Talk:2013 Group 3 Project

From CellBiology

2013 Projects: Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 | Group 6 | Group 7

  1. Do not remove this notice {{2013 Project discussion}} from the top of the discussion page.
  2. Newest student comments should be entered at the top of this current page under the subheading "Student Discussion Area" (you cannot edit the sub-heading title).
  3. All comments should begin with your own signature button, that will automatically enter student number date/time stamp.
  4. Do not use your full name here in discussion, if absolutely necessary you may use first names only.
  5. Do not remove or edit other student comments.
  6. Use sub-headings if you want to add other draft information, images, references, etc.
  7. Only your own group members should edit this page, unless directed otherwise by the course co-ordinator.

Group Assessment Criteria

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
  4. 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.
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
  6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of cell biology.
  7. 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.
  8. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
  9. 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.
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.

Week 2 Project topic selection, preliminary researching on the topic.

Week 3 By the next practical class (after the mid-session break) there should be sub-headings and content on your actual project page and interactions between individual group members on this discussion page.

Week 4 Each group member should now have selected 4 papers relevant to their section of the project. These, or any other papers, can now be used to generate content (text, images and tables) within the project page. Students can also work on additional sub-headings on the project page.

Week 8 Peer assessment of group project work.

  • Each student will carry out an assessment of all Group projects other than their own.
  • This written assessment should then be pasted on the actual project discussion page and your own individual student page.
  • The peer assessment for each project should be concise and include both positive and negative critical analysis of the current project status.
  • The actual assessment criteria (shown above) can be used if you like.
  • Each student assessment should be your own work and be completed before the next Lab.



Student Discussion Area

--Z3374507 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2013 (EST) Hey guys, we've got quite a lot of feedback to sort through. It would be awesome if we could each go through and try and address the suggestions from the peer review. Only a few days left now :)


Group 3: The page is well written and organised under the various subheadings. However, there are some minor grammatical errors though the page and some sections need more references. For the Morphology and Molecular mechanisms section, perhaps the content can be broken down into smaller paragraphs, so it would be easier to read. I like that the group included the Areas of Future Research section, however it seems that the research areas mentioned under the section is more of current rather than future research since the references date from 1998 to 2009? The inclusion of the glossary is also good as it helps readers to understand the terms used in the page better but it needs to be completed.

Group 3 I really like your layout. Maybe try and keep it a bit more consistent in terms of headings and subheadings. You have clearly described the topics and shows a good understanding of your chosen topic. Well written and presented and good referencing. The images are insightful and informative. I really like what you guys have done so far!

--Z3451879 (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2013 (EST) Group 3 Intro - A little short, but well written and informative. I would like to see more citations for specific statements.

Structure - Good referencing and info. The image is okay but a little plain. Maybe you could find a better one?

Function - Well written and referenced. It’s a little too blocky in appearance. Maybe break it up to make it easier to read?

History - Nice. Some points need proper citation. I’d like to see it moved upwards on the page, probably after the intro.

Models of Division - Short but well written and referenced. Images would be nice but not really required here.

Morphology and Mol. Mech. - Great formatting. It reads very well. All the proper citations and helpful images are there.

Current and Limitaions of Models - Well Done, nice image.

Research - a little bare. would like to see more research and maybe an image.

--Z3330795 (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2013 (EST)


This group has the key points relating to the topic clearly described, this group also shows a superior choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area. Content is sufficiently cited and referenced. The wiki element as with most of these projects lack a good balance between text and other means of information. There is significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities with good use of an external reference heading. Group does relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of cell biology.In summary excellent information however change up your method of interpretation more figures diagrams etc.

z3377769 Peer Mark

Group 3 peer review 1. Content and writing - Intro: does the whole title need to be in capitals? o The intro is good, not too long, not at all complicated. o One could argue that the sentence beginning with “structurally” could be in the structure section. o Also your timeline says the golgi were discovered in 1898.

- Structure: o Section is good couple of things I’d look at, the second to last sentence of your 1st paragraph (beginning with initial studies have shown…) has too many short words in it, it doesn’t flow for me. Maybe … type of cell it is in and the cells’ state of activity would be better. o In the second paragraph the 3rd sentence (“the golgi also includes associated nearby vesicles”) is fine but doesn’t really fit. Sentence 2 is about cisternae, sentence 4 is about cisternae. Sentence 3 is about other stuff.

