspecific, or otherwise unappropriate"(sic) and that lacking a technical term is not the issue. It is understandable that someone who is not an active researcher on a specific subject may not fully grasp what is and is not available, or not know where to look for answers. I hope this answer and the feedback from other users in the comments of some of these questions will guide you in asking and answering better questions.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .