Talk:2012 Group 3 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.


Edits

  • Z3331639 - 17, duplicate edits.
  • Z3378280 - 32, Morphology of Apoptosis, duplicate edits.
  • Z3253205 - 18, 7 edits 24 may.
  • Z3407326 - 161, ongoing.

Total Edits - 226

Project page has been accessed 900 times.

Positive Negative
  • Fair structure to project.
  • Good tables.
  • Balance between text/figures.
  • Contribution from some group members.
  • Project structure and layout could have been improved.
  • Table colour selection makes content difficult to read.
  • Image selection not covering topic well.
  • Response to peer review process.

Images

  • Z3331639 - 0
  • Z3378280 - figures,
  • Z3253205 - 1 figures. Student drawn image.
  • Z3407326 - 12 figures,





Hey guys, here is a breakdown of things that still need to be completed:

Intro: Editing and referencing

Signaling Pathway: Editing + finish table + add images + referencing

Normal Function: Editing + referencing

Abnormal function: Editing + referencing

Glossary and student image still need to be completed. Also, copyright info for all images needs to be checked.

Peer Review

Introduction

  • could be a bit more brief, just list the components that will be discussed.

History

  • good information however, reference needed

Signalling pathway

  • could do with a bit more info and pictures would help with explaining how it works

Function

  • The information flows but not much structure. Sub headings would help give a clearer understanding. Abnormal function?

Current Research

  • Again, headings would give readers a better understanding of what they are reading, but good articles and examples

Glossary and References could do with some work



There is no reference and I can't believe it! More sub headings and images will brighten up your group project. And there is nothing on the Glossary! Plus it seems to be too short compared to other groups and there is no 'abnormal' and 'normal' function??

  • Introduction: detailed but too much information and it should be referenced
  • History: like the detail and the information but it should also be referenced
  • Signalling Pathway: Lack of information, very difficult to read and to understand... may be more image to understand the pathway? And again Reference
  • Function: seems unfinished and need referencing
  • Current Research: like the description about the research but more structure would be better (like sub headings or bullet points)

--Z3291200 02:33, 17 May 2012 (EST)

  • Intro: in the first paragraph you referred to your project page as a ‘paper’ which is kinda weird. Also if you are not going to talk about the minor apoptotic pathways in the rest of the project, you might want to leave that out of the introduction and briefly mention it in the major pathways as a side thing.
  • Great introduction, interesting, flows well and leads onto the project page well, but I think you gave a little too much detail for the intro (perhaps leave the second paragraph out but keep the first and last one). Other than that, well done!
  • Signalling pathway – bit unclear of how you’re structuring this. Perhaps have a paragraph explaining what you’re talking about and then lead onto talking about Fas-mediated apoptosis etc.
  • Overall: a few pictures could brighten up your page. your references are a little weird. You might want to go to another project page and see what they’ve done and copy their computer codes if you’re not sure how to reference it properly. Your glossary looks empty so please add to your glossary list, words in alphabetical order of any technical terms that someone from a non-science background may not understand. You also don’t have the student drawn image which is part of the marking criteria. Don’t forget to include this!

--Z3290558 00:55, 17 May 2012 (EST)


•Introduction: This section gives a good definition of apoptosis. However it is still unfinished and needs to be referenced.

•History: Again: the history looks good but references are needed.

•Signaling Pathway: This section needs to be worked on. Putting an image of the pathway would help a lot in making the description understandable. Trying to understand it though reading was a bit of a challenge, but for sure, if an image was added this section will be good. Also, i can see that there are references, however, they are not linked properly. I understand that you're still working on this section but don't forget to add them.

•Function: This section is still unfinished and could be improved better. It was quite hard understanding it because there were several technical terms that were not explained well.

•Current research: The referencing of this section isn't in a wiki form. You can look at other pages to see how they referenced their work. In addition, several diseases were mentioned in the current research introduction but only two were talked about, cancer and leukemia. More current researches could be added in this section.

•Glossary: this section needs to be filled out. Quite a number of technical words were presented that could be added in this section like proteases, necrosis, and cytotoxic.