- Function: o 1st sentence needs an “an”. Also do you mean the golgi “sums” all eukaryotic life of spans? For me sentence 2 should be in structure. I think canal should be plural (“consequently the golgi as as…”). o “COPI protein is a complex protein that functionS” you need an s at the end of function but not at the end of vesicle (same sentence). Spelling mistake in the 1st sentence of paragraph 2 “useful” also what do you mean by “as an alternative”? At the end of that sentence “compartments” doesn’t need to be plural. o 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph is convoluted. I think the word “fast” needs to be replaced by quickly maybe? o “such reason is called”, such should be replaced by this and you need a “the” in front of trans-golgi. o in the last sentence I think homeostasis is the wrong choice of words. Regulation would be more accurate o this section is very good, there is plenty of good information but just some fine tuning on spelling and choice of words is needed. - History o Good amount of information, I suppose there can always be more but I think you have a good spread. o You initial date doesn’t match up with the intro so make sure you get that right - Models of division o Your intro for this section is good, but it doesn’t seem to refer to the golgi. I’m sure there are “several different methods of division used by organelles” but all I want to know about is the golgi. o 1. The Stochastic Strategy is good, but mention how this applies to the golgi. A sentence starting with “in the golgi this means…” would be good. o 2. Alternate strategy same thing, apply this to your topic, otherwise you could be talking about anything o Last paragraph is good. Maybe this could be the intro to this section, followed by the two possible stratergies? - Morphology and molecular mechanisms o Interphase:  This intro is good, it would be easy to talk too much about interphase but this is simple and brief. All I would say is should “towards the end of interphase” come before “at the onset of mitosis”? o Unlinking  “this process” emerges from interphase?  Should it be “studies show” instead of “study shows” in the 4th sentence?  This is really boring but I don’t think you have mentioned kD before sentence 5 so you may as well define what it stands for  Sentence after reference 31, what are u referring to by “it” ERK2, MEK1 or GRASP55?  In the last sentence I think you would say defect instead of defection. And im not sure about using detach and severe one after another, I don’t think that makes sense - During cell division  Prophase: • First sentence here, fragmentation … continues. You need an s on continue • Second sentence, is there a space between the full stop and the “at”? • May as well put in the full name for cdc2 kinase, just to make things clear, and show off some research. • Good intro  Vesiculation • From a visual point of view I would make it into 2 paragraphs if you can. • In the third sentence be specific. If you know what stage of “early mitosis” vesiculation occurs in why not include it? • I don’t think the 5th sentence makes sense. Maybe it does but not sure what you are trying to say. What do the interactive proteins do? • “p115 serves as A bridge” you need the “a”. also at the end of that sentence you have cRisternae as opposed to cisternae (presumably) • You are missing a bracket in the sentence beginning with “the link between…” • The sentence beginning “it is done to block…” has too many ands in it, maybe “…forming a restraint, thus preventing rapid and repetitive fusion” • “this process continues the does not stop”? simple error, these things happen. And “without fusion the consistent fusion gradually consumes”? • “trans-oligomers” which ARE not “is”. And because THEY not “it” and “which ARE required in cell division” not “which is” • Again this seems to be a theme for the page all the content is there but it needs fine tuning, some of the sentences are off, some of the words are in the wrong place. These are ultimately small things but require huge attention.  Metaphase and anaphase • This section is good, but what happens in the specific parts of cell cycle. i.e. what happens in metaphase? And what happen in anaphase?  Telophase and cytokinesis • There should be a comma after ultimately o Current model for behaviour  Intro is good. Undergo shouldn’t be plural • Continued presence … o There should be a comma after however. o Be consistent in your English. Synthesised and spelt the English English way, while theorized is spelt the American English way. I know it sounds ridiculous and it’s a tiny matter but if u can change it then I think you should o If you know the stage when the golgi breakdown is you should mention it. o Et al. should be italicised and have a full stop afterwards o “david highlighted several behaviours …” that contradicted. o First sentence second paragraph. What about yeast! o All good • Disappearance … o Split into two paragraphs if you can o “both consist of ” interconnected! o et al. not et. al. o Where are the references? o I’m assuming GA stands for Golgi Apparatus but you should define it. o You have et. al. and et al but you need et al. o Why doesn’t this theory explain much? Also in the title should “model” be plural • See you, I always turn my phone off can’t break tradition, I would take u in irregardless of ur inebriation. But not tonight please o Limitations  Continued presence • Like the way you have split this section into smaller paragraphs. Makes it much more approachable • 2nd sentence 2nd paragraph is too long, I would make it “one possibility, is the requirement for a factor that needs to be transported downstream to regulate maintenance/ reassembly of the Golgi in the ER”. • “Therefore it may not be possible…” sounds better to me. • 1st sentence 3rd paragraph I think get rid of “to a certain extent.” • What are the MGC’s?  Disappearance model • The presence? • Comma after “continued during mitosis” • Maybe “the number of Golgi proteins was sixfold reduced”. Just to avoid using presence three times in the same sentence. You could also say “Also, under cycloheximide…” • Hmmmm I think I know what you mean in sentence 1 paragraph 2 but the wording isn’t right, the meaning is cryptic. You have 2 points in the sentence: o Cycloheximide (inhibits protein synthesis) lead to a sixfold decrease of golgi enzymes o This indicates the main function of golgi enzymes in the ER is synthesis not recycling. o These points need to be linked together better • A full stop is needed at the end of paragraph 2 • I think in both of these limitation subheadings you need a; “one limitation of this model is”, type sentence. Just to make it painfully obvious that you are talking about limitations of the ideas o Future research  Like the bullet point format and not too much information  This section looks good o The rest  External links all work, all have relevance to your topic. Having that disclaimer up saying these may not work due to changes in the internet is also a nice touch  You need to define MGCs in your glossary - As far as editing goes, all this needs is clarity, some of the sentences are a bit wordy and unclear, keep the sentence structure simple, don’t worry about trying to put everything together into one sentence, it’s better if the reader can understand what you are saying. So break things up - 2. Referencing - All looks good, you have a good number of sources and no blanks some of the paragraphs could do with a bit more in text referencing as I’ve previously mentioned but you have all done good research - All your pictures have the correct copyright and referencing information 3. Elements of teaching - My brain is a little fried but I don’t know much about the Golgi, there is a lot to learn on this page and I think the language is at a reasonable technical level. 4. Presentation - Visually your project is good, a nice balance between text and pictures, I would break up your text more though, bring on double spacing just to make things nice a easy to follow.

Criteria: 1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described. 2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area. 3. Content is correctly cited and referenced. 4. 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. 5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities. 6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of cell biology.

Seems as though you guys have mentioned most relevant key points and there is a nice sense of flow between topics, the introduction gets right to the point which may be VERY useful for someone visiting your page in order to learn more about your topic(1) I like how the page is divided into very easy to read and follow paragraphs separated by subheadings; so I commend your use of layout. Detailed timeline, however "Up to 1950's" and other vague dates like that are no help to people who require the actual dates should they need them; plus you guys have the dates in the discovery column so just make more rows and add them in! Nice table colour! not too bright or dark, a nice calming colour with easy to read text inside it. Informative images which are well distributed and placed! But maybe you guys could find a nice one to put in near the introduction just to make it look more eye-catching?(2) Referencing has been done correctly, however two things: there are many repeats in your reference list just to remind you, and try not to have the reference at the end of a sentence, it just looks more tied in if its included in the actual sentence itself instead of randomly hanging off the end. Some minor typing errors which could be easily fixed in the actual text itself too(3) I think your website is very much suitable for people both new and old to the topic, its easy to understand and follow and this is critical for our projects and not very easy to do, so well done!(4) I can see plenty of research has been done, this is evident just by scrolling and by the number of references at the bottom - however they are duplicates(5) The golgi apparatus is an interesting organelle, and we're not usually taught much about it apart from it's function in the cell, and from our lectures I know it is an important organelle which carries out important functions - and so your topic seems very relevant to cell division so well done and nice topic(6)

Group 3

At first glance, this page looks awesome.

