Talk:2012 Group 9 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

Total edits - 238

Project page has been accessed 2,600 times.

Positive Negative
  • Well structured project.
  • Clear layout.
  • History and glossary.
  • Contribution from some group members.
  • Depth of study.
  • Balance between text and images.
  • Current research.
  • Image file names and supporting file information.

Images


Peer review Group 9

Introduction

  • Good intro, could end with what you'll be discussing throughout the page

Pathway

  • sub headings for the different pathways and then more information on each. More referencing needed

History

  • well researched and referenced, although i think History should come just after introduction, so its like a background to what is being researched.

Current research

  • needs more work, and best placed at the end, just before glossary, a good wrap up

Normal Function

  • Well researched, but a bit more info under each heading to show more knowledge on the topic

Abnormal Function

  • lack of information, and should talk more about the progression to carcinoma

Glossary

  • well done

  • The Introduction seems to be done quite well. The intro is not to brief yet not too detailed to comprehend. I feel that an image would provide a good addition to page.
  • The Pathway section contains very important information. However regardless of the quality of information, it is quite difficult for the reader to follow paragraphs of information. It would be better to incorporate subheadings and bullets which will more neatly arrange the text.
  • The sections for receptor and proteins have yet not been attempted. I would recommend joining both of these headings together, mainly because they are interrelated.
  • The history section has been accomplished to a very high quality. The tabular form is very easy to follow. The colours chosen are also very comfortable. Citation have also been used correctly.
  • Current research seems a bit too brief.
  • Normal Function doesn’t seem to be complete yet in terms of structure, however the information seems to be high-grade. The use of subheadings provides great organisation to the page.
  • Abnormal function does seem to be too brief, however I will assume this section is yet not complete.
  • The Glossary is a great addition, however it is not yet complete.
  • References seem to be done correctly.

On a separate note, signatures should probably be removed by this stage of the project.


Intro

  • Don't need signatures.
  • Definitely needs an image to start things rolling.

Pathway

  • Needs more info.
  • Image is good.
  • Maybe have steps involved.

Receptors and Proteins

  • Obviously need info.

History

  • Not a great table format, needs borders around all cells to help separate info.
  • Plenty of info and good referencing.

Current research

  • More info needed.
  • Can also do this as a table.

Normal function

  • Again, can be a table.
  • Good concepts but needs more information.
  • Info that is there is well referenced.

Abnormal function

  • More info needed.
  • Should have similar amount to normal function.
  • Nice image.

Good references and glossary.


Introduction

Easy to read and understand with good referencing. A picture can help make the intro interesting. I don’t know why students in this group put their signature all over the page.

Pathway

The information is easy to read and understand but lacks referencing. The picture used is not referenced.

Receptor and protein

These two sections are not done.

History

Well done, good use of table and well referenced.

Current research

Needs more research, not complete.

Normal function

Well done well referenced

Abnormal function

This section is not complete needs more research.

This project is not complete needs more research. In general the group should consider using more pictures and graphs.


  • Intro – clear and easy to understand. Not necessary having signature marks though
  • History – easy to read and follow, great table.
  • Glossary - Remember to put in any words that someone from a non-science background may not understand.
  • Overall: project seems unfinished. Abnormal function is very brief, also note that you haven’t yet done a student drawn image which needs to be included for the marking criteria.

--Z3290558 09:17, 17 May 2012 (EST)



--- I think this page was somewhat incomplete and need more work

  • Introduction: I dont think there should be student signiture but I like the overal content
  • Pathway: The content was fine but may be break them up? and I think the image is too complicated. And need mroe referencing
  • Receptor: there is nothing here
  • Proteins: there is nothing here
  • History: like the length of it but it doesnt include who conducted the research
  • Current Research: There should be more researches
  • Normal Function: very clear and sufficient amount of information. But try putting more images
  • Abnormal Function: seems incomplete! more detail and referencing needed!

--Z3291200 03:19, 17 May 2012 (EST)


‘’’Introduction ‘’’– good intro perfect size + well referenced however i dont think student signatures are necessary

‘’’Pathway’’’ – well described perhaps make diagram bigger though?

‘’’History ‘’’– history is very well researched and very visually appealing

‘’’Current research ‘’’– good you have a good start but it needs a little more to it

‘’’Normal function’’’ – very well broken down into subheadings and very easy to understand

‘’’Abnormal function ‘’’– id still love to know more about the abnormal function

‘’’Overall’’’ – quite a bit of research has been accomplished, good presentation now just add in a bit more text and a few more visuals, you guys are almost there



  • Introduction: Please remove student signatures. I think the introduction is well written and easy to understand. Maybe you could summarise it a little bit more.
  • Pathway: This section only has one reference. The information is understandable however the reader would appreciate some subheadings just to break up the text.
  • Receptor: Incomplete
  • Proteins: Incomplete
  • History: Unusual placement of the History section. Usually placed after introduction, which I think is more appropriate. However this section is very well researched and up-to-date.
  • Current Research: a very short paragraph, I am sure there is more research going on.
  • Normal function: I think this section should come earlier in the page. Good use of subheadings, this section could benefit from an image though.
  • Abnormal function: Appears incomplete. However the image is correctly referenced.

Overall, the page still needs a lot more work to be done.


•Introduction: Good overview of the topic and information were well referenced.

•Pathway: Clear descriptions were given in this section however no reference were cited. There were three pathways mention which would look better if they were in different subheadings to give emphasis for each.

•Receptor: No information is under this section.

•Proteins: No information is under this section.

•History: Nicely placed on a table. Very good referencing (every period/date had a reference).

•Current research: This section only one current research. It would be good to have more than one current research about this topic considering that it is a 'hot' topic at the moment with a lot of research going on about this.

•Normal Function: Well researched section with good referencing. The function of p53 was well stated and having subheadings for it made the understanding for each easier. A good point about this section is that several proteins and cascade of reactions were mentioned but they were easy to understand and was not overwhelming as compared to how other groups presented this section. Good work.

•Abnormal Function: There was a reference cited for this section but was not properly referenced. This section should be worked on more and images will be good to add.


