Talk:2012 Group 2 Project

From CellBiology

Group Assessment Criteria 2012

  • The key points relating to the topic that your group was allocated are clearly described.
  • The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
  • Content is correctly cited and referenced.
  • The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student’s own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations.
  • Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
  • Relates the topics and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of cell biology.
  • Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer’s wiki.
  • Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
  • The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning.
  • Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with this sites wiki guidelines.


  • Z3186755 - 1
  • Z3254758 - 52, only 6 small blocks.
  • Z3336156 - 193, Normal Function, ongoing.
  • Z3332327 - 132, ongoing.

Total edits - 380

Project page has been accessed 2,000 times.

Positive Negative
  • Fair structure to project.
  • Good research on topic.
  • Good tables.
  • Balance between text/figures.
  • Contribution from some group members.
  • Layout could have been improved.
  • Table colour selection makes content difficult to read.
  • Response to peer review process.


  • Z3186755 - 0
  • Z3254758 - 6 figures, abnormalities only, associated descriptive information missing from files.
  • Z3336156 - 4 figures, related to topic, better file information need for some.
  • Z3332327 - 4 figures, including student drawn figure, same issue with file descriptions.

--Mark Hill 11:23, 4 April 2012 (EST) As of Wed 4th April (week 5) other than the requested individual assessment references and a contribution to the History section (Z3332327) there is nothing on either your project page or discussion page that indicates that other student work has been carried out on this project since its inception. I remind you of the assessment criteria and my expectation of ongoing demonstrable contributions. On the discussion page, "What happened to all our posts? " one of you had inserted your discussion in the page header rather than on the page. Such changes are not allowed and are deleted. Care should be taken to add to the actual discussion page, which should short the address when editing ( ) not {

Peer Review

--- I think this page is by far the best organised page

  • Introduction: like the simplicity of it but seems might want to add a image to make it look better?
  • History: love the table! love the detail!
  • Normal Function: maybe this should be with abnormal function.
  • Signalling Pathway: love the page, love the table and image, adequate amount of information
  • Abnormal Function: love what you've done with it! the table makes details more distinguishable and easy to read, well done!
  • Research: Therapeutic Applications: love the whole structure of this section! the tables, images and the description about Cancer therapy and Age Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) is great!

--Z3291200 16:29, 17 May 2012 (EST) --- In short, the wiki is done well, with some small adjustments it will become very strong. Some small issues include:

  1. Try to utilise the introduction a bit more. It is a section where you can establish a good description about VEGF and grab any readers attention. It is quite vague and although, in some respects, introductions should be, going into more detail can further validate you page to a prospective researcher entering the field.
  2. Most of the project has a very effective and flowing layout to it with use of tables, images and subheadings appropriately. The Normal Function section looks as though it doesn’t belong in that regard. Although the concepts there are reasonably simple and difficult to write a lot about, possible some images or some form of filler to aid in the flow of the entire wiki as a whole.

Other than a few small issues, I feel the wiki read very well, a strong understanding of VEGF is shown, research appears to be well done and the layout has been very well thought out and makes reading the wiki an easier task for a peer.


  • Maybe a bit more info would be good, slightly brief


  • Good use of table, well referenced and the colour choice was good, not too bright.

Normal & Abnormal Function

  • I thought normal function should come just before abnormal function so readers could have a better comparison between the two, and the signalling pathway could be better placed just after the introduction. The table in abnormal function was great, with the relevant images placed, was really helpful.

Signalling pathway

  • I thought that maybe the information in this section was a brief, could use a bit more information. Also, it would be nice if there were some info under VEGF, so it won't seem like theres nothing done on it.


  • The information was well researched, but the layout wasn't as clear. Maybe the pictures should all go on one side of the page, to present a clearer page.


  • Better placed before the Reference, as readers might miss it.


  • Doesn't introduce the VEGF pathway. Just a sentence on what it actually does, i.e what moves from where to where, it sends what to where?
  • Good image, could use a little visible description of what it is though.


  • Nice table format.
  • Needs more info (if there is more history that is).

Normal Function

  • needs more info on the hormones that influence VEGF.
  • Suggest this section comes after signalling pathway.

Signalling pathway.

  • This section needs tidying up.
  • Table looks great.
  • Image is great also.
  • More info as this is a major element of the study.

Abnormal Function

  • Great table.
  • Great images (all with references and copyright).


  • This section needs tidying up, just to make it flow.
  • Info is good.


  • Looks good, could always use a few more though.

