Thank you Dr. Castillo,

I feel the problem lies in the absence of any appellate body for the proper nomenclature of human body parts.

Chemistry recognized the problem very early and came up with a sophisticated system called IUPAC (International Union for Pure and Applied Chemistry) nomenclature.

I think it is the prime responsibility of the the Anatomists and Physiologists to come forward and establish a commission for the nomenclature of body parts and functions. It seems just simple right now, but as the fashion of naming every single entity as a separate organ grows, it will be a problem to tackle the issue then.

There was recently a new floating that human body consists of some 78 organs and Mesentery is the 79th in the list. I am afraid that I don't know who generated that list. This list was most probably a bogus list or the journalist's flaw.

Additionally, the Lancet paper published by Prof. Coffey does not seem to be sufficiently justifying the organ status of Mesentery. Because, in order to do that, it is important to place the definition of an organ in the introduction itself. The paper by Coffey and his colleagues is just a review trying to give an idea that based on the endoscopic experiences and other speculative approaches, Mesentery may be a continuous entity from Jejuno-ilial junction to rectum. I do agree to this statement because we have done a number of cadaveric dissections and found that Mesentery is a continuous entity. But that is no justification to refer to Mesentery as an organ.

Hello,

I have not seen the full text, but think it might be informative for your question:

Coffey, J. C., & O'Leary, D. P. (2016). The mesentery: structure, function, and role in disease. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 1(3), 238-247.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309040884

Very best wishes,

Mary

Hi Mary!

I have read the paper and many more by Prof. Calvin Coffey. We have also published interesting studies on Mesentery. But calling it an organ is not just a matter of whim and fancy. There must be some guidelines. And I am afraid, there are none.

Best wishes

Muneeb

Is a very complex question.. i just want to joint to you because is a very hard question.

Where can we found evidence about international classification of tissues and organs?. Thanks a Lot for your help!

Hi, An organ by definition carries out specific task or tasks what we call as functions in medicine. The mesentery carries out specific functions in the body and though it has not been labelled as an organ in the past, it is wise to respect (as all surgeons do) the mesentery for the function it carries out and give it the grade of an organ.

I don't think this is the correct answer. Your definition fits a tissue also. Had this been this simple, I would not have asked the question in the first place.

an organ comes about when tissues combine,this is not the case with a mesentery

I have to wonder if this is not just another change for the sake of it. Whether it is called an organ, a tissue or whatever doesn’t change our understanding of it or its constitution or function.

Good question. Can v also include the "omentum" also in this discussion, if it is not out of the place?

Its my yes to "Omentum". Please do add your comments.

Let me think? It leads me to an extension to the entire peritoneum covering of the abdominal cavity. We do come across discussions ascribing some or other function especially when it comes to infection, immunity or even peritoneal secretions relating to nutritional or chemical agents. It is a very interesting topic you have brought up that has hardly attracted attention of most scientific community. please continue. I shall love to participate in it.

Yes, Omentum is structurally a part of the peritoneum & Mesentery. Omentum also has specific functions such as warding off infections very similar to WBCs and inflammations.

I think it is better to approach this problem stepwise.

Lest first try to have a consensus on a fool-proof definition of "Organ". A definition that sets an organ apart from cells, tissues, collection of tissues and organ systems.

I think an organ should be defined in terms of Anatomy, Physiology and Evolution.

Over to you all!

Coincido en lo fundamental sobre lo desafortunado que ha sido nombrar al mesenterio como un órgano pues anatómica, funcional y patológicamente no cumple con las especificaciones establecidas. estoy de acuerdo con Muneeb Faiq, quien se ha atrevido a cuestionar el atrevimiento del profesor Coffey.

Thank you Dr. Castillo,

I feel the problem lies in the absence of any appellate body for the proper nomenclature of human body parts.

Chemistry recognized the problem very early and came up with a sophisticated system called IUPAC (International Union for Pure and Applied Chemistry) nomenclature.

I think it is the prime responsibility of the the Anatomists and Physiologists to come forward and establish a commission for the nomenclature of body parts and functions. It seems just simple right now, but as the fashion of naming every single entity as a separate organ grows, it will be a problem to tackle the issue then.

There was recently a new floating that human body consists of some 78 organs and Mesentery is the 79th in the list. I am afraid that I don't know who generated that list. This list was most probably a bogus list or the journalist's flaw.

Additionally, the Lancet paper published by Prof. Coffey does not seem to be sufficiently justifying the organ status of Mesentery. Because, in order to do that, it is important to place the definition of an organ in the introduction itself. The paper by Coffey and his colleagues is just a review trying to give an idea that based on the endoscopic experiences and other speculative approaches, Mesentery may be a continuous entity from Jejuno-ilial junction to rectum. I do agree to this statement because we have done a number of cadaveric dissections and found that Mesentery is a continuous entity. But that is no justification to refer to Mesentery as an organ.

A working definition of an organ needs to be agreed on first, rather than an arbitrary list based on varying opinions. I agree with Muneeb Faiq. The mesentery is a tissue, but it is contentious whether it is an organ.

Dear colleagues: To whom we can require an official concept??.. Is important for everything be so clear with those concepts.

Regards for your commitment and help.