Introduction Well rounded, explains clearly what we can expect from the page. The accompanying image is missing the student image template. It’s also a bit small. I’m satisfied with it, but if you’re running low on images of the golgi to use later on in your page, you might want to use an image of Camillo Golgi himself, frothing moe and all.

Structure and Function – Maybe combine these two sections. Once you mention cisternae in structure, go on to describe its function. With your references, the full stops/periods used should come before the reference, in some instances it is, in some it isn’t. Student drawn image.... NICE!

History Possibly place history straight after the introduction. This will provide a better flow to the page in my opinion.

Models of Division - You can use the “#” numbering system of the wiki page to format the two models mentioned

  1. The Stochastic Strategy, determined by the law of probabilities is adopted by organelles which are dispersed and numerous. This accuracy of this method of separation relies of the equal dispersion of organelles throughout the cytoplasm.[25]
  2. An alternate strategy for cell division is the Ordered Partitioning Strategy. Unlike the former this method is highly regulated and organised. It is structured around the theory of mitotic spindles. This method ensures a high degree of accuracy particularly for low number organelles. In general, most membrane bound organelles use both methods through the process of cell division, however some organelles depend on one method more heavily.

They are now indented and stand out in the body of the text. Should read “THE accuracy of this method of separation relies ON the equal dispersion of organelles throughout the cytoplasm.”

Researchers have proposing various models for cell division.? =/

Morphology and Molecular Mechannisms – you can easily fix “MECHANISMS” up in the heading. Image used needs to be referenced correctly with the student image template included, but its inclusion alongside the text is great, very complementary.

Current Model for Behaviour during Mitosis - Image used here is great, but needs to be referenced correctly. You have a small amount of text underneath the image, think about page formatting and the size of the image in a way that will account for the amount of text that you have here.

Disappearance via the golgi-er transport model – just some proofreading: David T. Shima et al developed “A” strategy. This paper should be referenced here, I know it is referenced later on, but an additional reference here would be good.

Areas of Future Research – a few links to some research papers would be good here, with a quick summary of their aims and findings.

Overall a nice project page. A good balance of text and pictures, easy on the eyes. Just a bit of proofreading to be done and some cleaning up to do. Great job guys.

Group 3 Feedback

I like how you explain in your introduction what you will be covering in the page. It sets it out really well. You have clearly Donna lot of research on the Golgi apparatus and have referenced it well. I noticed that reference 38 doesn't actually have a reference connected to it? The function section is really informative, the only suggestion I would have here is to add an image or two so that it's easier to read. I think you've done a really good job on the history section and it's well laid out. In the. Models for division section, if possible I would add some images there to show the differences. Apart form that the rest of the page is well written and researched with a good number of images to break up the text! Overall, I think you've done a great job on this page!

Introduction stated the purpose of the project evidently. The information for “structure” was concise. The copyright information is missing for the picture of Golgi apparatus. Reading the “function” section was interesting and well written, especially with decent use of references. It is preferred to place the history table after the introduction. If a diagram or an image is included in “Models of Division” would more helpful. The rest of information on the page was detailed and well written, except there is a need to explain further the first point in the “limitation of current models” and may be include some of the unfamiliar terms in the glossary. Also few images not referenced correctly (the first image in morphology section and the image for current model for behavior).


z3374087 assessment

The introduction addresses the topic well with a combination of a brief history, structure and function of the golgi apparatus. The structure and function are very descriptive and address the all content required however it would be good to ad a picture under the function heading regarding a metabolic pathway involving the golgi apparatus. Having the history after these topics is great because they allow the reader to appreciate the function of the golgi apparatus before learning about its history. Although the “during cell division” content is very descriptive and informative it is very bunched up. The use of paragraphs and pictures will allow it to flow better and maintain the reader’s interest. The external links section detailing some current research needs descriptions for the research under the links so the reader can understand what they are about and how they relate to the group page. The references are all correct and plentiful. This is a very detailed assignment overall. With a bit more paragraph reorganisation and pictures detailing what is described it can achieve a HD for sure.

Group 3-The Golgi Apparatus'


  • Good overview of what is going to be on the page.
  • Good explanation of what The Golgi Apparatus is.
  • History is in the introduction it is brief but you have it in the history as well so you dont need it here.
  • Maybe make the image bigger?
  • The image is referenced properly.


  • Good use of references.
  • Maybe draw the golgi yourself and upload that.
  • The image of the Golgi Apparatus is not uplaoded with all the right information such as reference, description,copyright etc.


  • This section is well written.
  • You might want to shorten this section or summarise it.


  • HIstory is written up really well.
  • It is detailed and doesnt have huge gaps between the dates.
  • Add some information from 2000 onwards.
  • Personally i think the History section should be after the introduction (before structure and function).

Models of Division

  • POssibly provide more information on the first model and the second model.

Morphology and Molecular Mechanisms

  • Good use of sub headings to breakdown the information.
  • You have spelt Mechanism wrong in the title
  • There are a lot of images used and they have been uploaded correctly.
  • The section reads really well however there are a few puntuation mistakes such as ...during cell division under prophase in the first sentence there is no space between "At" and a fullstop.

Current and Limitations of Models

  • Excellent section as it reads well once again and referenced well.
  • The last paragraph of the current model section needs some referencing though.
  • An image showing either of the models in the limitations would be good.