The use of the image in the beginning of metastasis immediately draws your attention to the group page. Structurally the group satisfies most of the criteria of the assessment. The use of table to demonstrate the abnormal function is a clever as this allows you to understand the content represented more clearly. Although the group project is pleasing some components may need to be changed. For example the use of the colour grey in the tables dulls your text. The glossary is quite short and needs more content. Someone without a scientific background may not know words such as “edema”, “microaneurysms” etc. The most important point raised by Mark was referencing only ONE wiki image, images of rheumatoid arthritis and breast cancer are both from Wiki. No student drawn image. Overall well done!

  • Intro: bit brief, and seems a little vague. I’m left unsure of what Vascular endothelial growth factor is about. Maybe even put more terms in the glossary that people of non-scientific background can understand too, such as embryogenesis, and proliferation. Even a picture to help describe what VEGF is all about.
  • History: great. But did nothing happen between 1993-2004? Also in 2004, might be good to put ‘antiangiogenic effect’ and ‘metastatic’ in the glossary.
  • Normal function: easy and clear to read. Great work. Might want to fix up your hormones section, don’t quite understand the question mark at the end of steroids? And lack of references for oncogenes…
  • Abnormal function: love the table. Made it clear, interesting and easy to read
    1. overall: not many terms in the glossary, remember that a good way to look at it would be to imagine a person with no scientific background came and looked at your page, write any science-y words in your glossary. Some I found I mentioned, others worth noting are: thromboembolic, dehiscence etc. Also love what you’ve done with adding hyperlinks to words to link straight to the glossary words at the bottom. Also, you need a student drawn image to fit the marking criteria, so make sure you draw one up and include it! Otherwise great work, some sections at the beginning could do with a bit more detail cos it seems very vague.

--Z3290558 00:53, 17 May 2012 (EST)

-Introduction: I thought the outline was good. It introduced the page content.

-History: I thought the history was simple to understand and it was easy to understand the steps of how it got to what the research states today.

-Normal function: I thought this was missing a lot of key elements (e.g. Structure, images). The contents was fine to understand but could have been made easier with diagrams.

-Signalling Pathway: I thought the table was good. This with a diagram would have made it easy to understand.

-Abnormal function: I thought this section was the clear stand out of all the sections, It was well presented, easy to understand and had a good use of diagrams.

-Research: Therapeutic Applications I thought this section was well researched.

-I thought that overall it was well written and easy to read and follow for the most part.


The introduction is short and provides a good brief summary of the topic but it needs more information.


History is well organised, use of table makes it interesting for the table, but enough referencing and can be worked on more, needs more expansion.

Normal function

The language used in normal function section is too complicated for general people to understand, being a science student I found the information a little too hard to understand. This section is not complete and needs more research, referencing not complete.

Signalling pathway

Good use of table and pictures, although the picture is not referenced. The information is clear and easy to follow but again referencing is not done properly and seems not enough research is done, as I can see only one reference.

Abnormal function

Good use of table, good referencing and easy to follow and understand.

Research: Therapeutic Application pictures are well referenced, as well as the information in this section.

Introduction – colourful picture draws me in instantly

History – use of the table was a good idea, made the information easy to follow, perhaps consider the use of colour? Well referenced

Normal Function – subheadings made text relatively simple to follow; only concern is the bullet points? Not sure if its intentional

Signalling pathway – this section was very good, the table and picture helped make the entire pathway clear; the information was succinct, really good job

Abnormal function – very well researched; the use of images in the table drew me in; the gruesome pictures were a weird and fun way of dragging the reader in

Research – again well-researched, use of table and photos keeps reader engaged and correctly referenced

External Links – maybe consider finding a few more helpful external links, the heading seems a little random with just one link and one line describing it

References – list isn’t too shabby at all

Overall – this assignment has been well-planned well-researched and very neat. Good work guys

  • Introduction: A good outline of the topic and introduction to the page. What is VEGF-A? How does it relate to VEGF?
  • History: I like how each line builds on the discovery before, which adds to the readers understanding of the steps involved. Were the last two clinical uses successful?
  • Normal function: This section lacks structure, images and references. The functions are described well, however it would be easier to understand the flow of event with the use of images and flow charts.
  • Signalling Pathway: The table provides a good summary of the receptors functions. I think you should summarize the written information below it and include it in the table as a new column. That being said it is not clear what the actual 'pathway' for VEGF is. Perhaps a flowchart or diagram would be necessary to clear this up. The image needs a caption.
  • Abnormal function: This section was very well done. The information is very relevant and links strongly to VEGF, and the pictures nicely illustrate the information and is correctly cited. It is clear a lot of effort went into this section.
  • Research: Therapeutic Applications This section showed an extensive amount of research. I particularly like the use of external links to related studies, and the pictures and table that breaks up the information.
  • Overall impression:The information is presented extremely well and the page is very appealing to read. The use of colours and images instantly drew my attention and the structure aided the flow of information. The information is well researched and covers all relevant content. Very well done.

what was done well:

  • very well written abnormal function section. It contained enough information and yet it was simple and clear. The images were also very relevant to text
  • The table summary for the VEGF receptor was great. It summarised the text well
  • Overall the page lay out is commendable. It was easy to find information because of the subheadings and dot points.

