We have a couple of pickles here:
- Have we figured out where this card’s original source is from? That’s going to inform a lot of what we do with it.
- The Cisternal Maturation model is a mess, because it has changed and modified over time. But, just on a lark I checked an undergrad Bio 1-2 textbook (as this is more or less the level at which the MCAT is testing biology knowledge), and it states that in the Cisternal Maturation model the details are thus:
- Cisternae mature in an anterograde fashion.
- Vesicles/proteins are transported retrograde.
I suspect the above idea/concept is the source of the original, and ongoing, confusion (also that this concept is largely a bit out of date and has been modified over the years).
(emoji for emphasis, lol). Conversely, UWorld states that vesicles/proteins are shipped cis-to-trans, which would be anterograde. Which makes our life a bit more difficult and contradicts the current suggested edit.
All that being said, the larger issue here is where, if at all, the Cisternal Maturation model is testable and/or supported by any primary sources. If it’s just not supported at all, that opens a new question which is ‘why is the card in the deck and is it worth the confusion that it’s creating?’
TL; DR: we don’t know where this card is pulling its information from. The only primary MCAT source corroboration I can find mentions only anterograde vesicular transport (not retrograde).
Ugh of course. Does UWorld say vesicles/proteins are shipped cis-to-trans specifically in the context of the cisternal maturation model or just in general?and yeah I agree there’s probably no reason for this card to exist. It seems like the real relevant and testable concept is just the general idea of anterograde and retrograde vesicular transport rather than specifically these concepts within these two models. From unscored:
Just in general, for better or worse.
That’s part of my hesitation here, which is that I’m not yet convinced that there are any primary sources that mention the Maturation model at all
If that is the case, it changes the calculus on this issue significantly
If there’s just no basis for this card’s content at all, and it’s causing numerous ongoing issues over the course of more than a year, I’m open to considering that there’s nothing to ‘fix’ per se so much as the card may simply not have merit in being included in the deck.
Just to make sure we’re clear on where we’re at: we know the Cisternal Maturation model is not mentioned in Kaplan and/or UWorld. Can we confirm with certainty that it’s not mentioned or derived from KA?
Yeah I think it’s for the better because then at least UWorld isn’t directly refuting the cisternal maturation model retrograde transport cause that would actually be a headache. I’m hesitant to say that that I’m certain it’s not somewhere in Khan academy but I looked for like 30 min + and couldn’t find it.
I’m tied up in meetings today but I’ll try to find some time to double-check later this evening and/or tomorrow. If I can confirm that we don’t have an appropriate origin-source for this info then that can help us with footing in terms of tackling the possibility that the card may not have a happy home in our little deck. 