•Some subheadings are missing like the abnormal function.


The overall impression of this project page is quite bland compared to other projects as it lacked a lot of required components ( No references, glossary or abnormal function). Firstly there is no reference list, there are references within the actual sections but this made it quite messy to look at. Glossary section was also missing from the page; people without a scientific background may find it difficult to understand the content as they may not understand scientific jargon. Signalling pathway and the function sections were easy to understand so well done! My suggestions are use images and tables to bring your page to life and not heavily focus on text.



Intro

  • Sentences definitely cover the topic, but seem to be almost too direct and overwhelming for an intro.
  • Could use an image to help show your topic (images are nearly always good). Plus it can help break up the text to not make it so clumsy to read.

History

  • Table this section to ease readability.

Signalling Pathway

  • Could use a little expanding as this is the main topic of your research.
  • Maybe some more points on the proteins used.
  • Images definitely needed.

Function

  • Needs more information.
  • Needs to flow a little more, seems to be a whole lot of info put together without sorting through it.

Current Research

  • Good information here.
  • Needs to be properly referenced.
  • Could expand the second paragraph: ...Extrinsic apoptosis also plays a critical role.

Glossary

  • Obviously needs to be filled in.

References

  • Included and properly cited throughout the report.

-Introduction: I thought this introduction was well written and easy to understand. I still think that the outline of the page format could have been a bit better and gone over briefly what will be touched on within the assignment.

- History: I thought this was good and pointed out good findings.This section highlights the importance of each discovery and attributes the discoveries to the researchers. Links to the research papers would be good for further reading.

-Signalling Pathway: This would have been much easier to understand with images or flow charts.

-Function: I thought this was well researched. It just needed better structure.

-There was no abnormal function, which is key to the project!

-Current Research: I thought you gave us good current research examples. The importance of each research was well presented.

- I thought that the project in its entirety was mostly good but lacked some pictures and some further research.


Introduction

Good summary of the topic, but not referenced. The introduction provides good information about the apoptosis and it’s easy to understand, use of pictures in the section could have made the intro more interesting and easier for the reader to understand and follow.

History

History is done, it highlights some of the important discoveries, but again no referencing, at the end of this section there is a link to an article which leads to an article on pubmed that highlights the history of apoptosis, but shows lack of research.

Signalling pathway

This section is not complete yet, the group simply listed a bunch of proteins but no info about how the signalling pathway works. No referencing. Use of pictures and diagrams can help improve this section.

Function

This section has lots of information as it explain some of the function of apoptosis, but the information is not well organised, information is scattered and that makes it hard to follow and understand, no referencing, no use of pictures and diagrams.

Current research

This section highlights importance of the topic,

As a whole this group has to spend more time on their project as there is only one week left to the deadline. Information in all the sections need to be edited, referenced and more research should be done in all areas. Use more subheadings and use of glossary of terms can help the readers to understand the topic better.




  • Introduction: Incomplete, maybe too much info for an introduction. An image would help break up that block of text. No references?
  • History: Information is fine, though placing it in a table would make it easier to read. No other sources used?
  • Signalling Pathway: Formatting the referencing would make the “Fas-Mediated Apoptosis” section cleaner to read. Section looks too bare! Images?
  • Function: No referencing, content looks incomplete, but some solid effort.
  • Current Research: Could image be formatted to be incorporated beside the block of text?
  • Glossary: nothing there.
  • References: In some of the text, nothing here though!

Overall the page appears to be incomplete and still needs to be formatted.


‘’’Introduction’’’ – succinct introduction and good length however consider putting an image or table in, something to attract readers’ eye, great definitions

‘’’History’’’ – well researched, think about putting a table in though, just makes the information a little easier to follow

‘’’Signaling pathway’’’ – for this section I can see you have done an impressive amount of research but what about an image like a flow chart or a diagram just so we can understand the pathway a little better

‘’’Function’’’ – still very well researched however lacking a little visual appeal

‘’’Current research’’’ – well-referenced diagram easy to follow research I like that you’ve broken down review articles and summarized them paper by paper

‘‘’’References’’’ – ?