What needs to be improved:

  • what is exactly the signalling pathway for VEGF? There is a lot of information about the receptor but what are the chain of events after the ligand binding to receptor?
  • There are too many wikipedia images. I think we're only 1 or maybe 2 max. can you find some images from plos, JCB or PNAS?
  • there isn't a student drawn image.
  • where are the in text citations for oncogenes and hormones under the normal function section?

First of all I am very impressed with the overall layout and structure of the page. It is very easy on the eye, simple to follow, and very neatly arranged. The use of tables is quite impressive, especially in certain sections demanding structure and organisation.

  • The introduction is quite succinct, however maybe a bit more information about the depth of the overall scope of the topic would be interesting to add, such as all the deferent types of VEGFs, despite basing your research on a VEGF-A.
  • The History is set out very neatly, however I do sense there must be some more discoveries about VEGF
  • The Normal function section doesn't seem to be complete yet so I can't say too much about it, however I do hope citations to be added. Also the addition of images should enhance the interactivity
  • The section for Abnormal function is done very well and there is not much that I could criticise about it appart from the origin of the images.
  • The Glossary section must be filled with more terms, as there were many terms within the text that I did not initially comprehend
  • I appreciate the use of an interactive image at the top of the page, which seems to heighten the readers intrest (as it did with me). Most images seem to have the correct copyright information displayed, however I realised the use of more than one wikipedia image, which is against the specification of the assessment.
  • The addition of related study links seem to be very useful. Also Internal links for the glossary was a very intelligent addition
  • Some extra points:
    • Adding some more citations to support your information would enhance the validity of your research
    • There are some minor grammer and punctuation errors, however I am assuming these woud be corrected towards the end
    • Appart from the subsection for 'signalling pathway', maybe you can also add a subheading describing the 'Formation of VEGF'
    • There still doesn't seem to be any sketch relating to your research

I am quite impressed by the layout of the "research" section, as well as its referencing and the use of relevant images to support your points. The incorporation of the table to summarise the study's findings was also effective. And I like the nice touch of the "related studies" links. But one question: besides the anti-VEGF research, why did you only talk about research relating to AMD? Why not the other disorders as well, since you discussed one of them?

The "abnormal function" section is also well laid out. However, at the same time, there are a few blatantly concerning issues. The least of issues is that the first box in the "description" column is not referenced. The more major issue is that there are three wikipedia images!!! Mark clearly specified we are only allowed a maximum of one. Please remove at least two of them, if you don't want to be marked down.

There were a few sections where I didn't feel that the headings matched their content. Firstly, the "introduction" sounds more like an essay opening than a wiki page opening. Go take a look at some cell signalling pages on wikipedia for an idea of structuring intro for a wiki page. Secondly, the content of the "function" section isn't talking about the function of VEGF. It would more appropriately be named "production of VEGF". As for the function of VEGF, you mentioned vasculogenesis, angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis, which 'are' relevant - you should have expanded on these instead. Third, the "signalling pathway" section has a number of flaws. The table is good, but it is a summary of information presented. There is so far no content posted that the table is summarising!Also, the table lacks references. I also noted that the last sentence of VEGFR-1 is incomplete. The rest of the receptor pathways, as well as the image in the "signalling pathway" section, all need referencing.

Going through your images, I noticed that your first image also requires a reference. And the copright notice for "Chart-VEGFR2.gif" is broken. Anyway, the relevant permissions section should be copy-pasted into the description box for the uploaded image, not linked to.

I hope the feedback has been constructive, albeit leaning on the negative side, and I hope my comments help you to improve your wiki page.

  • Pros
    • Well formatted tables and general page organisation
    • Content correctly cited and referenced
    • Good use of internal links to the glossary
    • Content easily readable due to the use of subheadings, dot points and tables
    • I liked the use of pictures to visually represent the diseases resulting from abnormal function in the pathway
    • “Research: Therapeutic Applications” section showed extensive research and was interesting
  • Cons
    • “Normal Function” section needs expanding; further research needed
    • No student-drawn image
    • “Normal Function” section is very dense; maybe add subheadings or use dot points?