Some components of the project page is incomplete therefore this project did not meet the assessment criteria. These include Receptor, Protein and Abnormal Function section. The history section and the colour scheme is quite impressive and you should incorporate such style in your other sections like abnormal functions as well proteins and receptors. I do like the simplified text in each sections as it is easy to read however, Most of the sections requires more information as p53 is one of the most important genes in our genome (guardian of the genome). In order to improve your project page use more images to break up texts and make the thumb images bigger (eg. 500X). If you complete the sections and make these minor changes you can improve your page by miles, Goodluck!


-Introduction: I thought that the introduction was very good. It was easy to understand. It did go off track a little bit.

-Pathway: I thought that it was weird that this was before history. However, it was easy to understand and you could see there was a lot of research involved. It would have been a little better if it was shorter and a little less information. I think the summary at the end was a good touch and put everything together for me.

-History: I thought that this section was good. It was easy to read and each year mentioned went straight to the point..

-Current Research: Again, I thought this was weirdly placed (not wrong, but different to all the others). The research was relevant but not well presented.

-Normal Function: I thought that this section was well presented and well formatted. It was easy to read. An image would have made it even easier.

-Abnormal Function: I thought that there was good research, but still needed to be further presented.

- I thought that overall the project was good but needed more work with further research and more pictures.


What was done well:

  • Introduction gave a lot of information and the first paragraph was particularly relevant
  • History section was very well researched with a reference for each year and it was so up-to-date! Not many groups have history up to 2010.
  • Nicely set out Normal Function section. Clearly states what p53 does and briefly explains how it achieves these functions

What needs Improvement:

  • Absent receptor section made it hard to understand the pathway
  • There are 3 different pathways for p53 and without subheadings to separate them, it was really easy to get the 3 pathways mixed up. So adding subheadings would be helpful. A student drawn flowchart for the pathways would also be great
  • More Information needs for Anormal function and current research,such as the different cancers and treatments p53 may be involved in,would be interesting
  • more pictures needed

Intro

  • The first paragraph is very clear and well explained.
  • The second and third paragraph seem to be irrelevant for the introduction, however would be useful in other sections such as 'Abnormal Function' for the third paragraph.
  • A picture in the introduction would make the page more eye-catching

Pathway

  • The information is well written, however there is too much writing in this section. The information would be clearer and easier to read with the use of subheadings and perhaps bullet points to highlight key information.
  • Relating the information to the flowchart would also make the information clearer.
  • The last paragraph provides a clear summary of the pathway.

History

  • The table format makes the information clear and easy to read.
  • The short sentences are clear and straight to the point. This highlights the key points and makes the information easier to read.
  • You need to go through and edit the grammar, especially for the use of sentence case.
  • Where possible, include the names of the researchers and/or project groups that made each discovery or breakthrough.

Current Research

  • I like that you added a link to the article
  • Rather than writing "a group of scientists", include the names of the researchers and the name of their research article

Normal Function

  • This section has the best use of subheadings, which immediately makes the information clearer and easier to navigate.
  • To make the information even clearer, try relate it to an image of a pathway
  • I think this section should be more towards the top of the page.

Abnormal Function

  • Really good diagram
  • I can see this section is incomplete, however some ideas would be to add information about the effects of mutations and associated diseases.

Overall Impression: Although the page seems largely incomplete, the completed sections are well written and could be improved with the use of subheadings and images to illustrate information.


Firstly, good number of references posted, especially for the little amount of content on the page already, although I noticed a signficant number of repeated references - check the tutorial for how to combine them. Also, you might want to remove your z ID tags from this page. They don’t belong on wikis.

I strive to stick to constructive criticism, so the comments in my review can help identify specific areas to improve. Inevitably, for a page with much work to be done, there will be proportionately less positive criticism. You can understand that it's hard to do so when half the page is missing. I recognise that we still get a week to complete the page, but looking at the state of your progress after 10 weeks of semester, there is an abnormally large amount of work left to be done so I don't think the level of completion is satisfactory.

I won't make comments on the "receptor" and "proteins" sections, because there is no content; nor on the "abnormal function" section, which has little beyond a quote.

Please reorganise the order of your headings. I feel a lack of coherency when the history comes after the pathway. Also, check your spelling and grammar. I found multiple errors in phrasing and coherency under "introduction" and "pathway" alone.

For "introduction", the third sentence should have a reference, since you referenced all the other content you introduced. And I wonder if its direction should be tailored to better reflect the content to be expounded in the rest of the page.

Regarding the pathway section, it sounds more like "introduction to the pathways". You mentioned three pathways, but haven't said anything about them. Furthermore, you haven't provided any references for the literature supporting your supposed three pathways that have been discovered. The image doesn't help in this respect, because it doesn't show three pathways either. How does it relate to the text in that section?

Finally, you mentioned the glossary comes from citable sources (spelling corrected for "cite-able"). Where are these citations on your glossary entries?

I hope these comments help you work on the parts of the wiki that have seen good progress so far.



  • Pros
    • History section well referenced and formatted
    • Content correctly cited and referenced
    • “Normal function” section interesting, well-phrased and formatted (due to use of subheadings)
  • Cons
    • “Pathway” and “Normal function” sections lacking breadth of research
    • “Receptor”, “Proteins” and “Abnormal Function” sections unfinished
    • No student-drawn image
    • Image included under “Pathway” section very complex and hard to understand (find simpler image or draw own?)
    • Maybe the “History” section would be better put directly after the introduction as a general background of the development of knowledge concerning the pathway, then go into describing it
    • Apart from the “History” section, all other sections need further research


  • A nice succinct introduction, sounds scientific and provides I think a lot of information about p53 in a few paragraphs- which can then be elaborated on within the project. I can suggest adding a digram which can link into the topics discussed like the cell cycle or p53 molecule itself- in order to make it more attractive and eye catching.
  • Pathway section: I think having the text just as a slab of information (which is obviously the starting point of the work) is not very appealing to read. I can suggest you use some bullet points, numbering of pathways, bolding words... The information seems to be of average standard, i would assume this is a difficult pathway but i personally would want to see more information (as an example in the cell death lecture 2, Mark talks about the two pathways for apoptosis, the level of detail he uses is what i think you would need to use in this section- given how long we have had to work on the assignment).
  • Empty sections with nothing at all written is very sad and the only thing i suggest is ADD SOMETHING!
  • Obviously you need to work on the remaining sections which seem incomplete
  • Normal function section appears like information is really of good standard, but definitely needs images or something to make people want to read the entire section.
  • History section, looks eye catching, short succinct sentences, all referenced, gives great basic knowledge of the history- 10/10
  • Very good referencing throughout the page of the sections done, but particularly the history section!

