Is liver the only internal organ in human body with regenerative capacity? How about endometrium?and what is the difference between regeneration and renewing?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ No, many tissues regenerate, otherwise we'd never grow or heal from wounds. Skin, muscle, lining of the intestines, bone, to name just a few. $\endgroup$ – MattDMo Sep 29 '16 at 16:18
  • $\begingroup$ blood is an example too, so that after participating a blood donation we regain the blood-volume ( with same number-density of blood corpuscles as initial) in few months $\endgroup$ – Always Confused Sep 30 '16 at 9:21

I'd say renewing refers to a constant process wheras regeneration applies to wholesale rebuilding due to trauma.

For example, your skin is constantly "renewed" by the undermost cells, adjacent to the basement membrane, dividing to produce new cells that migrate outward. These cells are modified to protect and eventually slough off to feed the mites in your bed. Ditto to cells lining the stomach which are replaced/renewed about ever three days due to abuse of stomach acid and salsa.

Humans can regenerate much of the last joint of a finger, bone and all. I'm not sure if this is age dependent nor how much of the knuckle needs to remain. Search "regeneration of fingers in humans" to find many references to this.

  • $\begingroup$ Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted. Specifically, please provide a reliable scientific reference for the claim made in your last paragraph. "I just saw a show" is not a reliable reference. $\endgroup$ – MattDMo Sep 29 '16 at 20:54
  • $\begingroup$ Yep, a search turns up a third of a million references to 'regeneration of fingers in humans'. Maybe it was my colloquial parlance that triggered your comment. As an educator, I try to taylor the response to the student, but maybe it was too homely for this forum. I've removed it. Uncommon theories and arkane assertations should be referenced. Referencing each and every fact detracts from the clarity of the discussion. Imagine your comment to the OP, replete with references. $\endgroup$ – bpedit Sep 29 '16 at 22:34
  • $\begingroup$ No, referencing facts does not detract from the clarity of the discussion, it enhances it. References provide suggested additional reading, allowing those who are interested to learn more about the topic. And since we're on that new-tangled "internet" thing, you can make inline links and continue with the flow of your prose without those annoying superscripts. We've discussed this on Meta, and the consensus is to link all but the most basic facts. Wikipedia is frequently used. Your thumb claim should be linked, as it is not common knowledge. I'd also link "basement membrane". $\endgroup$ – MattDMo Sep 30 '16 at 3:06
  • $\begingroup$ However, your refusal to put even a basic link into your text is just petty. It tells people "oh, you should know this, but if you're too dumb to, I'll tell you to google it because you probably wouldn't think to do that on your own." I've found that some of the best answers on here have tons of supporting links, but they're there for reference, and usually not quoted from directly. Instead, the authors synthesize what's contained in them, but leave the link if you want to know more, or want to check their claims. Your answer does none of that. $\endgroup$ – MattDMo Sep 30 '16 at 3:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It wasn't a refusal, nothing petty on this end. I honestly thought my edits would satisfy your complaint, my mistake. I also though it was good pedigogy to provide general direction as opposed to choosing one of 300,000 plus hits. I feel your damning comments ill deserved. $\endgroup$ – bpedit Sep 30 '16 at 4:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.