  • Image at the top of page, you should add a caption so people know what they are looking at.
  • Intro and history are good, maybe some more information can be added to intro so its more of a paragraph of what you will be discussing in the project.
  • Normal function, is very incomplete. needs more information, it a uniform structure- what i mean by that is, if you want to write in short paragraphs then do so for all subheadings don't do paragraphs and a basic hormone list.
  • Signalling pathway: is also incomplete. i like the table, its simple short and succinct. i think its good to say the basics in the table then further elaborate below, smart thinking.
  • Abnormal function section is excellent. it is simple, short sentences (so easily read), images (engaging), nice layout. great work. however, only one image is allowed to be used from wikipedia, i believe you have two in that table.
  • Therapeutic application is a good section, it has diagrams, its simply worded, short sentences, interesting info. good work but i think you should add some more examples of other illnesses.



  • good clear tables
  • pictures in abnormal function are great for giving the reader a visual idea of the disease.
  • internal link to glossary was good
  • good balance of pictures and text


  • structure of receptor info?
  • incomplete glossary
  • pathway needs to be more in depth.
  • structure of some sentences were a little hard to understand on first reading i.e Since VEGFR-1 is the only receptor, which does not lead to mitogenesis, VEGF binding to VEGFR-1 competes with mitogenic action that VEGF bound to VEGFR-2 and 3 would result to.

Possible improvements:

  • For someone who has little/no previous knowledge of the topic it was a little hard to understand. This could be fixed by clearer organization of writing and easily fixed by a complete glossary. (Which I understand was probably just forgotten)
  • simplified/clear, easy to understand language (I know this can be hard when trying to fit in scientific terms)

The introduction is short and clear. It gives a good preview of what will be discussed in the other sections. You might want to expand upon this, for example listing a few names of diseases associated with it. It might also be good to mention what VEGF actually is - a signalling protein - and provide a crystal structure image.

The images you have are relevant, however, please display them as 'thumb' so you can add a description to it on your main page. It would also be advisable to have the copyright text displayed instead of just the link. T In regards to the history: this section is well-organised in a table, which makes it easy to read.

I am a little confused when it comes to the normal function. It seems like you are focussing on the production of VEGF and what factors influence this, not on the function of VEGF in the body. All that is mentioned is that it can 'initiate a cascade of signal resulting in vasculogenesis, angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis in cells. It is a heparin-binding glycoprotein that also promotes mitogenesis and vascular permeability in endothelial cells'. You might want to expand upon this and change the subheading to 'Normal production of VEGF and factors affecting this' or 'Production and functioning of VEGF' etc.

Signalling Pathway seems to be well-written and covers pathways when different receptors are involved. Please delete the first subheading which does not have any information to it. Also, make sure you put the picture in 'thumb' so you can add a description to it and have the copyright text there (not just the link). The table is simple and clear, which I like.

Abnormal function looks amazing! It is well set-out in the table and pictures are all relevant. Do make sure you only have 1 image from wikipedia on your page - in this section both arthritis and breast cancer are from wikipedia. It would also be advisable to list the copyright text instead of the link.

The research section looks interesting and it encourages me to read it. The pictures have the copyright statement and a thumb description, which is good. The table and other information is relevant and the many links are a plus!

Your references seem to be fine, however please put them last. With this I mean switch it around with the glossary of terms. When it comes to the glossary of terms you might want to expand upon this. Also note that you will need to provide us with at least one student image.

The first thing i noticed was the excellent layout of the page, everything seemed organised. The images seem very intriguing, but it seems that many of them are wikipedia.

If you found the original sources for the images, or if some of them were handdrawn it would make the page look excellent. The layout for the abnormal function is great, it is so easy to follow and the information is succinct.

The introduction is also to the point, and so is the history. The research section is great, and very interesting.

The whole page is eye catching and invites the reader to continue reading. The copyright and referencing is correct. The external link makes the page interactive, a few more would be great.

The downside however is mainly in the short glossary of terms which needs to be worked on. There are a large number of words that are difficult to comprehend which I couldnt find in the glossary of terms. Another thing I failed to find is the research groups or institutes which are responsible for the current reasearch.

But overall well done and good luck with the rest of the assignment.

The organisation of the page is very simple and easy to follow. I like the use of table and the image in the beginning attracts the readers and the table summarises the history nicely. There is generally a good balance between content and pictures but the sigannling section need more information like interaction of certain proteins that cause the interaction perhaps. You could also describe the receptor structure and how that helps in the signalling process. Your abnormal section is exceptionally good with the table. The research part is very interesting to read as well especially with the pictures. Overall the page itself is very well organised and intriguing to read but a bit more information will be good to clear the pathway.