The introduction is fairly good. Quite a number of references are used to give the reader some initial information before getting more detail. You could tailor the information a bit though, and make it more of a preview of what is coming later on.

The pathway section has good information in it. The one thing I'm not impressed iwth is the lack of references. Only one reference is provided all the way down the end of this section. I am sure you consulted sources for the other information you wrote down. Even if you did only use the one reference, you should be citing specific sentences. The picture could be enlarged slightly and it would be helpful if specific dotpoints could link the text with this image.

Receptors and Proteins do not have any information provided. Please add text to these sections.

Apart from the fact that the history should come after the introduction, it does looks really good. It is very well presented in the table and gives a good overview of what has happened over the past few decades. One minor thing: I would advise you to provide us with some of the people/teams who contributed to the specific discoveries.

Current research should probably come after abnormal function - the following order seems more logical to me: normal, abnormal, current research. You have made an attempt to start on this section, but it is nowhere near complete. Please provide some more information, eg. mention 3 current projects and future directions. Links to the institutions/projects could also be helpful.

Normal function has quite some text presented. Your use of different subheadings is good, however, please do write more than 2 lines per subheading (eg. for DNA repair). In that case it will be easier to use this information and compare it with abnormal function. Pictures would also be helpful and make the page look more attractive.

A lot of work will have to be put into the abnormal function. At the moment, there simply is not enough information. Also, the reference (- ref 63) will need to be fixed. Provide dotpoints to explain and incorporate the image.

You're well on your way with the glossary of terms, and I am sure that you will expand upon this as you add text to your project. The references will need to be checked though. Some of them are listed more than once, but nor under the same number. This is mainly towards the end of your project.

My main advise would be to add more text, and include pictures and tables to engage the reader.


The introduction seems to go into too much detail. This is not necessary for an introduction. Some of the information provided seem to relate more to other part of the page including normal, and abnormal function. A large image or diagram would go well at the top of the page as colour would attract the reader to continue down the page.


The information and referencing in the pathway section seems fairly good, but it is so disorganised. I did not want to continue to read because it was just a paragraph with sentences. Employing more tables, dot points and even subheadings would make the information stick out much better, and become easier to read.


Why is there so little/no information under the heading of protein, abnormal function, and current research. It makes the page look incomplete. In order to attract the readers eye, you need to include more text, images and links. You need to make this page more interactive. Try to include some links which direct the reader to a movie which explains the signalling pathway or abnormal function.


The images are way to small. I cannot make any sense of them without having to click into the images. I would at least want to have some sort of an idea of what im looking into before i open a larger image. There seems to be a mismatch between the order of the sentences, maybe include history after introduction, and current/future researh right before the glossary of terms.


The table about the History is really informative, and the detailed referencing gives a sense of reliability. It is good to see content correctly referenced and the copyright information available in each image.


The referencing looks really good. However I did notice that same reference have been repeated a number of times with a different number. Why is that? Have you used the wrong reference? Overall the page looks decent. Some colour, images, links and subheadings would make the page look better.



Pros

  • good extensive history section


Possible improvements

  • general structure of the gene, receptor, basic info about it in dot points could help
  • do pathways have different names? Maybe organizing work under the different pathway names (in pathway section) rather than referring to first, second, third pathways
  • a legend for important abbreviations in pictures would help better understanding on the topic.



  • Clean concise introduction, need a bit of a cleanup here with the signatures
  • Pathway section is missing a lot of citation, if all the information is obtained all from ref 6, you should still multi ref throughout the section
  • Receptor and proteins sections empty – the project is not finished so that’s alright, however cannot comment on anything
  • History section done in an easy to read layout, and is well cited for each point with an adequate brief description for most points, however some are confusing and simply require a few more words to make sense /be put into conext for example “p53 is cloned in Drosophila and C. elegans” do you mean that it was discovered/established it did this? Right now it seems as if in the year 2000/2001 this just happened as an event
  • Current research section may be better positioned nearer to the end of the page
  • Normal function is well cited however the sub section titles should be altered for a more aesthetic appeal further elaboration/expansion of information could be helpful
  • Abnormal function too brief if it is finished, citation format error evident

  • Introduction: The first paragraph in this introduction was excellent because it was straight to the point and very relevant. I think the second and third paragraphs belong to subsequent sections on normal and abnormal function. My area of improvement is adding another paragraph which provides a brief outline of what your page aims to cover – this is important because it provides a clear sense of direction to the audience.
  • Pathway: I think it’s very important to clearly distinguish the three pathways p53 is involved in through the use of subheadings, tables or diagrams. The information in this section has been well summarised and research however it is not very user friendly. Hence, to improve, you could have a student drawn image with all three pathways for comparison – a flow diagram would be very useful here. Also, don’t forget to complete referencing this section.
  • History: Excellent range of entries that have been well referenced and compiled. I like the design of the table however I think the history section should placed after the introduction.
  • Current research: You’ve made a great start to this section – have a couple of more examples of current research with accompanying images, diagrams or graphs.
  • Normal function: A fantastic example of good structure and content! The use of subheadings is very user friendly and could greatly benefit from the addition of an accompanying flowchart or mind map that summarises all the functions of p53.
  • Abnormal function: This section needs a lot of work – p53 is called the guardian of the genome which is why p53 mutations have been implicated in a wide range of diseases. I think the diagram is pretty relevant and can work really well with some text.

Overall, fantastic team effort! You’ve shown excellent research skills in the sections you have completed and the page is generally user friendly. To produce a complete page, simply finish the allocated sections, take care of referencing (you have the same reference repeated multiple times) and improve the visual aspects. Well done and good luck!


