The text is a most refined product distilled by an all-star team of leading scientists. Oriented towards the lay person or the would be specialist, it is simple, unpretentious, sometimes even funny, but always powerfully explanatory. The diagrams are exceptionally clear (a must for explaining such complex subjects) and the photographs are astounding. Love for their subject and passion for teaching are present all along. And mysticism is always around the corner...

If you have ever wondered things like "What are exactly chromosomes?", "How do exactly enzymes work in the cell?", or "How the hell does all this machinery work at a purely chemical level ?" and you are not quite satisfied with popular science books, this one is for you. It will answer these questions and much, much more.

An enjoyable, deeply satisfying tour the force through the molecular level of all living organisms.

Don't miss it!


Book Does Not Make the Grade   December 27, 2004
 23 out of 24 found this review helpful

I have read a good number of science texts, and this one just doesn't seem to be as good as the others. The explanations are adequate, though not to the level that Marieb's Anatomy and Physiology was or to the extent of Biology by Campbell and Reese. In class, the professor told us to refer to Campbell and to "Molecular Biology of the Cell" for better explanations.

The glossary is incomplete, and often key terms are just nt there. The index suffers from the same trouble, even when the chapters address the topic. Lastly the graphics, just don't seem to be as well planned as those in the texts mentioned above.

I understand that many do not have a choice given that most buy the book as an assigned text. My recommendation, therefore, is to save your old textbooks and to ask that your professor place a copy of Molecular Biology of the Cell on reserve at your school library.




Usefull illustrations, but it didn't help much for class   December 28, 2004
 23 out of 29 found this review helpful

After taking my first course in cell biology I discovered a number of things about the subject. 1) Cell Biology is a HARD CLASS! In my class, we covered about 18 or so chapters of material. Tests were based mostly on memorization of both relevant and obscure facts as well as many, many molecular processes. For someone that is pressed for time and tries to cram before tests, there will be problems. 2) It is difficult to understand many of the processes in cell biology without some chemistry background. When I took the class, I was also in organic chemistry 2, but that didn't help much. If I could have done it over again, I would actually take Biochemistry before Cell because processes in Cell Biology are explained briefly and mostly independent of the chemistry involved, which forces the student to memorize information without really understand why these processes occur. 3) In general, Biology is becoming more problem based and in order to understand cell, you need to have solve useful questions.

Based on the inherent difficulties of Cell Biology that I have mentioned, I don't think that this book did much to bridge any of these learning gaps. The molecular processes were explained briefly which was ok, but since there was so many of them, it was still hard to manage. The chemistry of cell biology in this book is poorly explained. Chemical structures are largely discarded in favor of acronyms. Obvisously, acronyms are favored for the long run, but a firm understanding of the chemical structures needs to be understand first. In my opinion, this book relied too much on acroynms.

Finally, the questions in this book were terrible. Some were just inane (Compare signs of life for a rock and a plant) while others were just pointless (Calculate something or the other). Also, there were many problems that I was just clueless to even though I had read the information in the book. These problems asked what would happen if some molecular process was somehow disturbed. Obvisouly, questions of this nature are essential in understanding cell biology, but the book did not provide enough information to come up with a feasible answer. In my opinion, this book should be much more problem based and should have fair problems that are able to be solved, and there should be a student solutions book available that provides clear explanations to all questions.

This book was decent for basic concepts, but not really useful for really understanding the subject matter. I would recommend looking for a different text, even if this is the required text for your class.


A fairly useful introduction to cell biology   November 8, 2001
 20 out of 24 found this review helpful

This is a beautifully presented book. My students like it enormously, because of the conversational style, the illustrations, and the overall readibility -and this is perhaps the highest aim a textbook can aspire to achieve.

However, I find that the authors have gone too far in their attempt to abridge and simplify their previous opus -Molecular Biology of the Cell (MBOC): some topics are insufficiently or superficially discussed. Also, the style is slightly verbose at times. Finally, I think that the book could benefit from some reorganization.

The following examples illustrate my point.

*Osmosis is given a very brief mention.(p 382).
*The repulsion for anything mathematic continues the tradition started by MBOC. The Nernst equation, is given just a little box in page 393. The Donnan effect doesn't even have a walk-on part.
*The discussion of action potential contains the usual story of the voltage gated K+ channels, when these channels are not found in myelinated mammalian neurons.
*Myelin itself is not even mentioned.
*The discussion on G protein-linked receptors -a key topic- is very superficial.
*Membrane potential is introduced in a rather convoluted fashion. Furthermore, the concept is used several times before it is finally explained.
*Certain sections may leave the reader confused. For example p53 is described as a gene regulatory protein which arrests the cycle when DNA damage occurs (p 580). But when tumor suppressor genes are discussed, only retinoblastoma is given as an example, which would tend to convey the mistaken idea that p53 is not a tumor suppressor gene.