‘’’Overall’’’ – really well researched but is lacking something visual to pull the reader in



  • Introduction seems to be way too detailed. This section should look mainly at introducing the topics that will be discussed later on in the page. This information is far too detailed to comprehend at the beginning of the text. Also maybe the inclusion of an interactive image at the top would be a good addition.
  • The History section seems ok, off course in terms of the content displayed. However I will strongly stress the point of referencing, as it is very important to enhance the validity of the information, as well as the origin of the information.
  • Under signalling pathways I find that the listing of proteins involved in the pathway should rather be added in a separate section, such as 'proteins involved'. Otherwise the information on 'Fas-Mediated Apoptosis' seems to be great, and I can see that the references have been added. Please make sure to hyperlink these references, hence to display numbering after the writing and to have a list of references at the bottom of the page.
  • For the Function section the information seems to make good sense, however I found that making large slabs of information is rather not very appealing for the reader and quite difficult to follow. Therefore it would be nice to have the information organised more succinctly, such as through the use of tables or bullets. Also in terms of the appeal, look into the addition of several images relating to the study.
  • Under the Current research it seems there is some interesting study collected about your topic, however once again this should be organised more neatly. Please include referencing as stated earlier. Furthermore when adding images, it would be useful to incorporate thumbnails rather than just dumping the image, as it causes too much distortion to the surrounding text.
  • There seems to be a lot of information displayed, but the biggest blunder is that there seems to be a great lack in references. Hopefully this issue is addressed because it is going to be the most crucial aspect of the assessment.
  • Unfortunately it seems that not too much time was spent on this assessment til date, however it is never to late to get everything patched up. Look into other small additions such as additional subheadings (such as glossary) as well as a 'gallery' of the images placed at the bottom of the page. If you are not very sure on how to do most of these things, just google: how to do on wikipedia, and you will most likely be able to answer your query.


  • Introduction: The introduction is well written and easy to understand. Points to improve on: The details on which pathways will be focused on could be better presented in bullet points; I think that the second paragraph should be put into a 'compare/contrast' table in a separate section; the third paragraph very nicely outlines the main focus of your page "Signalling molecules, receptors, enzymes, inhibitors, genes and pathway", however where are these headings in the text??
  • History: This section highlights the importance of each discovery and attributes the discoveries to the researchers. Links to the research papers would be good for further reading.
  • Signalling Pathway: This section needs a diagram! The 'Fas-Mediated Apoptosis' would be much clearer with a flowchart to refer to. More details should be put into the proteins involved, such as their functions and relations to the pathway.
  • Function: This section is well researched, however lacks any structure. Headings, proper bullet points and pictures/diagrams/tables would draw the readers attention and highlight the key points in the text.
  • Abnormal Function? This section is very important as it highlights the importance of the pathway!
  • Current Research: You provided links to the journals and described the first and last paper very well. The importance of the research is clearly described. More detail is needed for the second research area.
  • Overall Impression: The current content is fairly well written however it lacks a depth of research and there are many sections that need to be expanded on. Pictures are essential to illustrate points, and long paragraphs could be better structured with the use of tables and bullet point. References are essential!




What was done well:

  • enjoyed your Introduction becasue it gave a great definition for apoptosis and extrisnsic apoptosis. It provided a great scope of the key ideas you are going to be reporting in the rest of your project

what needs Improvement:

  • You cannot leave no references. Even with technical difficulties you should still write the PMID and author at the end of each paragraph or section (at the very least)
  • Signalling pathway section was confusing. How do all these extrinsic apoptotic proteins interact with one another to give apoptosis? what is the actual pathway? I thought a pathway would be 'DISC activates caspase 8 which activates Caspase 3, etc' and not just a series of proteins given in no particular order.
  • There was a section under function where it was just dot points. I found this hard to understand. What does 'inactivate proteins involved in mRNA splicing' actually have anything to do with extrinsic apoptosis?
  • Only one image. need to add more
  • You need a section on Abnormal function and receptor structure

NO REFERENCES?!?!?!?!?!