  • Pathway section has some small grammatical errors but is otherwise informative.

goup 9

• Lacking in some key points. Introduction provides a good back ground, but should also outline the basic aims of the project

• Pathway is non-cohesive and hard to follow. Due to the crucial importance of p53 (guardian of the genome) physiologically and oncogenically, I am sure you can find plenty of info that would allow you to map out an detailed but understandable pathway. Remember the focus of this project is cell signaling, so if there is anything that you should absolutely hit the mark with, it is the signaling pathway.

• Information regarding receptors and proteins is lacking

• Again, due to its physiological importance, p53 mutations also have a huge pathological role and so i am sure that you can find more information on abnormal functioning

• Images are needed to enhance, learning, curiosity, and aesthetics

• Referencing and history are good


• You need to develop more material, expand on some key points, add images and i am sure the project will come together



  • The receptor and protein sections still need doing
  • The history section is very well done. I like the layout and colours used. Also the references show extensive research.
  • What is under current research is a good start. More information about other studies would improve this section.
  • Normal Function section is also very well researched and well worded. Perhaps you could put this section into a table though to break up the information a bit and make it easier to read.
  • Abnormal function section also needs expanding and to be written in own words rather than a quote. Also the formatting of the references for this section needs to be fixed. However the image in this section compliments it nicely.
  • Dont forget to include a student drawn image and perhaps some external links. Also additional pictures would make the project more engaging for the reader. However once the missing sections are completed I believe the project will provide a comprehensive overview of p53




From the first point of view, you table of content looks different, compared to other groups. You should maybe try to get the number 1 in front of p53 away. Then, I think your sentence in the third paragraph of the Introduction, which is over 4 lines, is a little too long and could be cut into smaller pieces. I don’t understand why you write some Headings all capitalized out of sudden. Although it looks good, it does not give your page a red line. Also, there are a lot of repetitions and shortenings which make it confusing for the reader to follow. The way you are referencing is not obvious. The themes Receptors, Proteins and History need still to work on.


Overall the page is very rough and a little unorganized.

I found that the order in which the page is set out is very illogical...if u can put the history up the top we know the order in which the signaling pathway is been progressing. also current research should follow all the normal functioning and can be the climax of the page rather than being in the middle.

You need to get rid of all the signatures and provide details under the headings like and protein.

Normal functioning is well done but you need to correct the formatting especially with the spaces after each headings.

Abnormal functioning does not have enough text in it so you need to expand upon that.

You can make the page more inviting by adding more pictures in and you have to put a self drawn image in there so don't forget that.


Overall, I do not believe that it is necessary for me to tell you that I cannot comment on parts of the project that are obviously incomplete, or have not been started at all - namely the sections on receptors, proteins, current research, and abnormal function. The two images you have included are properly referenced and include copyright information - which is good, however, you are still lacking a student-drawn image. Also, please remove all signatures as this is not visually pleasing. The introduction is simple, but clear, and although the section on the pathway is well-explained, it lacks referencing. The history section is really well done. The table is visually pleasing and it is well-researched and referenced properly. The first part of normal functioning could use some more references, and the entire section requires more work in terms of structure and format, but it is a decent start. Don't forget to include external links. Good luck finishing the project!


Intro

  • I think this part of the assessment should have an image to coincide with the overarching content of the project

Pathway

  • More information is needed on this part of the assessment, Image is rather good, however there should be some sort of logical sequence that could be followed. Perhaps a flow chart

Receptors and Proteins

  • More information is needed for this part, however the start seems to be ok

History

  • This part has been done well, referencing as well as content seemed to be of great detail. I would recommend organising it a little bit so that the info of the table correlates well. So perhaps formatting, otherwise good.

Current research

  • More info is needed, also this information can be tabulated.

Normal function

  • This section has been done well, however I think that to improve, maybe tabulate and provide greater referencing. As well as go into sufficient detail. Otherwise it is going in the right direction

Abnormal function

  • Image seems to stand out to me, however some more information is needed, get into depth and more detail. The pathological aspects of it, otherwise there seems to be a good start to it.

Referencing and glossary seemed to have been done well. Overall I think this project is heading in the right direction.


Articles

<pubmed>7530599 </pubmed> abnormality of p53 and breast cancer

<pubmed>15668707</pubmed> p53 abnormality and colorectal cancer

<pubmed>22230936</pubmed> - this article's about the mechanism of p53 oscillation but also explains the signalling networks involved.

<pubmed>22276160</pubmed> -explores p53 in terms of JNK signalling pathway

<pubmed>19878869 </pubmed> -about ribosomal involvement in p53 function (cell cycle arrest) - "ribosomal protein-MDM2-p53 signaling pathway"

<pubmed> 22162229</pubmed> --Z3293029 21:35, 2 April 2012 (EST)


This paper explores the P53 cell signalling involved in G1 phase of the cell division <pubmed>22384045</pubmed>

The use of P53 signalling pathway in anti-cancer therapy <pubmed>21718309</pubmed>

Study on P53's contribution in lung cancer progression <pubmed>21107428</pubmed> --Z3272558 05:36, 5 April 2012 (EST)

--Z3272212 02:20, 16 April 2012 (EST)

  • p53 functional pathway

<pubmed>11739646</pubmed>

  • p53 positive and negative feedback loops

<pubmed>15838523</pubmed>

  • Regulating p53 pathway

<pubmed>17128209</pubmed>

  • In Vivo Activation of the p53 Pathway by Small-Molecule Antagonists of MDM2

<pubmed>14704432</pubmed>

--Z3272212 02:19, 16 April 2012 (EST)

--Z3272212 02:34, 16 April 2012 (EST)

  • history of p53

<pubmed>20930848</pubmed>

  • p53gene

<pubmed>6396087</pubmed> --Z3272212 04:20, 23 April 2012 (EST)


Allocating sections

Hi everyone, I'm not sure what everyone wants to research for their part of the project. I would not mind researching the history of the p53 signalling pathway. There are still quite a few other major headings we should definitely start on, for example the pathway, normal function and abnormal function. Anyway, I have basically just chosen which heading I would like to research because we need a lot more on our page within the next week. --Z3331812 14:38, 12 April 2012 (EST)