  • The introduction has good information, however it is a bit short and perhaps informal/has odd language for a wiki “fortunately” perhaps use the word however here, as it is an information giving wiki. If you really feel the need to introduce your page as well as your topic consider rewording your language as “here we will examine” is something I’d expect from an essay, but not necessarily in a wiki page.
  • The history section is good, with the table format being of particular note as it is of the same format of the other tables on the page, giving the entire page a feel of continuity.
  • Normal function begins well, however it is evident by the broken information and lack of citation that it is not yet finished
  • What is done on the signaling pathway section appears good, the use of table and image under VEGFR receptors convey information well. There is nothing under the VEGF subheading however, and it appears that the section VEGFR-3 is unfinished [if it is not, perhaps a “not much is known except that….” Would be useful here”]. Oddly enough this ‘unfinished’ section is cited while the previous sections are not.
  • Abnormal function section has a good layout however captions would be a good addition to the image section.
  • Research section again provides decent information, however it appears significantly more cluttered than the rest of the wiki page, and could perhaps benefit from some formatting edits.
  • References appear ok, and the use of external linking to the glossary is a nice touch, once finished would be very good

Text is short and succinct, supported by appropriate images. There is no evidence of a student drawn diagram – perhaps someone could draw the structure by hand, or draw another image for the signalling pathway section. Good idea to add the therapeutic applications section, it is very interesting. The abnormal function section is very comprehensive. Great idea to create links to the glossary, this saves the reader having to scroll and search for a word they may not understand.

  • Introduction: Very concise paragraph which provides clear direction to the audience. Perhaps you could have a couple of sentences on VEGF as a family of signalling proteins and then explain why you’re focussing on VEGF-A. The idea is that you start off in a broad sense and then get specific with the various components. Fantastic image choice – however it’s lacking a caption.
  • History: The history section has been well researched and summarised however I think it can definitely be expanded to include more entries, particularly in the large gap from 1993-2004.
  • Normal function: Although the information in this section is good and relevant to your page, it clearly does not belong to the normal function section. I suggest focussing on what VEGF actually does rather than what influences its production – you can have that in another section about “factors influencing VEGF production and release”. In addition, the dot point on “oncogenes” can also be shifted to a more relevant section such as abnormal function where you could link VEGF to cancer perhaps. I do like the way you’ve linked the glossary words in the text itself – great idea!
  • Signalling pathway: Now in this section, you’ve talked about VEGF receptors. Although that’s relevant, I don’t think it really belongs in the signalling pathway section. Perhaps you could have it under another section which specifically deals with receptors and proteins related to the VEGF signalling pathway. Ideally, this section should illustrate the actual pathway itself – using a good balance of text and images. This is a great opportunity to have a student drawn image which your page lacks at the moment. The diagram on the right is fantastic (needs a caption though) – perhaps you could work on explaining the image in text.
  • Abnormal function: This is my favourite section! Fantastic table with accompanying images – I think this section can be perfected by just mentioning why you’re focussing on VEGF-A earlier in the page i.e. introduction.
  • Research- therapeutic applications: This is another good section that clearly demonstrates your understanding of current therapeutic applications. I particularly like the table and the graph which adds a nice touch to your explanation.

As a whole, this page was an excellent and aesthetically pleasing read. There are a couple of sections that need to be edited and worked on, including the glossary. In addition, it’s very important that you nail the signalling pathway because it is the crux of this whole assignment. Good job Group 2!

  • Good use of images, I like the clear descriptions used to describe what processes are occurring.
  • History section is a bit vague. Is there a more specific date for the discovery of tumor-secreted protein that potently increased microvascular permeability to plasma proteins other than late 1970’s? Or if it was a collection of works maybe reference some of those.
  • Hormone section in regular function looks incomplete, but I would prefer brief descriptions of how each hormone induces VEGF production. Citations also need to be included for the oncogenesis section.
  • The table used in the signalling pathway is good as it provides a clear summary of the role of each receptor. However the subheadings below do not provide much more info. I suspect VEGFR-3 may be incomplete but if it is not I think more information is needed here. Also the references for VEGF receptors 1 and 2 are not present. Also i think this section could be supplemented with information about the regulation of this pathway for a more thorough representation of knowledge in this field.
  • The abnormal function section is very extensive and the pictures make it very engaging.
  • Images are referenced correctly but I believe there are too many Wikipedia references, also as of yet there is no student drawn image
  • Format is good and engaging.