It is understandable if one member of the group has technical difficulties in inserting citations, but for there to be no coding for any references to appear at the end of the wiki by any member of the group? It's a bit hard to accept. Typing up content without referencing is like borrowing a stranger's car without asking and without expressing thanks. You could wait till you return the car to say thanks, but it's just not the same.

I do, however, like the simplified concise explanation of the concept of apoptosis in the intro. For a reader new to the concept it is helpful to express it in layman's terms. But due to the lack of referencing I don’t know if that was an original concept, or one taken from another source.

Another thing I liked was the good depth of research conducted on the current research on apoptosis. A suggestion could be looking for research that people look to do in the future.

Something not so praiseworthy is the last entry under history, which is unbelievably condensed…….. you might want to expand a bit on that. And then find the individual references for each paper that demonstrated the landmarks in apoptosis history.

Furthermore, half the content under "function" wasn't about function, and the half that was was all about caspases……. I was a bit lost as to why only caspases were mentioned. Reading it made me feel like I was reading a wiki page solely focusing on capase signalling.

As for "signalling pathway", an image would've been nice. Besides the fact that this wiki page has a blatant absence of images, even one image depicting a section of the signalling pathway would have been helpful. At the moment I am clueless as to how they relate nor what they do. And also, you have 1 week to (theoretically) write about the other 15 proteins that supposedly only comprise "some of the proteins involved". Regarding that point, you will need to come up with a qualification for why you decided to showcase these 15 and not the rest.


  • Pros
    • Large amount of information included but hard to ascertain whether it is a result of extensive research or plagiarism due to lack of citations and referencing
  • Cons
    • No references for “Introduction”, “History” or “Function” sections (aware this was due to technical difficulties)
    • References for “Signalling Pathway” and “Current Research” sections incorrectly formatted
    • No reference list or glossary
    • Page needs more images/diagrams and reorganisation of text into a more readable format (Tables?)(Dot Points?)
    • Flow charts (possibly student drawn) would aid in understanding the pathways described in the text
    • “Signalling Pathway” section lists proteins involved in extrinsic apoptosis pathway but there is no description of their specific roles
    • No student-drawn image
    • No abnormal function/implications in disease section


  • A really great introduction. it is clear and well said, and does what an intro should do, that is introduce what you will be discussing, GREAT WORK. Same said for History
  • I don't really like how you listed 15 proteins but then only spoke about one. It seems confusing and if you had made a little table with the most well understood proteins, their structure, and function as headings i would of been more comprehensive, and would demonstrate a broader understanding of the proteins involved in signalling. I think anyone can list the proteins and say their involved!
  • Function section is lacking a lot. it has NO referencing so how are you meant to fill the referencing section before this project is due ?!? Its just a slab of text, it definitely needs subheadings, bullet points, images, diagrams, it needs to engage the audience and to be honest i didn't want to read past the second paragraph.
  • Current research: i don't think articles from 2002/07 are current to be blunt. i do like how you have a paragraph introducing the research though.
  • There is one image on the entire page and nothing really special about this project, its quite boring and to make it interesting you really should look at cell death lecture 2, because Mark spent a lot of time on this topic, you should use some of his images and you should definitely look at how he discussed the pathway, (using bold headings for steps and short sentences below each). I think you have a lot of work to do. Start your referencing soon because if you loose where your references then you would be plagiarising. Goodluck

-


Pros

  • introduction was very informative, interesting, pointed out key points
  • good history section
  • language was simplified and clear

Cons

  • not engaging/interesting
  • not enough pictures
  • layout makes reading hard (all writing not much else)
  • no subheadings
  • no references present
  • major headings should include when ‘abnormality occurs’ if possible.

Possible improvements:

  • dot points about information on the FasL protein to make it easier to read
  • history put into a table to make the page more interesting
  • clarify which proteins are most important out of the list of proteins involved.
  • reference list and glossary needs to be updated. Correct in-text citations needed.
  • subheadings to break up writing and add style and organisation to layout
  • pathway should be more in depth i.e how extrinsic apoptosis works, maybe as a step-process summary for easy reading.