I am having a lot of trouble finding images and even articles from the 3-4 journals that we can cite without having to apply to the journal for permission. Is anyone else having problems? Maybe we can change our topic. I know it is probably too late but going off what is on our project page (nothing at all!) we wouldn't have lost too much work by changing. What does everyone else think of this? I think we should spend some time after lab today having a serious discussion because we are already not meeting the marking criteria for this assignment by not contributing actual information to the project page.--Z3331812 12:29, 19 April 2012 (EST)

Hi can i start with the history? cheers. --Z3272212 14:07, 19 April 2012 (EST)


Hey guys, not quite sure what happened with the picture I uploaded. I am thinking I might just draw it by hand because it is not clear. This was the only image I could find that allowed us to use it without permission, ie I found it in an article from one of those 4 journals that allow re-use without permission. So I will work on drawing it and I will ask Mark Hill to take this image down because it is bad quality and we can't see what it says. Agreed? --Z3331812 12:57, 22 April 2012 (EST) I fixed the resolution issue so never mind my last comment! --Z3331812 14:41, 22 April 2012 (EST)

where does the rest of the page gone? --Z3272212 04:07, 23 April 2012 (EST)

I have added a bit more on the intro. Just wondering, do we need to leave out signature at the end of each part we added? and I think we should start working on the other parts as well. History maybe?--Z3272558 17:01, 25 April 2012 (EST)

Guys can we have our emails here?

odie_5488@hotmail.com --Z3272558 19:52, 26 April 2012 (EST)

z3331812@unsw.edu.au - my zmail gets forwarded to my non-uni email so use this email for privacy purposes

I went ahead and did research on the history of p53 and made a sort of timeline. I got up to 2010 and will continue it tomorrow, unless anyone else wants to take over or add to what I have already put, I don't mind. I will also add heaps of the words to the 'glossary of terms' heading. Hope everyone is ok with me doing the history - I just think we need to get a move on because we have that peer assessment coming up and the more info we have on our page, the better. --Z3331812 22:59, 29 April 2012 (EST)

I put some terms from my history section into the glossary section. Feel free to add any that you think are appropriate. I might try to do some work on the other sections tomorrow if nothing else is put up because we might be peer marked this thursday and we dont have much compared to other people's group pages..--Z3331812 22:42, 1 May 2012 (EST)

I am currently working on abnormal function of p53 --Z3272212 14:03, 3 May 2012 (EST)

--Z3272212 15:55, 3 May 2012 (EST)

looking at the p53 pathway i would suggest that we cut out the "normal function" part and include that in the "signalling pathway" section, integrate the text with the existing image or any other appropriate image and put the "p53 mutation" segment under the "signalling pathway" section.

Hey guys, normal function subheading is looking great! We might need to get a move on with uploading the info on the pathway and abnormal function headings - I am going to finish the current research bit hopefully by tonight and maybe add a picture to the introduction section seeing as I didn't contribute any writing to that section. That leaves the protein and receptor headings which we might need to allocate to someone doing the pathway section? Anyway goodluck guys, hope we can have our page looking fuller and appealing for the peer assessment tomorrow :) --Z3331812 16:21, 9 May 2012 (EST)

I have done the pathways section. feel free to add more content. --Z3272558 12:54, 10 May 2012 (EST)

I added an image to the abnormal pathway just so it looks more appealing, it might not be relevant but we can work that out after the peer review before its due. --Z3331812 12:59, 10 May 2012 (EST)

Hey everyone, just letting you all know that we aren't able to add any more information to our project page until next week's lab because the individual assessment for today's lab is to peer review each groups project page. The instructions for this will be posted somewhere on this website or emailed by Mark Hill. PLEASE continue to work on your sections at home on a word document or something and add it when our project page is opened again next Thursday. And don't hesitate to work on the sections that no-one has claimed. We only have 2 weeks until this is due and if we want a decent mark, everyone has to contribute. --Z3331812 15:54, 10 May 2012 (EST)

did we get told what how we should doing the peer reviews or is that gonna be in the instructions as well? yeah you're right, our page is going to get butchered in peer reviews...its definitely not up to scratch but we'll get ready for when its due :) i'll keep working on it we still need our student drawn image don't we?

Hey, I waited at the library at 2pm for 15 mins, didnt see any of you so I left. I will start taking the advice of some of the peer reviews and move some of the sections around. It would be great if you could all post on here what you are going to do so we know what will be left over and what tasks need to be allocated. Thanks --Z3331812 15:01, 21 May 2012 (EST)

Just reposting Shereen's message from our project page - hey guys!! i hope u get this..im so sorry but i dont think ill make it to the meeting today. i'm making changes anofther assignment due later today so im rushing to get it in and probably wont make it before the meeting. so sorry! i hope u understand lemme know what happens and what u guys decide. sorry again - shereen


Hey everyone, this is due tomorrow. The abnormal pathway section has not been contributed to by the allocated person - I have put the pic there and shereen put the quote there. So please do some work, you've had like 10 weeks. I have already tried my best to get the page in order by addressing some of the peer review comments (eg adding pictures, rearranging the page, adding external links/movies) and by collating the list below (which was very time consuming) so that it would be easier for everyone to see what needs to be done in their allocated sections. I don't want to get a bad mark for this assessment (and I am sure no-one else does) so I am crossing my fingers that the page is finished ASAP. Team effort guys! --Z3331812 19:45, 23 May 2012 (EST)

ATTENTION

Hey, me again. I decided to help you guys out in case you hadn't started responding to the peer reviews by editing your sections. I collated the comments and put them under subheadings. Some of the points overlap (I just copied and pasted from the peer review comments at the top of this discussion page). PLEASE read your allocated sections - a lot of the points have some great constructive criticism. As well as your allocated sections, please read the glossary, referencing and general comments. They will really help. This is due in less than 3 days and I have another group assessment due on the same day as this one so we should really have this done soon!! --Z3331812 16:21, 21 May 2012 (EST)

Introduction

• Good intro, could end with what you'll be discussing throughout the page

• The Introduction seems to be done quite well. The intro is not to brief yet not too detailed to comprehend. I feel that an image would provide a good addition to page.

• Don't need signatures.

• Definitely needs an image to start things rolling.

• Easy to read and understand with good referencing. A picture can help make the intro interesting. I don’t know why students in this group put their signature all over the page.