Current and Future Research

  • There is no specific current research papers.
  • The first point needs to be elaborated on.
  • Link or reference the actual papers you got this information from to support your text.

Overall This project is researched well and the information put up is relevant. Small things like the glossary and certain points need to be fixed up but overall the project reads well and only minor amendments need to be made.

Peer Assessment

Group 3 – Golgi Apparatus

The introductory paragraph is a good start, but needs some more work. Perhaps a little bit more description briefly summarising the other sections of the wiki page in the introduction would make it more substantial. I only see 1 reference in the introduction. The image in this section has the reference in it, but you need to also put the student image disclaimer.

Structure section is concise with appropriate referencing. The image in this section is also relevant.

Function section is also concise with appropriate referencing. However there is no image, it would be nice to add an image to support the text.

The history section is a reasonably good start, with appropriate referencing for the discoveries. You need to add a few more years and descriptions of the discoveries in those years. Perhaps adding some images to support some of the discoveries would make this section look more interesting. The table format is a good idea.

“Morphology and Molecular Mechannisms” section title needs to be fixed, you spelt ‘mechanisms’ wrong. Other than that, this section is very detailed and has appropriate referencing and images to support the text, thus making it the best section in this page so far.

Current Model for Behaviour during Mitosis section is also very good so far, with appropriate referencing and relevant image. However the image is not really referenced correctly and you need to add the copyright information and the student disclaimer. Limitations of Current Models section has sufficient content so far, with appropriate referencing. It may be a good idea to add another image to support the text, as it is hard to read so much text with no image.

There is no current research section in your page. You should have this section and summarise some recent research papers on golgi apparatus.

The glossary is lacking in words, and the words that are there are not bolded. You need to make the words bold.

Overall the project is good so far but needs a little bit more work.

Group 3 peer review

Introduction: I like how the introduction cleared stated the purpose of the wiki page. The information was concise and clear. Structure: I think there has been an overuse of short sentences which made reading the paragraph a little awkward. The information was concise and clear. The image of the golgi apparatus could have a more detailed description so people can see how the image relates to the descriptions in the body of text. There is no copyright information under the image.

Function: I think this section on function was well written.

History: Personally, I would place the history before the structure and function. It's current position seems a bit out of place. The colour scheme is nice choice and easy to read from. It is good to see that each entry has been referenced.

Models of divisions: Diagrams would be useful for the reader in this section. Numbering the models and using dot points breaks it up for the reader so I like the way it has been structured.

Morphology and molecular mechanisms : This section is well written and well referenced which makes it clear that extensive research went into it. The images are used well to break up the text and the use of schematic diagrams is a good one because it simplifies the complex processes. However, I think the images need more detailed descriptions. The first image is not correctly referenced.

Current model for behaviour during mitosos: The image was a stand out for me and I really enjoyed it. However, I don’t think the image was references correctly. This section is structured very well and there is good use of subheadings. The information was also excellent.

Limitations of current models: Some of the terms should be explained ( perhaps in a glossary) e.g. Sar1p. I like the use of the subheadings and the explanations were good. Areas of future research: The first point definitely needs more information.

Further comments: There is evidence of group discussion on the discussion page. Group members have proposed changes and provided reasons for these changes. Most of the entries on the discussion page are by one person which shows a lack of communication between group members. However the page is looking great so has made a good recovery.Some of the references appear multiple times in the list.

Group 3 Peer Marking

Introduction clearly states what the page will discuss and includes a short passage summarising the history, location and function of the Golgi apparatus in a way that keeps the reader engaged. Image included is useful. Structure section does its job, although the diagram provided is not in a dynamic colour that would catch the readers’ eyes. In contrast to the previous sections, the function section lacks a diagram which though might not be appropriate, makes the function section seem boring and a wall of text. A better format would be listing out dot points and/or highlighting key terms. History section, like other pages, was displayed in a table. It listed important events but grouped recent events into ‘After the 1990s’. As it still does provide a good idea of the timeline, this is fine. Some photos would be nice. Another section that would benefit greatly from pictures would be the models of division. The word ‘model’ itself brings a diagram to mind and this section lacked it. Minor spelling mistake in Morphology and Molecular ‘Mechannisms’ which can easily be fixed but aside from that, was quite impressed with this section. Diagrams were useful, references done properly. Current Models was done well and explained each model to an appropriate level of detail and the limitations of the current model was a really good idea. It provides the evidence that these models are in fact still under study and can change. Area of future research seems like a helpful section. Through reading the whole wiki, there are many complex terms used and the glossary should include more of them. Sufficient discussion was done, with even comments about how to improve the material that was already posted on the page, shows that the group actively communicates with each other.