The introduction is well-written. It given a really good layout of what is involved. One of my issues though is that you have not provided any references - not just this section but other parts of your project as well. Because of this, it makes me wonder how much of this is written by you as a group and how much is simply pasted from the original source and rearranged. Also, when you use abbreviations etc (like TNF), please do write out the full name first.

History is quite expansive and easy to read. A reference is provided at the end of this section, which I don't think is acceptable. I don't know which sentences came from that reference and the style of referencing is incorrect. Please improve this.

Signalling pathway: it might be an idea to use subheadings here. You list many different proteins which are involved in the signalling pathway, however you only talk about FasL (Fatty acid synthetase ligand) in more detail. It might be better if you shorten your list or give more information on the other proteins mentioned, as this seems a bit irrelevant now. The pathway itself sounds a little complex (as it would be) so I would advise you to get a simplified picture to complement your text. Adding student-drawn images would also be good. Again, the issue with references; you have all the APA style in-text citations, but please put them in as little numbers so we can see all the sources in the reference list.

The function section has a lot of information, which looks a bit boring now that I've read so much of your project without being engaged by colourful images and tables. Please provide (student-drawn) images to encourage the audience to continue reading. Sub-headings within this section will also make it easier to understand and look more attractive, eg. a subheading for 'cellular disassembly'. As we are about to start week 11, I really hope you can soon provide us with the references. At the moment it is unclear whether you plagiarised or not! Another little point to notice: the 'function' does not relate to the apoptotis function as much - it is more so the function of caspases on apoptosis. Maybe change the heading to 'Function of caspases within this signalling pathway'.

Current research has quite a lot of information to it, which is good. Also, I'm happy to finally see an image! The image has the copyright information, though please provide a description on your main page. Cardiovascular disease is mentioned, however no further information is provided so please expand upon this. The section on leukaemia was very interesting though. Please do check your spelling and provide correct citations. It might be advisable to put this information into a table, thereby explaining the disease, current research and provide a picure.

Please expand upon the glossary and references (most importantly!)


The basic outline of this page seems ok.

The information is good, but it needs to be put into subheadings and organised better.

My suggestion is to include a few tables and use diagrams/images to explain some of the concepts.

The History is great, I really enjoyed reading it.

The Signal pathway is also descent. The information is all there, it just needs to be organised.

The glossary and referncing needs to be worked on.

There is nothing under the two headings.

The Image has correct referencing as well as copyright information so well done.

A description would go along really well with the image.

Current research has been done very well. I really enjoyed seeing the reference made to the group currently doing the research the "MRC Toxicology Unit in the United Kingdom" which is really great.

Overall, try to work on the referencing, layout of the page, and glossary.

Best of luck with the rest of the assignment.


Introduction is well detailed and gives a reader a sense of the rest of the page. The history is also a good overview because there is not an overload of information. In the signalling pathway section the proteins listed should be in the glossary because some of them are not in the actual summary and the reader does not know why they are there. The signalling pathway itself is very technical a digram or picture will make it easier to follow. There is too much information in the normal function and having sections will make it easier to read. I liked the current research section is very interesting. There are no references on the page or any glossary so you should get cracking on that and you dont have a self drawn digram either. You need to add more pictures illustrating the signalling process. You could add an abnormal functioning part as well and add some diseases that are caused due abnormal apaptosis.


  • Introduction appears to have good information, although it appears you have yet to finish/edit through it
  • History is done as appropriate, shows that while the history-in-a-table format [groups 1 &2] was not a bad thing, it is not a necessity. For added ‘flair’ though you may wish to consider such a format.
  • Signaling pathway section appears to be unfinished, with despite the rather large list, it only talks about one protein on the list, perhaps after more has been completed the direction of the section may make more sense. The referencing appears to be more a result of simply unfinished work as the format of referencing used here is normally followed by the full citation in the reference list – regardless, it is not the referencing required of the wiki page
  • Function section is a good starting collection of information that looks to be promising once filled out with language made more appropriate for a wiki info page, with a sentence such as “The next link in the chain is how do these effectors contribute to cellular disassembly?” seeming to belong more to an essay than a wiki page
  • the introduction to the Current Research section is good with a bit more expansion possibly needed on the section on cardiovascular disease.
  • throughout the page, citations are not present, although I acknowledge that it appears they have technological issues with such and so I cannot say much for the referencing other than that it is currently missing. Overall more imagery would be a good idea.