• clear and easy to understand. Not necessary having signature marks though

• I dont think there should be student signiture but I like the overal content

• good intro perfect size + well referenced however i dont think student signatures are necessary

• Please remove student signatures. I think the introduction is well written and easy to understand. Maybe you could summarise it a little bit more.

• Good overview of the topic and information were well referenced.

• I thought that the introduction was very good. It was easy to understand. It did go off track a little bit.

• Introduction gave a lot of information and the first paragraph was particularly relevant

• The first paragraph is very clear and well explained.

• The second and third paragraph seem to be irrelevant for the introduction, however would be useful in other sections such as 'Abnormal Function' for the third paragraph.

• A picture in the introduction would make the page more eye-catching

• check your spelling and grammar. I found multiple errors in phrasing and coherency under "introduction"

• For "introduction", the third sentence should have a reference, since you referenced all the other content you introduced. And I wonder if its direction should be tailored to better reflect the content to be expounded in the rest of the page.

• A nice succinct introduction, sounds scientific and provides I think a lot of information about p53 in a few paragraphs- which can then be elaborated on within the project. I can suggest adding a digram which can link into the topics discussed like the cell cycle or p53 molecule itself- in order to make it more attractive and eye catching.

• The introduction seems to go into too much detail. This is not necessary for an introduction. Some of the information provided seem to relate more to other part of the page including normal, and abnormal function. A large image or diagram would go well at the top of the page as colour would attract the reader to continue down the page.

• Clean concise introduction, need a bit of a cleanup here with the signatures

• The introduction is fairly good. Quite a number of references are used to give the reader some initial information before getting more detail. You could tailor the information a bit though, and make it more of a preview of what is coming later on.

• The first paragraph in this introduction was excellent because it was straight to the point and very relevant. I think the second and third paragraphs belong to subsequent sections on normal and abnormal function. My area of improvement is adding another paragraph which provides a brief outline of what your page aims to cover – this is important because it provides a clear sense of direction to the audience.

• Introduction provides a good back ground, but should also outline the basic aims of the project

• I think this part of the assessment should have an image to coincide with the overarching content of the project

• Introduction gave a lot of information and the first paragraph was particularly relevant

• The introduction is simple, but clear

• Then, I think your sentence in the third paragraph of the Introduction, which is over 4 lines, is a little too long and could be cut into smaller pieces.


Receptors/Proteins

• Obviously need info.

• The sections for receptor and proteins have yet not been attempted. I would recommend joining both of these headings together, mainly because they are interrelated.

• These two sections are not done

• Nothing there

• Incomplete

• No info

• Absent receptor section made it hard to understand the pathway

• Incomplete- doesn’t meet assessment criteria

• The history section and the colour scheme is quite impressive and you should incorporate such style in your other sections like abnormal functions as well proteins and receptors.


Pathway

• sub headings for the different pathways and then more information on each. More referencing needed

• The Pathway section contains very important information. However regardless of the quality of information, it is quite difficult for the reader to follow paragraphs of information. It would be better to incorporate subheadings and bullets which will more neatly arrange the text.

• Needs more info.

• Image is good.

• Maybe have steps involved.

• The information is easy to read and understand but lacks referencing. The picture used is not referenced.

• The content was fine but may be break them up? and I think the image is too complicated. And need mroe referencing

• well described perhaps make diagram bigger though?

• This section only has one reference. The information is understandable however the reader would appreciate some subheadings just to break up the text.

• Clear descriptions were given in this section however no reference were cited. There were three pathways mention which would look better if they were in different subheadings to give emphasis for each.

• I thought that it was weird that this was before history. However, it was easy to understand and you could see there was a lot of research involved. It would have been a little better if it was shorter and a little less information. I think the summary at the end was a good touch and put everything together for me.

• There are 3 different pathways for p53 and without subheadings to separate them, it was really easy to get the 3 pathways mixed up. So adding subheadings would be helpful. A student drawn flowchart for the pathways would also be great

• The information is well written, however there is too much writing in this section. The information would be clearer and easier to read with the use of subheadings and perhaps bullet points to highlight key information.

• Relating the information to the flowchart would also make the information clearer.

• The last paragraph provides a clear summary of the pathway.

• check your spelling and grammar. I found multiple errors in phrasing and coherency under "pathway"

• Regarding the pathway section, it sounds more like "introduction to the pathways". You mentioned three pathways, but haven't said anything about them. Furthermore, you haven't provided any references for the literature supporting your supposed three pathways that have been discovered. The image doesn't help in this respect, because it doesn't show three pathways either. How does it relate to the text in that section?

• Pathway section: I think having the text just as a slab of information (which is obviously the starting point of the work) is not very appealing to read. I can suggest you use some bullet points, numbering of pathways, bolding words... The information seems to be of average standard, i would assume this is a difficult pathway but i personally would want to see more information (as an example in the cell death lecture 2, Mark talks about the two pathways for apoptosis, the level of detail he uses is what i think you would need to use in this section- given how long we have had to work on the assignment).

• The pathway section has good information in it. The one thing I'm not impressed iwth is the lack of references. Only one reference is provided all the way down the end of this section. I am sure you consulted sources for the other information you wrote down. Even if you did only use the one reference, you should be citing specific sentences. The picture could be enlarged slightly and it would be helpful if specific dotpoints could link the text with this image.

• The information and referencing in the pathway section seems fairly good, but it is so disorganised. I did not want to continue to read because it was just a paragraph with sentences. Employing more tables, dot points and even subheadings would make the information stick out much better, and become easier to read.

• do pathways have different names? Maybe organizing work under the different pathway names (in pathway section) rather than referring to first, second, third pathways

• Pathway section is missing a lot of citation, if all the information is obtained all from ref 6, you should still multi ref throughout the section

• I think it’s very important to clearly distinguish the three pathways p53 is involved in through the use of subheadings, tables or diagrams. The information in this section has been well summarised and research however it is not very user friendly. Hence, to improve, you could have a student drawn image with all three pathways for comparison – a flow diagram would be very useful here. Also, don’t forget to complete referencing this section.

• More information is needed on this part of the assessment, Image is rather good, however there should be some sort of logical sequence that could be followed. Perhaps a flow chart

• Pathway section has some small grammatical errors but is otherwise informative.