Group 3:Golgi Apparatus

  • Introduction: The introduction makes clear the aim of the page and that it will be exploring the processes of mitosis in regards to the Golgi apparatus. Though I recommend including another reference in the second paragraph when you are actually describing the Golgi apparatus.
  • Structure: This section is well written, it is concise but I think the sentence ‘’’ These are known as cisternae.”’ needs to be linked to the third sentence as they both talk about cisternae. Also, it’s good to use variations in the length of your sentences but avoid using two short sentences one after another; you should elaborate on them. The image has no accompanying description; you should provide a relevant description of what the image is representing. Maybe you could point out to the Golgi apparatus and expand on it a bit more.
  • Function: I think an alternative word should be used to the word ‘’’sums’’’, how about using the word ‘’’signifies’’’? Also, when you talk about cell trafficking, maybe you should be more concise with describing this process and try and find a relevant image to go with the information that you have provided.
  • History: You need a range of entries that should be well referenced and compiled. I like the design of the table however I think the history section should placed after the introduction and not after the Function. Also, it needs to be completed and it’s a good idea to elaborate on the vesicular transport hypothesis or maybe it’s significance to the Golgi Apparatus.
  • Models of division: When you are talking about the methods of division that different organelles use (which I think is not very necessary for this section), it’s a good idea to use a table as there are a lot of written information in the other sections. Also, using a diagram to depict one of the described models would be a good thing as well.
  • Morphology and Molecular Mechanisms: This section is well researched and the cartoon images are good but unfortunately no description has been provided as to what they show or how they relate to the processes in the Golgi apparatus. Though one of the images contains a brief description of what they signify and its relevance to the content presented which is a very good thing to see.
  • During Cell Division: The information under this sub-heading needs to be more concise, you can easily confuse the reader if you provide the names of too many proteins (which you have) or too much information related to them. Since you are describing, CDK1, P115 etc. You should consider a table to present this information, a table makes it more user friendly and easier to understand as it is organised well.
  • Current Model for Behaviour during Mitosis: The first paragraph does a very good job at explaining the process that both plant and animal cell undergo during mitosis. The final paragraph needs to include references as it does not have any reference! Otherwise very well researched information and I really like the image which has a very well written description. Also, the use of subheadings is very user friendly.
  • Limitations of Current Models: It’s good that you have explained the differences between the Disappearance model and the Continued Presence Model. If you could include an image showing one of the processes then that would be great. Also, it would be useful if you could link some of the words to the glossary section such as: Sar1p DN as many readers would want to know what it means.
  • Areas of Future Research: It appears that the first dot point needs to be elaborated as it has no explanation. Also for the second dot point it would be good if you could include a diagram such as a graph, depicting some of their current results in the area. This would make it more understandable and user friendly for the potential reader. The external links are fantastic but the glossary needs to be completed.

Peer Assessment Group 3 Golgi Apparatus is a really well set out page, great introduction and overall layout, function clearly explained and table of histories well researched and easy to read. Progression through the stages and how the golgi apparatus is during those stages is very well done. Lovely pictures and a really well structured page. Everything is logically spelt out and pictures break up the text. Only thing to improve on would be the glossary and the referencing

Group 3


  • Really should not use all caps. I feel it kind of disrupts the whole page.
  • Drop the "The". Just "Golgi Apparatus". It's cleaner. (I may have quoted a movie)


  • Swap the Golgi apparatus Q+A.png with Golgi apparatus.png. This represents the true golgi that we know and provides a great pic to start. Make the image bigger.


  • Have you thought about putting this into table form? Possible list one structure of the golgi then the description right beside it. The info is great but it would make it a lot easier to read.


  • Really well done section.
  • I would say get an image, but finding a relevant picture would be difficult. It's also nice and short so maybe unnecessary.


  • Great colours, easy on the eyes.
  • Get a pic of Camillo Golgi would be really neat.

Morphology and Molecular Mechannisms

  • I feel this is the best section. Easy to read, nice flow of pictures (left to right).
  • Needs the proofread. Spelling errors and punctuation errors that can easily be fixed.


  • Here is my biggest issue. Why is there so many headings describing Models? We have: Models of Division, Current Model for Behaviour during Mitosis, Continued Presence via Mitotic Fragmentation of the Golgi Ribbon, Disappearance via The Golgi-ER Transport Model, Limitations of Current Models, Continued Presence Model and Disappearance Model. Should there be that much focus on Models? What about how the transportation works or a Mechanism section?

Formatting Issues

  • From the headings, you have used =Heading= (one equal sign) when I believe you are suppose to use ==Heading== (double equal sign). The former is dedicated for the topic name.
  • Model for Golgi during mitosis.jpg and Microtubule formation around the golgi during mitosis.jpg do not have copyright disclaimer. This is actually quite disastrous so please fix it ASAP.
  • Repeated references in the "References" section. To fix this issue, you have to go back to when the first time you used the reference. At the moment it looks like this:


You have to give the reference a name, to do this change the first line like so:

<ref name="PMIDXXXXX"><pubmed>XXXXX</ref>

It's preferable to rename the reference under the PMID to avoid confusion. From there, to continue using the same reference you have to type and replace this simple line:

<ref name="PMIDXXXXX"/>

This will clean up the reference list and avoid the repeated reference. Note that if you reorganise page content, ensure that the first instance of the reference has the ref name tag <ref name="PMIDXXXXX">.

  • All images need at least one paragraph or sentence described in the uploader's words explaining the image, afterwards signed with the signature.
  • Student drawn image isn't formatted properly. It needs at least one reference where it found it's inspiration from. Also need to include this info:

Copyright Beginning six months after publication, I (zXXXXXX) grant the public the non-exclusive right to copy, distribute, or display the Work under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, as described at and

Drawn by student zXXXXXX

{{Student Image}}

  • For all images you should put it in a thumb picture so you can provide a quick explanation and also use the reference line after that description. It should look like this:

[[File:picture.jpg|thumb|short description of picture being displayed<ref><pubmed>XXXXX</ref></pubmed>]]

  • All references should be directly after the full stop (it's a little format issue but will be noticed).

  • Needs more images, I know it can be hard finding images with copyright being the main issue but there are other ways to get some relevant pictures.

Peer Assessment:

Certain areas are lack of citations and just need to add some diagrams. But overall, I think that it is good. I like how the way the table is presented (colour, bullet points, timeline). Model of division section is good as numbering/bullet point the facts make it easier to follow and understand. The diagrams are well chose. Just need a bit of adjustment.


  • Sound intro, good explanation of what the golgi is and good summary of what will be discussed
  • Great image, both schematic and electron microscopy view of the golgi. The student image template is missing and the thumb could be a little bigger so the image can be clearly seen

Structure and Function:

  • Structure of the golgi has been summarised well. Function section could be summarised a little more. May be consider putting these two sections together under one subheading as they aren’t the main focus of the project


  • Well structured timeline with significant discoveries that are summarised well and no major gaps in time, flows well

Models of Division:

  • Interesting info, however, it’s not clear which model the golgi follows, does it follow one of these methods?