You could define better in the introduction what vascular endothial is and why it is dependent on growth factors. I think the introduction could be made more interesting and a little more detailed. It is important not to mention too many details but you should provide the reader at least with an great overview about the topic. The History part could be illustrated with some pictures. Also, there are punctuation mistakes throughout. Especially the part about Oncogenes should either be explained better and/or illustrated with the help of a picture. The Hormones part is not yet ready and should be formulated. Although I would try to avoid question marks on your page because it stresses insecurity from your site about your own theme- which let it look unprofessional. Further, I don’t understand why you have subheadings when you don’t use them (“Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor”). I do like the idea with the table in the part Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptors but I think when you say “induces other factors” at the first effect, you should give examples or name some. In the part “VEGFR-3” you should maybe explain how it works and why it is important. The part about the receptors is very confusing from my point of view. I suggest, you should correct the structure. The table that lists diseases gives a good overview. Nevertheless, there are some parts which would fit better into “further research”.

The introduction is a good overview of the project, but it is too short. You may want to consider elaborating on it. I like the inclusion of a table for the history section, which seems to be well-researched. The section on normal functioning is well-divided, however, the part on hormones is incomplete (you wrote "steroids?"). In the signaling pathway component, you have two sub-headings in a row. Try to combine these or just use one to make it more visually pleasing. The table is a nice summary of the information below it. However, when you say "induces other factors", try to be more specific, and perhaps elaborate on VEGFR-3. I really like the table for abnormal function. It is a great addition, especially with the pictures, and is well-researched and well-explained. The remaining section (therapeutic applications) is good, but consider including other diseases (such as the ones you mentioned in abnormal functioning). Also, it may be better to have your glossary before your references. Lastly, you still need to include a student image, but the rest of your pictures seem to be well-referenced and the copyright information is included. There is a good inclusion of external links. The project still needs some touching up, but it is fairly decent overall.

Group 2

• Key points are all present but still need touching up. Normal function is not exactly lucid. “Vascular endothelial growth factor plays a crucial role in angiogenesis and vasculogenesis as well as the proliferation, migration, and survival of endothelial cells” --mentioned during intro but not again in normal function—probably should be.

• Choice of content, headings and subheadings etc seems to reflect broad knowledge on topic however this knowledge needs to be conveyed in a manner that peers will understand. For example, clearer explanations of the signalling pathway and the relevance of the different types of VEGF.

• Good range of references is used and they all come in a decent date range, so it’s up to date.

• Use of images and diagrams is effective and is to be complemented

• Evidence that the group is able to conduct suitable research is present. Has a informative approach but probably needs more of that teaching element to peers: remember we haven’t spent the time researching the subject, but still want to know all about it

Group 2 Feedback:


Maybe a bit more info would be good, main point and concept was put through


Good use of table, well referenced and the colour choice was good, easy to read

Normal & Abnormal Function

I thought normal function should come just before abnormal function so that a comparison could be drawn and the signalling pathway could be better placed just after the introduction. Regardless, it was thoroughly presented with tables making it easy to read and understand with relevant images to each of the sub topics

Signalling pathway

I thought that maybe the information in this section was a brief, could use a bit more information since it is a major part of the assessment. Also, it would be nice if there were some info under VEGF, so it won't seem like theres nothing done on it.


The information was well researched, but the layout wasn't as clear. Maybe the pictures should all go on one side of the page, to present a clearer page.

This assessment seems to be going in the right direction. With slightly more 'touching up' to do, it will be ready for submission.


- very well formatted except for maybe the normal function section which needs more work, particularly with organisation of the information and in text referencing. You should perhaps also expand on some points

- excellent use of images, make your page very engaging

- the abnormal function and research sections are particularly interesting

- referencing could be improved in the section on signaling pathway

- lacks glossary

Group Discussion

i was a bit concerned with that but i didn't know how to edit my writing after ive scanned the drawing already. it's better with the type written information but the image got smaller. this time you cant read the protein names clearly. I like what you've done but will it be possible to edit it without changing the size of the picture.. otherwise we compromise the labels of the proteins. --Z3336156 23:50, 23 May 2012 (EST) Hey maria i hope you don't mind, but i edited your drawing just a little bit just to make the text a bit easier to read. If you dont like it just change it back to RAF-Mek-Erk.png --Z3332327 23:26, 23 May 2012 (EST)

wow awesome hand drawn image maria! --Z3332327 23:04, 23 May 2012 (EST)

it's me again. I moved our Glossary before the Reference section. I just think it is better if it was arranged that way. --Z3336156 23:08, 17 May 2012 (EST)