In terms of referencing, the introduction appears to be plagiarised because there are no references. Also, the referencing throughout the remainder of the project should be altered so that there are in text citations and a reference list. The instructions on how to do this can be found under the ‘Project Referencing’ link. The history section should really be a combination of various sources of your own finding, rather than taken from a timeline in a single journal article. There is only one image on your page, so perhaps to enhance its appeal, add some more images such as diagrams or structures and don’t forget you need a student drawn image. The existing text is interesting.


  • Introduction: A great way of introducing your signalling pathway. I particularly like the way you’ve deconstructed the whole concept of apoptosis by talking about it in a broad sense and then explaining the specifics. This was my favourite sentence because you explained a scientific concept using an analogy: “in intrinsic apoptosis, internal cellular stimuli induce the process, and the cell is its own judge, jury and executioner.” It was very entertaining to read. My area of improvement for this section is to perhaps add an image or diagram to make it more visually appealing.
  • History: This section needs revision - some of the entries were too detailed and need to be summarised. The lack of references is an issue that needs to be remediated once peer reviews are over. I suggest referencing as you write your material rather than leaving it to the end – in this manner, you won’t forget where you got information from.
  • Signalling pathway: The list of proteins is very comprehensive but serves no real function in providing information to the reader. I also think they should be moved to another section that specifically deals with the proteins and receptors that are involved in extrinsic apoptosis. You could have a table format to make things more visual. What this section needs is a fantastic and detailed student drawn image that depicts the signalling pathway in extrinsic apoptosis with accompanying text.
  • Function: The information in this section was good but was not written very well – as a result, this section lacks structure and perhaps relevance as well. What is the function of extrinsic apoptosis normally in the body? I think the discussion of caspase function can be structured under a sub heading.
  • Current research: Well done! This section is fantastic – the information is well researched and there is an image! You can perfect this section with some structure e.g. subheadings, and of course referencing.

Your page is lacking some key components such as abnormal function, glossary, referencing and images. However, never fear! - There is time to fix it up and you’re definitely on the right track with some sections. Well done and good luck!


  • The introduction is set out very well. I can tell that the person writing it has understood the information and therefore they convey it in a manner which is understandable to those unfamiliar with apoptosis. I am impressed that you justified why certain aspects of apoptosis were excluded and it helps me understand the final information presented in your project. This section however lacks citations and towards the end you can tell it is still being edited due to the brackets.
  • History section provides knowledge that is evenly represented throughout the decades. However, as there is only one reference at the bottom I can see that extensive research has not been done into possible discoveries that were not mentioned in the paper. I would also prefer to see references to the original papers where possible rather than to this one review. Also a table would make this section more engaging to the reader.
  • The signalling pathway section is good, it is well written but it would be easier to understand if some terms were linked to the glossary section and images would be useful in helper the reader understand the complex processes described in this section. Also, I can see this section has been cited but not in the wiki format required for this project.
  • Function section was detailed however I think more information should be included in regards to the role of extrinsic apoptosis rather than caspases. Formatting this section would help readers understand the complex information. Instead of uses dashes you could use dot points (formatted by the* key if you are unsure how to generate them).
  • The current research section is very interesting however the work in cardiovascular disease still needs expanding. Also referencing needs to be formatted according to the wiki format.
  • Overall I feel more information should be included, even though you justified what you were not including in the introduction. Perhaps you could include a section looking at Regulation? Or include more information about implication in disease, as I did like what you provided in the current research section. Also as of yet there is no student drawn image.