Morphology and Molecular Mechanisms:

  • Feel as though the first sentence of the section belongs in the structure
  • Section is divided up well with appropriate/logical subheadings
  • Good balance of text and images
  • First image lacks some of the info required (i.e. proper referencing, copyright clearance, student image template)
  • Second image has required info but image could be further explained
  • Third image has all the info needed but all its parts needs to be explained
  • Information is well researched and summarised with good range of references

Current Model for Behaviour during Mitosis and Limitations of Current Models

  • Good summary of the different models and their limitations
  • Sections are broken up well
  • The necessary info needs to be added to the image, like correct referencing and don’t think “Copy Right: Free PMC article Pubmed reference number: PMC2132765” is a copyright clearance statement, might want to double check if you can use this image
  • A suggestion could be to present this info in table form, one comparing the two models and another listing the limitations of each
  • Could use another image to balance the text
  • Some of the info lacks referencing

Areas of Future Research:

  • Interesting areas of research discussed
  • Are there any current studies being conducted?

Overall, the topic has been well researched; a few structural rearrangements could be considered like the use of tables and the combining of subheadings. Some images also need to be revisited to adjust the referencing and making sure the clearance statements are correct. A few more images could be used.

Review for Golgi First thing I noticed was that the heading was in capital letters which is a bit unusual.

The history table looks good, it seems to cover a lot of information and has nice neutral colours.

The morphology and mechanisms section has a good use of images to support the information explained in the text.

Some sections appear to be a bit light on referencing, i.e. the section about the limitations of the different models.

Areas of future research could use a bit more information and images.

Looks good so far though.

507 - S
150 - Je
681 - Jy
409 - P

--Z3324681 (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2013 (EST)Hey guys, I updated the limitations portion. Feel free to read and edit :) I also added more stuff in the areas of research part. Plussss... I think 2 more points/subheadings we should consider adding in are: 1. Reassembly (of GA) after Cell Division. and 2. Purpose of Disassembly plus, more pictures wouldn't hurt I guess. Any thoughts? :)

--Z3330409 (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2013 (EST)The referencing on 'history' has now been changed. All the criticism points that Mark gave us last week have pretty much been corrected now too :) doing well guys!

--Z3330409 (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2013 (EST) All the new additions look/read great! Awesome input. Our page is definitely startting to look a little more impressive. I've added a part to the 'future research' section as well as a bit of editing of some of my old sections etc. Also moving around of pictures so they 'fit' better. Hope thats ok with everyone :)

All the new content is great. Love it!

I added the reference on 'history' heading because all of the information i got from that was from one source. I thought maybe i'd do it that way rather than adding the same reference to every date. But if you guys think i should change it so its on the actual dates, i'll do that :)

Still working on this as we speak! Haha

--Z3324681 (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2013 (EST)Yo, so, I've shifted things around a little bit also (e.g. I used Morphology as a level 1 subheading, divided it into 'Interphase' and 'During Mitosis' (level 2 subheadings), then used level 3 subheadings for the other mitotic phases. Decided to do it this way cos technically interphase is pre cell division, right? Hope that's okay! (Plus, added in info and references throughout the morphology section too.)

Also I've left the two references on the subheadings there. I didn't want to just take it off in case it was needed somewhere else. Can the person who put it there put it where it belongs, or take it off please? Thanks!! xx

--Z3324681 (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2013 (EST) hey guys, there's a reference next to the 'history' subheading. is it supposed to be there?

i also added some stuff to the timeline, and moved the 2 models of division under the 'history' subheding 'cos i'm pretty sure thats old news :(

i'll add some newer info from more recent research into the ' Behavior of the Golgi during Mitosis ' heading tomorrow too :)

--Z3374507 (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2013 (EST)I'll do the morphology parts tonight and add some more to the other sections.

--Z3330409 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2013 (EST) hey guys, just added some stuff over the weekend including pictures and a history section. Is everyone happy with eveerything so far? I guess now we need to fill in the morphology during mitosis. I'm happy to do it if need be :)

--Z3324681 (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2013 (EST)please do! i'll be uploading some pictures and info around too but I really suck with formatting so please feel free to edit anything i put in!

--Z3330409 (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2013 (EST) awesome, thanks for the heads up :) was actually in the middle of writing up stuff for function, good thing i checked and you had already done it :) do you mind if i put in some info that i had written up?

--Z3324681 (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2013 (EST) Woops I didn't update here but I updated my parts and I also added in bits of information in the other subheadings that were empty but wasn't dedicated enough to add in the reference yet, sorry. Will go through again and add in more things.

Here are some points we should look at: :p Introduction: relate GA to cell division. this part should let the reader understand what our project is about. consider moving first subheading's content here. include pic of golgi and a pic of summary of GA during cell division. include what is going to be covered.

Subheadings: take out mentions of GA in every subheading.

Pictures uploaded should have references as well

--Z3330409 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2013 (EST) Here are the points that Mark gave us regarding fixing up our page. Copied and pasted from a text edit file.

-Introduction should included that its about golgi during mitosis
-Intro should have a picture
-Be prepared to go back and change the intro to make sure that it summarises all the content that is covered on the page
-Arrange so that it explains what the golgi IS before what it does in mitosis.
-Project needs pictures throughout.
-Fill in empty subheadings
-Give pictures meaning.
-Try to avoid 'golgi aparatus' in every subheading

--Z3330409 (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2013 (EST) Hey guys, not to sound rude or anything but this is startting to get real close to the date.. We need input! Chat here if need be if youre struggling with time, finding information, lay out or what information you should be adding in :) I'd be more than willing to help! We had a MASSIVE list of sub headings that we need to do but i think what is most important is the following:

Location in the cell

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE allocate yourself one of thee three if you have had no input on the page so far. Reply here and let us know. Like i said, id be more than willing to help. Its just getting very close to its due date and our page is looking a little sub-par. Haha.