Hey guys, i was trying to edit the Normal Function and Signaling Pathway however, i messed up the layout. After lymphangiogenesis would be the signaling pathway subheading but now it wouldnt show. The codes are still in the 'edit' page but when i save it, it wouldn't appear on the section. will someone be able to help me with this? --Z3336156 21:56, 17 May 2012 (EST) Thanks! I added the code for resizing your photo. basically just |400px| - you can choose how big :) The web page is looking really good! great work guys --Z3332327 22:48, 11 May 2012 (EST)

There's an assignment labelled lab 8 (which you can see under '2012 students') that we did during the lab. Also, the assignment for this week is to peer review all the projects of other groups; as for the format of this, I'm not really sure. Maybe Mark will post the guide lines and further instructions BUT i remember him saying it does not matter what format as long as you give a constructive criticisms and comments about the page of other groups. He also said that we cannot work on the page until the next lab (since people have to peer review our page).

He also said that we cannot work on the page until the next lab (since people have to peer review our page). Hence i won't be able to post or edit anything from my part. Is it alright if i try and upload some of my work here? I just want to see the layout and have the proper codes as I wouldn't be able to see them if they're just type them on word. I will made a subheading (VEGF SCRAP PAGE) at the bottom of this page for it to make sure that it wouldn't mess up the lay out of our discussion page.

ALSO, does any of you know how to re-size an image? The file that i uploaded is way too big for the section i want it to be. :( --Z3336156 21:01, 10 May 2012 (EST)

No worries ! if someone could update me on the lab later, that would be awesome. thanks!--Z3332327 15:12, 10 May 2012 (EST)

yes it's that one! thank you so much! --Z3336156 13:58, 10 May 2012 (EST)

hi! i just formatted the VEGF receptors into a table. I hope thats what you were after :) --Z3332327 13:41, 10 May 2012 (EST)

Hi guys! im sorry it took so long for me to get my work done. well, im working on it right now and before the tute later my part wouldnt look blank anymore. Lisa, i was wondering if you could help me with the formatting of my section. i would like to put some on tables but i dont know how to do it. thank you! i'll try and upload everything i have before the lab but im really having troubles with the formatting. im sorry. --Z3336156 10:02, 10 May 2012 (EST)

It's looking really good! And yes I agree, it definitely needs a image at the beginning. I'll keep looking for one. I wanted to add a photo and a short description of Harold f Dvorak (the guy who discovered vegf) but they're all under copyright. Anyways just wanted to let you guys know I won't be at the lab today because I'm really sick but if you need anything just post and I'll respond. --Z3332327 08:51, 10 May 2012 (EST)

Heya! I wish I'd thought to look on here earlier! Oh well, I think I've done most of the stuff I needed to do. I've seriously neglected the glossary list tho! eeek sorry! I also think we need a nice big picture at the top of the page? Do you have any nice ones? I haven't seen any that are ideal. I've also ommitted the treatment and prognosis columns from the disease table because the treatment is better addressed in the research section, and the prognosis is not necessarily relevant to VEGF-A, and obviously because there's still a lot of research going on regarding treatment, prognosis will change soon enough! E--z3254758 01:13, 10 May 2012 (EST)

Hey guys! So we need to get as much info up on the page before this Thursdays lab. Peer assessments will be on soon, which means the webpage will not be accessible for a week. I just wanted to make a few notes so we are aware of where we should be headed:

  • Intro: can be done later when the website is done. But maybe we should include a few sentences in there for now so it doesnt look so empty
  • History: im working on getting more dates for current research and treatment developments
  • Normal function: just fix up formatting, and probably use more than only one source
  • Signalling pathway: needs to be started
  • Abnormal function: table just needs to be filled in, pics look great! also remove ref column before thursday
  • Research: i think i need to find one more treatment/study.
  • External Links: ive added cancer research, but if you guys come across any - just add them and provide a small summary as to what it is. n2s: add FDA
  • Glossary: not much of a glossary atm, but we can work on that later
  • Hand drawn image: that needs to be up soon too

I think that's about it! Let me know if you think i missed anything --Z3332327 22:34, 7 May 2012 (EST)

Hi! We're concentrating on VEGF-A. But we will be mentioning the others. --Z3332327 21:44, 25 April 2012 (EST)

Hey ladies. Which VEGF are we doing now? The choice impacts your sections more than mine, but I need to know so that I can't start culling information that isn't relevant. E--z3254758 18:42, 24 April 2012 (EST)

Homework: Image relating to the topic

VEGF signalling pathway .gif

Reference: <pubmed> 11700390 </pubmed> --Z3336156 14:37, 18 April 2012 (EST)

VEGF Expression in endothelium of capillaries

--Z3332327 15:47, 18 April 2012 (EST)

week 7

Hey Guys, I was looking at the VEGFs and there are 6 types of VEGFs namely, VEGFa, VEGFb, VEGFc, VEGFd, and PIGF. I think we have to be more specific as to which we are doing otherwise there will be A LOT to discuss if we do all 5 of them. I am leaning towards A as it more specific while still having quite a bit to talk about. I'll email Mark Hill and ask him about this.