• Pathway is non-cohesive and hard to follow. Due to the crucial importance of p53 (guardian of the genome) physiologically and oncogenically, I am sure you can find plenty of info that would allow you to map out an detailed but understandable pathway. Remember the focus of this project is cell signaling, so if there is anything that you should absolutely hit the mark with, it is the signaling pathway.

• lacking breadth of research

• Image included under “Pathway” section very complex and hard to understand (find simpler image or draw own?)

• Although the section on the pathway is well-explained, it lacks referencing.


History

• well researched and referenced, although i think History should come just after introduction, so its like a background to what is being researched.

• The history section has been accomplished to a very high quality. The tabular form is very easy to follow. The colours chosen are also very comfortable. Citation have also been used correctly.

• Not a great table format, needs borders around all cells to help separate info.

• Plenty of info and good referencing.

• Well done, good use of table and well referenced.

• easy to read and follow, great table

• like the length of it but it doesnt include who conducted the research

• history is very well researched and very visually appealing

• Unusual placement of the History section. Usually placed after introduction, which I think is more appropriate. However this section is very well researched and up-to-date.

• Nicely placed on a table. Very good referencing (every period/date had a reference).

• I thought that this section was good. It was easy to read and each year mentioned went straight to the point.

• History section was very well researched with a reference for each year and it was so up-to-date! Not many groups have history up to 2010.

• The table format makes the information clear and easy to read.

• The short sentences are clear and straight to the point. This highlights the key points and makes the information easier to read.

• You need to go through and edit the grammar, especially for the use of sentence case.

• Where possible, include the names of the researchers and/or project groups that made each discovery or breakthrough.

• History section well referenced and formatted

• Maybe the “History” section would be better put directly after the introduction as a general background of the development of knowledge concerning the pathway, then go into describing it

• History section, looks eye catching, short succinct sentences, all referenced, gives great basic knowledge of the history- 10/10

• Apart from the fact that the history should come after the introduction, it does looks really good. It is very well presented in the table and gives a good overview of what has happened over the past few decades. One minor thing: I would advise you to provide us with some of the people/teams who contributed to the specific discoveries.

• The table about the History is really informative, and the detailed referencing gives a sense of reliability. It is good to see content correctly referenced

• good extensive history section

• Excellent range of entries that have been well referenced and compiled. I like the design of the table however I think the history section should placed after the introduction.

• History section done in an easy to read layout, and is well cited for each point with an adequate brief description for most points, however some are confusing and simply require a few more words to make sense /be put into conext for example “p53 is cloned in Drosophila and C. elegans” do you mean that it was discovered/established it did this? Right now it seems as if in the year 2000/2001 this just happened as an event

• The history section is very well done. I like the layout and colours used. Also the references show extensive research.

• This part has been done well, referencing as well as content seemed to be of great detail. I would recommend organising it a little bit so that the info of the table correlates well. So perhaps formatting, otherwise good.

• The history section is really well done. The table is visually pleasing and it is well-researched and referenced properly.


Current research

• needs more work, and best placed at the end, just before glossary, a good wrap up

• Current research seems a bit too brief.

• More info needed.

• Can also do this as a table.

• Needs more research, not complete.

• There should be more researches

• good you have a good start but it needs a little more to it

• a very short paragraph, I am sure there is more research going on.

• This section only one current research. It would be good to have more than one current research about this topic considering that it is a 'hot' topic at the moment with a lot of research going on about this.

• Again, I thought this was weirdly placed (not wrong, but different to all the others). The research was relevant but not well presented.

• More Information needs for Anormal function and current research,such as the different cancers and treatments p53 may be involved in,would be interesting

• I like that you added a link to the article

• Rather than writing "a group of scientists", include the names of the researchers and the name of their research article

• Current research should probably come after abnormal function - the following order seems more logical to me: normal, abnormal, current research. You have made an attempt to start on this section, but it is nowhere near complete. Please provide some more information, eg. mention 3 current projects and future directions. Links to the institutions/projects could also be helpful.

• Current research section may be better positioned nearer to the end of the page

• You’ve made a great start to this section – have a couple of more examples of current research with accompanying images, diagrams or graphs.

• What is under current research is a good start. More information about other studies would improve this section.

• More info is needed, also this information can be tabulated.


Normal Function

• Well researched, but a bit more info under each heading to show more knowledge on the topic

• Normal Function doesn’t seem to be complete yet in terms of structure, however the information seems to be high-grade. The use of subheadings provides great organisation to the page. Again, can be a table.

• Good concepts but needs more information.

• Info that is there is well referenced.

• Well done well referenced

• very clear and sufficient amount of information. But try putting more images

• very well broken down into subheadings and very easy to understand

• I think this section should come earlier in the page. Good use of subheadings, this section could benefit from an image though.

• Well researched section with good referencing. The function of p53 was well stated and having subheadings for it made the understanding for each easier. A good point about this section is that several proteins and cascade of reactions were mentioned but they were easy to understand and was not overwhelming as compared to how other groups presented this section. Good work.

• I thought that this section was well presented and well formatted. It was easy to read. An image would have made it even easier.

• Nicely set out Normal Function section. Clearly states what p53 does and briefly explains how it achieves these functions

• This section has the best use of subheadings, which immediately makes the information clearer and easier to navigate.

• To make the information even clearer, try relate it to an image of a pathway

• I think this section should be more towards the top of the page.

• lacking breadth of research

• “Normal function” section interesting, well-phrased and formatted (due to use of subheadings)

• Normal function section appears like information is really of good standard, but definitely needs images or something to make people want to read the entire section.

• Normal function has quite some text presented. Your use of different subheadings is good, however, please do write more than 2 lines per subheading (eg. for DNA repair). In that case it will be easier to use this information and compare it with abnormal function. Pictures would also be helpful and make the page look more attractive.

• Normal function is well cited however the sub section titles should be altered for a more aesthetic appeal further elaboration/expansion of information could be helpful

• A fantastic example of good structure and content! The use of subheadings is very user friendly and could greatly benefit from the addition of an accompanying flowchart or mind map that summarises all the functions of p53.