If we're still not able to have at least these subheadings have any input, i will study them and make my input myself. Please get this done guys. I know you guys are busy but i think we all are :)

PS: if we get through these 3 subheadings i think that morphology and 'is the golgi independent from the ER' will be the next highest priority subheadings to fill in.

--Z3330409 (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2013 (EST) Hi all. Our wiki page is slowly getting there but i think its high time we start really buckling down on getting this done :) i've added my parts now. If you haven't yet done so, please start adding in whatever your designated subheadings were.

Also, im struggling to figure out how to reference on our page. For now, ive just put numbers where my references will go. This thursday, could one of you please run through with me how you go about it? :)

See you guys later this week!

--Z3330409 (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2013 (EST) Hey guys, i can see the page has been updated with subheadings and some information under a couple! Coming along great :) ive now added my 'structure and location' info and am working on the segregation of GA now. I only need to add my references although I may need some help! I will ask for your assistance in the lab this afternoon.

Anyway, now that things are up, i think it will be a good idea for all of us to read stuff that others have submitted so we can proof read as well as add or edit any information that we might have :)

Cyas later!

--Z3330409 (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2013 (EST) Here are my 4 articles

1) Fragmentation and partitioning of the Golgi apparatus during mitosis in HeLa cells

HeLa cells are a type of human cell used in scientific research obtained from cervical cancer cells in 1951. These cells were used to observe the activity of the Golgi apparatus when they divide. It has been concluded that animal cells contain only one copy of the Golgi apparatus and they are unable to be synthesised de novo. The Golgi must divide when the cell divides and involves breaking down into fragments. By using osmium to stain the Golgi, Lococq and Warren were able to demonstrate the division of the organelle through twisting and turning in a ribbon form.

Lucocq JM, Warren G (1987) Fragmentation and partitioning of the Golgi apparatus during mitosis in HeLa cells. The EMBO Jounal 6(11)

2) Active ADP-ribosylation Factor-1 (ARF1) is required for Mitotic Golgi Fragmentation.

Although it has been established that animal cell Golgi apparatuses undergo division and disassembly during mitosis, the mechanism for the way this occurs is still not clear. Xiang Y et. al. investigated how ARF1 may dictate the division of the Golgi. ARF1 is a GTPase that is necessary for the forming of vesicles from the Golgi and is associated with Golgi vesicles created in vitro as well as in mitotic cells. When the Golgi was treated with ARF1, it was converted to vesicles. However depletion of ARF1 meant the Golgi failed to fragment.

Xiang Y et. al. (2007) Active ADP-ribosylation Factor-1 (ARF1) is required for Mitotic Golgi Fragmentation. Journal Of Biological Chemistry 282(30)

3) The Golgi-associated protein GRASP65 regulates spindle dynamics and is essential for cell division

It is found that that the protein known as GRASP65 (a Golgi-associated protein) is significant in the in Golgi fragmentation during mitosis. GRASP65 is required for the stacking of Golgi cisternae in vitro and is phospohrylated during mitosis to cause unstacking during mitosis. The study showed that depletion of GRASP65 did not affect the stacking of cisternae however it did afect the organisation of the mitotic spindle. This ultimately lead to cell death.

Sutterlin C, Polishchuk R, Pecot M, Malhotra V (2005) The Golgi-associated protein GRASP65 regulates spindle dynamics and is essential for cell division. Molecular Biology of the Cell Vol 16

4) The Golgi and Endoplasmic reticulum remain independent during mitosis in HeLa cells

The Golgi apparatus must undergo partitioning and dissasembly prior to mitosis. And although it may not require molecular machinery to dissasemble/ reassemble, it requires a number of specific cell-cycle regulated activities. The same can be said about the Endoplasmic reticulum which is a large tubular network that involves the nuclear membrane. In this study, Jesch SA et. al. conducted a number of assays to observe wether the Golgi apparatus and ER are dependent or independent of one another during mitosis

Jesch SA, Linstedt AD (1998) The Golgi and Endoplasmic reticulum remain independent during mitosis in HeLa cells. Molecular Biology of the Cell 9(3).

--Z3374507 (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2013 (EST) Hey, we've delegated the topic between the 4 of us. We are all gonna get some content into the sub topic you've been allocated. If you have any other ideas just post up.


--Z3330409 (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2013 (EST) Delegation of topics

-Difference between GA and other membrane-bound organelles during mitosis
-Why does the GA act differently during mitosis compared to other organelles

-Morphology of GA prior to cell division
-How does the above process differ in other organisms

Jy -History (what was previously assumed about GA)
-Limitations of current models
-Does the GA's function relate to its behaviour in mitosis

-Structure and location
-The GA cant be synthesised de novo, how does it end up in two daughter cells?

--Z3374507 (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2013 (EST) Hey guys, these are my 4 articles:

1.) Who Needs Microtubules? Myogenic Reorganization of MTOC, Golgi Complex and ER Exit Sites Persists Despite Lack of Normal Microtubule Tracks

This article aims to better understand the process of structural reorganization which occurs during skeletal muscle differentiation. The focus is placed on the Golgi complex, endoplasmic reticulum exit sites and their ability to move and differentiate despite their lack of normal microtubule tracks. The lack of knowledge is attributed to the fact that these changes to the secretory pathway happen almost simultaneously. By using taxol, nocodazole and GSK3-beta inhibitor it was possible to interrupt the microtubule network and uncouple the reorganization. This investigation has revealed new insight into the structure and functional reorganization of both the Golgi complex and ER during myogenisis.