Nice day to all,

Martha

Estimada Martha, en la morfologia clasica hemos aprendido que un organo es un conjunto de tejidos que realizan una función, en el caso del mesenterio, cuando estudiamos al peritoneo (u "omentmn") describimos una serie de "formaciones peritoneales" dentro de las cuales identificamos, -mesos ( en plural, pues estas formaciones cubren los elementos vasculares y nerviosos existentes entre organos) y asi reconocemos un meso-salpinx, mesoapendice, mesocolon, mesosigmoides etc, y mesenterio que fija al intestino delgado a la pared posterior del abdomen; describimos tres epiplones y algunos espacios, como la retrocavidad de los epiplones. El organo generico aqui sería el peritonéo, el cual está formado por tejido endotelial, tejidos vascular y linfatico, nervioso y conectivo, y tiene varias funciones definidas. Espero que este comentario no nos confunda mas.

Estimado Octavio, mil gracias !. VAmos a ver si logramos tener un pronunciamiento de un organismo oficial.. Nos sería muy útil a todos!.

Abrazos y mil gracias de nuevo,

Martha U.

Dear Martha,

Thank you for your interest and enthusiasm on this topic. We have done many human Cadaveric dissections and I must say that many speculations and ideas of Prof. Calvin Coffey are very near to what we observed. One of the ideas is that Mesentery is a continuous entity. We have compiled the videa dissection of human mesentery. One of our initial papers was published recently. Here are a few links that will help:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKiTUucRnFQ

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29027339

https://kashmirobserver.net/2017/health/kashmiri-scientist-puts-500-year-old-story-about-human-body-rest-25343

But what is more important is what are our basic concepts aimed at. It seems that we have been using the term "Organ" in quite a vague manner all along our scientific history of Anatomy and Physiology. I have been discussing this issue for a long time with many Anatomists and Physiologists, but unfortunately there has been no effective or useful answer. I also tried to investigate if there is some international body for such a nomenclature. I am afraid there is none.

Then I thought of coming up with a definition myself. It seems to be difficult for two reasons:

1. Definition of an organ is a traditional one deep rooted in history and may not therefore be a uniform scientific construct. This would mean that the word organ is bound to be fuzzy and non-objective. That makes it quite vague and unscientific.

2. Even if I come up with some good discussion, it will be extremely difficult to get the small manuscript published a good journal where almost every single reviewer and editor will be highly skeptic of what I say. In that scenario, will my bid be worth the effort.

To this effect, I thought of learning what others think of this idea. It seems that "concept of an organ" is quite an interesting enterprise for everyone. All we need to do is to make small attempts to come near to a reasonably acceptable definition. If we are successful in that, it will be a great contribution.

Thank you for your interest.

Muneeb

What do you all think; should we attempt on the definition of "Organ" in biology? IF we are successful, we may try to co-write a small anecdote for an effective publication.

We may try to define organization of a biological system and then do a reductionist approach towards the definition of organ.

Any suggestions out there?

I think this is a valuable consensus definition of "Organ" to work on, considering it is not standardised.

I support your endeavour.

Consideration of factors relating to areas such as-

1. Anatomical - unique anatomy, and structure ,

2. Function - unique function in the organism or biological system,

3. Physiology - physiological implications within the biological system,

4. Possibly chemical and genetic composition of the tissue.

5. Embryological differentiation

could be discussed, amongst the issues relating to whether a structure is considered an organ.

Any other suggestions?

Thanks Dr. D'Netto, I suggest adding evolution to the list!

Let us all give our suggestions so that we may try to come to a consensus of a nearly symmetric and all applicable definition of an "Organ".

That will help us to identify or may be classify all organs of the body and also address the question if Mesentery or the recently described Interstitium are "Organs" .

Waiting for replies from all the participants here!

Hi all...

I m agree with Dr. D´Netto and Dr. Faiq, may be a consensus can help us at better form.

Regards,

Martha U.

Thanks Dr. Martha,

Any more suggestions?

Anyone else wants to participate?

We can also open a Facebook page on "Organ Nomenclature Protocols"

Will that be a good idea?

yes.. pretty fine..!!

Should we then use a reductionist approach to come up with a definition?

What if excerpts are taken from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_(anatomy)#cite_note-6

May be because it has own blood vessels (superior and inferior) and nerves

Does it mean that an organ must have its own blood supply. This makes sense physiologically but unfortunately this is not true. I like your proposition. May be blood supply is one of the keys to describe particular anatomical compartments not generally distinctly distinguished.

Thanks for your input Dr. Albahadili

Yes, i agree the concept of Dr. Muneeb. The criteria for define an organ isn´t a organ has its own blood supply.. may be one of several.. thanks Dr. Muhammad, keep in touch. because the definition and the work for be more clearly these topics are very important!

Nice Day,

Martha.

Yes, I agree with Dr. Faiq & Dr Uruena. Blood supply would not be a defining characteristic, but an anatomical descriptor. ( viable tissue has a blood supply).

It has defitive function and it is affected by defitive diseases

I don't think that mesentery can be considered as an authentic organ in the true sense of this concept

And what are your reasons for that. Opinions should be based on rational and coherent thought processes.

Thank yuou Muneeb for this very thought provoking lively discussion that never came to my mind. I relish reading the reactions to upgrade myself, while think on it as well. Look forward to keeping abreast with.

It’s organ because its composed of double layers of visceral peritoneum contain blood vessels and lymphatic, has functions tethering the intraperitoneal organ to posterior abdominal wall, secrete and absorbed fluid from peritoneal cavity that can be used in perineal dialysis

It must be considered a funcional oigan with several properties indicativo this denominación