In your introduction, the first thing that I realized was that you named the combination of genes “wonderful”. In my eyes it is not very scientific to give your opinion about anything on a theme like this. I liked that you give an overview in the introduction about what you deal with and concentrate on, but it is a page and not a “paper”. In the last sentence of the first paragraph it is said, that relevant literature indicates to concentrate on extrinsic and intrinsic pathways and not anything else. I think you should try to formulate this in another way because there might be people who research on stuff that you name to be not important although you say that “relevant literature” indicates it, there might be another opinion on that. Either I would just say on what you concentrated for any reasons or not mention the other fields of research. Since you do not yet have a glossary it is hard to understand various shortening that you used throughout your whole page. From my point of view, especially in the last part of the history, it is very difficult to follow you with all these short termini. There are also four question marks behind a word in the Introduction- that’s a no-go! You should be expert on your field, you should be able to answer questions and you should not show your insecurity already in your introduction- Readers might stop following from this point because they don’t take you serious anymore. In the History part you mention a couple of papers and reviews; when they are so important that they occur in your list of historic events, I guess you should give the name of them. The sentence you wrote in the part of “1972” concerning inflammation does not make sense to me. There is no final dot after the sentence from 1991. The last paragraph contains a lot of repetitions. It would be easier if you would list all of the events together instead of trying to separate them. In the next part you mention different enzymes; I do not understand why they are mentioned under the headline “Signaling pathway”. Also the signaling pathway is not obvious for me at all. Maybe you should insert a table and describe where the enzymes appear to give an overview. Just listing 15 enzymes leads to confusion. The Fas-Mediated Apoptosis part is very confusing. I propose, that you read all over this part again. Also you could take use of a graph or flow-chart to make it easier to follow. Especially all the short forms make it even harder to understand, in the last paragraph. Another point is, that references should not appear behind the text but under the part “references” where they connect your text with the detailed source. Under the part “Function” there are quotation marks. They only do appear once, so is it a quote? Is it copied? What does that mean? Later you make new paragraphs for each sentence- why? I, as a reader, would prefer to follow a fluent text or at least see the concept why it is better to have single paragraphs. There are unformed bullet points, the letters in the beginning of the sentences are not capitalized- it is really a mess!!! Also, you mention throughout your page, that some parts of your theme are not yet well understood. By the time I read it the third time, I knew it! I think you should try to over correct your whole page. To me it looks like everyone did his own little work without connection, thus, there are so many repetitions and no relation between the single parts. Later, there are again plenty of reference mistakes or you name the third example “one example of current research”. To me it looks like as if you got different information from different sources and just used them but did not bring them into context with each other. It is really hard to understand what you want to say. To put it in a nutshell, for the reader it is confusing, difficult and boring to read this page. For the future, you should try to get a better overview. Better less but better structured!


Hey guys, this article here might help us out with gaining a greater understanding of the extrinsic apoptosis pathway.

Abstract:

The receptor for advanced glycation endproduct (RAGE) is involved in diabetic complications and chronic inflammation, conditions known to affect the sensitivity towards apoptosis. Here, we studied the effect of genetically depleting RAGE on the susceptibility towards apoptosis. In murine osteoblastic cells, RAGE knockout increased both spontaneous and induced apoptosis. Decreased levels of B-cell lymphoma 2 protein and increased intrinsic apoptosis were observed in Rage(-/-) cells. Furthermore, loss of RAGE increased expression of the death receptor CD95 (Fas, Apo-1), CD95-dependent caspase activation and extrinsic apoptosis, whereas NF-kB-p65 nuclear translocation was diminished. Importantly, depletion of RAGE reduced the ubiquitination and degradation of p53 and p73 and increased their nuclear translocation. The increase of p53 and p73 transactivational activity was essential for the RAGE-dependent regulation of apoptosis, because knockdown of p53 and p73 significantly decreased apoptosis in RAGE-deficient but not in RAGE-expressing cells. Thus, the RAGE-mediated posttranslational regulation of p53 and p73 orchestrates a sequence of events culminating in control of intrinsic and extrinsic apoptosis signaling pathways

M Brune, M Müller, G Melino, A Bierhaus, T Schilling, P P Nawroth Depletion of the receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE) sensitizes towards apoptosis via p53 and p73 posttranslational regulation. Oncogene: 2013, 32(11);1460-8 PubMed 22543586