• Normal Function section is also very well researched and well worded. Perhaps you could put this section into a table though to break up the information a bit and make it easier to read.

• This section has been done well, however I think that to improve, maybe tabulate and provide greater referencing. As well as go into sufficient detail. Otherwise it is going in the right direction

• Normal functioning is well done but you need to correct the formatting especially with the spaces after each headings.

• The first part of normal functioning could use some more references, and the entire section requires more work in terms of structure and format, but it is a decent start.


Abnormal Function • lack of information, and should talk more about the progression to carcinoma

• Abnormal function does seem to be too brief, however I will assume this section is yet not complete.

• More info needed.

• Should have similar amount to normal function.

• Nice image.

• This section is not complete needs more research.

• Abnormal function is very brief

• seems incomplete! more detail and referencing needed!

• id still love to know more about the abnormal function

• Appears incomplete. However the image is correctly referenced.

• There was a reference cited for this section but was not properly referenced. This section should be worked on more and images will be good to add.

• I thought that there was good research, but still needed to be further presented.

• More Information needs for Anormal function and current research,such as the different cancers and treatments p53 may be involved in,would be interesting

• Really good diagram

• I can see this section is incomplete, however some ideas would be to add information about the effects of mutations and associated diseases.

• "abnormal function" section, which has little beyond a quote

• Unfinished

• A lot of work will have to be put into the abnormal function. At the moment, there simply is not enough information. Also, the reference (- ref 63) will need to be fixed. Provide dotpoints to explain and incorporate the image.

• Abnormal function too brief if it is finished, citation format error evident

• This section needs a lot of work – p53 is called the guardian of the genome which is why p53 mutations have been implicated in a wide range of diseases. I think the diagram is pretty relevant and can work really well with some text.

• Abnormal function section also needs expanding and to be written in own words rather than a quote. Also the formatting of the references for this section needs to be fixed. However the image in this section compliments it nicely.

• Image seems to stand out to me, however some more information is needed, get into depth and more detail. The pathological aspects of it, otherwise there seems to be a good start to it.

• Abnormal functioning does not have enough text in it so you need to expand upon that.

• Incomplete- doesn’t meet assessment criteria

• Again, due to its physiological importance, p53 mutations also have a huge pathological role and so i am sure that you can find more information on abnormal functioning

• The history section and the colour scheme is quite impressive and you should incorporate such style in your other sections like abnormal functions as well proteins and receptors.


Glossary

• well done

• The Glossary is a great addition, however it is not yet complete.

• Remember to put in any words that someone from a non-science background may not understand.

• Finally, you mentioned the glossary comes from citable sources (spelling corrected for "cite-able"). Where are these citations on your glossary entries?

• You're well on your way with the glossary of terms, and I am sure that you will expand upon this as you add text to your project.


References

• References seem to be done correctly.

• Firstly, good number of references posted, especially for the little amount of content on the page already, although I noticed a signficant number of repeated references - check the tutorial for how to combine them. • Content correctly cited and referenced

• Very good referencing throughout the page of the sections done, but particularly the history section

• The references will need to be checked though. Some of them are listed more than once, but nor under the same number. This is mainly towards the end of your project.

• The referencing looks really good. However I did notice that same reference have been repeated a number of times with a different number. Why is that? Have you used the wrong reference?

• The way you are referencing is not obvious


General

• On a separate note, signatures should probably be removed by this stage of the project.

• This project is not complete needs more research. In general the group should consider using more pictures and graphs.

• project seems unfinished

• also note that you haven’t yet done a student drawn image which needs to be included for the marking criteria.

• I think this page was somewhat incomplete and need more work

• quite a bit of research has been accomplished, good presentation now just add in a bit more text and a few more visuals, you guys are almost there

• Overall, the page still needs a lot more work to be done.

• I thought that overall the project was good but needed more work with further research and more pictures.

• more pictures needed

• Although the page seems largely incomplete, the completed sections are well written and could be improved with the use of subheadings and images to illustrate information.

• Also, you might want to remove your z ID tags from this page. They don’t belong on wikis.

• Please reorganise the order of your headings. I feel a lack of coherency when the history comes after the pathway.

• Apart from the “History” section, all other sections need further research

• My main advise would be to add more text, and include pictures and tables to engage the reader.

• Overall the page looks decent. Some colour, images, links and subheadings would make the page look better.

• I like that the copyright information available in each image.

• Overall, fantastic team effort! You’ve shown excellent research skills in the sections you have completed and the page is generally user friendly. To produce a complete page, simply finish the allocated sections, take care of referencing (you have the same reference repeated multiple times) and improve the visual aspects

• general structure of the gene, receptor, basic info about it in dot points could help

• a legend for important abbreviations in pictures would help better understanding on the topic.

• Images are needed to enhance, learning, curiosity, and aesthetics

• Dont forget to include a student drawn image and perhaps some external links. Also additional pictures would make the project more engaging for the reader. However once the missing sections are completed I believe the project will provide a comprehensive overview of p53

• The two images you have included are properly referenced and include copyright information - which is good, however, you are still lacking a student-drawn image.

• Overall the page is very rough and a little unorganized.

• I found that the order in which the page is set out is very illogical...if u can put the history up the top we know the order in which the signaling pathway is been progressing. also current research should follow all the normal functioning and can be the climax of the page rather than being in the middle.

• You need to get rid of all the signatures and provide details under the headings like and protein.

• The images are way to small. I cannot make any sense of them without having to click into the images. I would at least want to have some sort of an idea of what im looking into before i open a larger image.

• Don't forget to include external links

• In order to attract the readers eye, you need to include more text, images and links. You need to make this page more interactive. Try to include some links which direct the reader to a movie which explains the signalling pathway or abnormal function.

• From the first point of view, you table of content looks different, compared to other groups. You should maybe try to get the number 1 in front of p53 away.

• I don’t understand why you write some Headings all capitalized out of sudden. Although it looks good, it does not give your page a red line. Also, there are a lot of repetitions and shortenings which make it confusing for the reader to follow.

• I do like the simplified text in each sections as it is easy to read however, Most of the sections requires more information as p53 is one of the most important genes in our genome (guardian of the genome). In order to improve your project page use more images to break up texts and make the thumb images bigger (eg. 500X).