Cheers, --Z3336156 18:51, 16 April 2012 (EST)

Hi! We can always just provide external links to the other subtypes. I think it would be a good idea to focus on one. (if mark agrees) Also, have you guys managed to find any images? Im having a bit of trouble finding relevant images without violating copyright.

--Z3332327 22:21, 16 April 2012 (EST)

I haven't done the image yet. Are we supposed to upload it on our individual page? or in the group discussion page? and if so, would it be just like the very first exercise that Mark asked us to do in week one?

Also, i've emailed Mark about it and he hasn't replied yet. I will get back to you guys as soon as he replies to my email.

--Z3336156 11:35, 17 April 2012 (EST)

He said we all needed to have an image each, related to our topic. I guess just upload them onto the discussion page. And also, you guys must contribute a little info to the actual webpage so it looks like we've done something

--Z3332327 18:03, 17 April 2012 (EST)

Hey guys. I have uploaded 4 images on to our page under abnormal function but I can't for the life of me work out why 3 of them aren't working. As far as I'm aware I treated them in exactly the same manner as the one that is working?! I have constructed a table (I thought it would be more interesting than blocks of texts but I can change it if you like) with the different diseases associated with VEGF abnormal function. I have a bit of a problem that I was too embarrassed to discuss but I shouldn't leave you in the computer won't turn on and I didn't back it up...serves me right for not posting it on the page. I am taking it to someone tomorrow evening and they assure me that they will be able to recover my information. I'm really sorry if I've made you panic! The table essentially had breast cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetic retinopathy, age related macular degeneration and I think 3 others that I can't remember off the top of my head. For each one it then had a column with a brief description, one with a picture, another with how VEGF influenced the disease, and another one for treatment. However I was still working on the VEGF relationship, treatment, and a few other columns. I just included all the diseases I could find regardless of which type of VEGF it was related to because in our initial discussion we were covering them as a family. I will revise the selected diseases if you feel that we need to focus on one particular type. E --z3254758 00:41, 19 April 2012 (EST)

Oh my different photos are showing up, and the one that was showing up isn't....and I've managed to ruin the format of the page...I thought I could fix it by putting the images in a table but that doesn't seem to have done anything....E--z3254758 01:02, 19 April 2012 (EST)

Week 6

Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF)
         emma Introduction
         lisa - 1.2 History
         maria 1.3 Normal Function
         maria 1.4 Signalling Pathway
         emma 1.5 Abnormal Function
         lisa 1.6 Research
          1.7 External Links
          1.8 References
          1.9 Glossary

Hey guys! What happened to all our posts? anyways, did you guys end up dividing the topics so we can begin our research? Cheers, --Z3332327 12:49, 30 March 2012 (EST)

Hi! I added a little bit of content to the page for out next lab. --Z3332327 13:40, 2 April 2012 (EST)

--z3254758 20:22, 2 April 2012 (EST) Hey ladies! Yep we did divide up the topics, and we decided that you had given yourself too much work to do! :) however I can't find our revised division of topics?? Did we put it in the mess that was on here before? Em

Hello! Sounds good. Would anyone happen to remember what topics we all chose? Turns out we had posted them in the wrong section haha. Anyway moving on, I'm happy to continue with the topic of history and something else. Also I think we can leave the introduction until we have a bit more information on the page. Then we can internally link pages and provide a detailed summary of the whole page etc. See you guys tomorrow! --Z3332327 16:46, 4 April 2012 (EST)

Additional Articles/Links



|- A fundus photo showing intermediate age-related macular degeneration. Copyright Information |}



Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors (VEGF) are growth factor ligands found in cells that initiates a cascade of signal resulting in vasculogenesis[1], angiogenesis[2] and lymphangiogenesis[3]. A single gene encodes vascular endothelial growth factors, however, several isoforms of VEGF are present due to the altering splicing of the VEGF gene[4]. The diagram on the right shows the different splicings locations resulting into VEGF-A, VEGF-B, VEGF-C, VEGF-D, and Placental Growth Factor (PGF). Here it can be seen how the removal of exons of a gene can result in differing proteins that will lead to varying biological processes and physiological changes.

  1. <pubmed>7781909</pubmed>
  2. <pubmed> 22273580</pubmed>
  3. <pubmed> 9012504</pubmed>
  4. <pubmed>16039163</pubmed>