Another Article I thought was relevant to our research on extrinsic apoptosis and pathway was this one here:

Abstract:

Phytoestrogens are known to prevent tumor induction. But their molecular mechanisms of action are still unknown. This study aimed to examine the effect of apigenin on proliferation and apoptosis in HER2-expressing breast cancer cells. In our experiments, apigenin inhibited the proliferation of MCF-7 vec and MCF-7 HER2 cells. This growth inhibition was accompanied with an increase of sub G(0)/G(1) apoptotic fractions. Overexpression of HER2 did not confer resistance to apigenin in MCF-7 cells. Apigenin-induced extrinsic apoptosis pathway up-regulating the levels of cleaved caspase-8, and inducing the cleavage of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase, whereas apigenin did not induce apoptosis via intrinsic mitochondrial apoptosis pathway since this compound did not decrease mitochondrial membrane potential maintaining red fluorescence and did not affect the levels of B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL2) and Bcl-2-associated X protein. Moreover, apigenin reduced the tyrosine phosphorylation of HER2 (phospho-HER2 level) in MCF-7 HER2 cells, and up-regulated the levels of p53, phospho-p53 and p21 in MCF-7 vec and MCF-7 HER2 cells. This suggests that apigenin induces apoptosis through p53-dependent pathway. Apigenin also reduced the expression of phospho-JAK1 and phospho-STAT3 and decreased STAT3-dependent luciferase reporter gene activity in MCF-7 vec and MCF-7 HER2 cells. Apigenin decreased the phosphorylation level of IκBα in the cytosol, and abrogated the nuclear translocation of p65 within the nucleus suggesting that it blocks the activation of NFκB signaling pathway in MCF-7 vec and MCF-7 HER2 cells. Our study indicates that apigenin could be a potential useful compound to prevent or treat HER2-overexpressing breast cancer.

Hye-Sook Seo, Han-Seok Choi, Soon-Re Kim, Youn Kyung Choi, Sang-Mi Woo, Incheol Shin, Jong-Kyu Woo, Sang-Yoon Park, Yong Cheol Shin, Seong-Gyu Ko, Seong-Kyu Ko Apigenin induces apoptosis via extrinsic pathway, inducing p53 and inhibiting STAT3 and NFκB signaling in HER2-overexpressing breast cancer cells. Mol. Cell. Biochem.: 2012, 366(1-2);319-34 PubMed 22527937


hey guys, i added the rough copy of an intro i pieced together a while back and had in a microsoft doc. its hell rough and we dont need to keep or use any of it. ill slowly add more to it and change it and hopefully by establishing the intro, we can add direction and structure to the project. - we need to keep in mind that the focus of our project is extrinsic apoptosis and so emphasis on signalling molecules and mechanisms through out the project is important - but since intrinsic apoptosis links in, we could include a brief comparison and summary of it somewhere- - from my intial readings extrinsinc apotosis seems to be more important in physiological settings, whereas intrinsic apotosis comes into play more and is intiated more during pathological conditions. this is just my intial observation. there will be relevant pathological conditions however, because obviously if there is malfunction of a physiological process, you'll end up with a pathological one. - here are a few ideas/points i thinks we need to focus on 1) Fas (CD95) receptor and corresponding ligand- structure and function 2) TNF receptor and corresponding ligand- structure and function 3) the caspase cascade and its culmination in apoptosis 4)all the other sub topics and headings as already discussed and allocated

Hey guys, here is a more official allocation of the parts of this project:

Katherine: current research + student drawing

Luke: Caspase cascade (pathway) + introduction + short explanation of intrinsic pathway

Elhassan: tnf receptor and ligand + history

Mark: FAS receptor + signaling pathway

Need to include malfunctioning of pathway + diseases

We will all contribute to the glossary once the rest of the project is complete.

Group3:

- referencing and glossary missing

-history could be put in a table to break up text and be visually more appealling

- proteins section may also benefit from being put into a table with a functions column

- layout of the page in general could be improved, re-organise blocks of text for easier reading

- function section especially could perhaps include normal and abnormal subsections, further editing and paraphrasing also needed

- more images including self drawn