Citation: Zaal KJM, Reid E, Mousavi K, Zhang T, Mehta A, et al. (2011) Who Needs Microtubules? Myogenic Reorganization of MTOC, Golgi Complex and ER Exit Sites Persists Despite Lack of Normal Microtubule Tracks. PLoS ONE 6(12): e29057. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029057

Editor: Michael Klymkowsky, University of Colorado, Boulder, United States of America

2.)The Golgin Tether Giantin Regulates the Secretory Pathway by Controlling Stack Organization within Golgi Apparatus

This article looks at the connection between Giantin (a regulation protein) and the function and structure of the Golgi apparatus. By using of drugs (nocodazole) which inhibits the action on Giantin it was found that there was a notable difference in the movement of the Golgi. The Golgi partitioned into a ribbon like form rather than the normal stacks. It was also found that in area where there was a deficiency in Giantin there was a notable increase in transport of cell surface proteins. Furthermore, Drosophila cells known to lack Giantin show the organisation of the Golgi to be dispersed. Ultimately this information suggests that the Giantin protein in the Golgi can be at least partially responsible for the regulation of transport and structure of the Golgi apparatus.

Citation: Koreishi M, Gniadek TJ, Yu S, Masuda J, Honjo Y, et al. (2013) The Golgin Tether Giantin Regulates the Secretory Pathway by Controlling Stack Organization within Golgi Apparatus. PLoS ONE 8(3): e59821. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059821

3.) Golgi Cisternal Unstacking Stimulates COPI Vesicle Budding and Protein Transport

In this article Wang et al. compare the efficiency at which the Golgi transports proteins to the cell surface when it is varying degrees of compactness. Through the use of an assay it was found that more protein was transported when the Golgi was unstacked. This information can suggest that the amount of stacking within the cisternae of the Golgi could be directly related to the rate of protein transport. In addition, it implies that transport could in fact be maximized in cells by unpacking the Golgi.

Citation: Wang Y, Wei J-H, Bisel B, Tang D, Seemann J (2008) Golgi Cisternal Unstacking Stimulates COPI Vesicle Budding and Protein Transport. PLoS ONE 3(2): e1647. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001647

4.)Polarization of the Golgi apparatus and the microtubule-organizing center in cultured fibroblasts at the edge of an experimental wound.

In this article Kupfer et al. explore the movement of the Golgi apparatus and microtubule organising centre in experimentally wounded fibroblasts through the use of immunolabelling. They compare the orientation of these two organelles to each other in two positions; at the edge of the wound and in a culture of cells that have been removed from the wound. In the prior the two were relatively close to the face of the wound and in the latter they were randomly orientated. This change in position suggests that the ma play a role in the cell movement.

Citation: Kupfer A, Louvard D, Singer S-J (1982)Polarization of the Golgi apparatus and the microtubule-organizing center in cultured fibroblasts at the edge of an experimental wound. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 79(8): 2603–2607/PMC346248

--Z3374507 (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2013 (EST) Hey guys, I just put all the ideas everyone had for sub topics onto the project page. I just wanted to put something up before tomorrows lab. See you then! :)

--Z3330409 (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2013 (EST) Great start indeed! Looking in to a history are good points too and should take up a good bulk of our wiki page. Having a quick look into it, we could also discuss:

-the GA can't be synthesised within a cell de novo, so how is it that daughter cells contain a GA? -does the GA's function relate to its behaviour during mitosis. Argh, i thought of 2 more but theyve escaped me! :( Silly public holiday brain.

Anyway here's a paper i found. I will keep searching. Hope you all had a good easter weekend!

--Z3374507 (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2013 (EST) This is a great start. There seems like a lot to go through with these topics alone. Last week our tutor mentioned that we need to include history, current known research and what else is yet to be known. (We can always add more topics as we do more research)

Also it would be helpful if we provide links to the research articles we find to this page. That way everyone in the group will know the sources properly.

--Z3324681 (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2013 (EST)I read a little bit into in and it seems like it goes through several changes throughout cell division. Thing we could talk about / potential subheadings:

-Where GA is located in cells and their function

-What was previously assumed about how GA participated during cell division

-Difference between GA and other membrane bound organelles during cell division

-Morphology of GA prior to cell division

-and subsequently its morphology during each part of cell divisions

-and how the above process differs in other organisms

-also, limitations of current models

-maybe even why GA participates in cell division differently compared to other membrane bound organelles


--Z3330409 (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2013 (EST) Hi! Interesting insight and very good resource you've found. I'll have a look into it. Could be really interesting like you said :) my only concern would be that by limiting ourself to one organelle, it may also limit the range of information we can access, topics we can discuss etc etc. But you raised good points about and it could end up being very informative. I will have a deeper look into it :) :)

--Z3324681 (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2013 (EST) Hello ho! What do you guys think of examining Golgi Apparatus separating during cell division as our topic rather than just 'prophase'? :) Mark mentioned it very briefly during one of his lectures and I thought it'll be nice to find out more about it (and would be a more focused research topic perhaps?)

Here's a research article about it for your perusal :)

--Z3324681 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2013 (EST) J: Like this? Heh.

--Z3324681 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2013 (EST) Helloho! What does everybody think of putting our initials at the start of our messages so that we'd know who's who without having to memorise each other's student IDs?

--Z3330409 (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2013 (EST) Hi everyone!

--Z3420150 (talk)16:05, 04 April 2013 (EST) Hey guys I think we should think for subheadings (or are we using 681's? subheading examples?) and allocate them to four of us. I can do them tomorrow (because i'm working tonight) before revising for my other subjects because I'm not working until Sunday :)

--Z3420150 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2013 (EST) Partitioning of the Golgi Apparatus during Mitosis in Living HeLa Cells

Using a fluorescent tag protein, the location of the Golgi apparatus has been identified and confirmed using immunogold and immunofluorescence (Golgi markers). Using confocal microscopy, the behavior of Golgi Apparatus has been observed. During metaphase, the cells containing fragments of Golgi seemed to disperse in the cytoplasm. The combination of confocal microscopy and fluorescence microscopy exposed the juxtanuclear reticulum in 90% of the cells which is a characteristic of Golgi apparatus which has also been confirmed by immunoelectron microscopy using GFP antibodies [1]. It identified its location to be found over a subset of one/two stack of cisternae during cell division.

Golgi Biogenesis

In this experiment, the NRK cells has been used to identify the positions of the Golgi apparatus during cell division. When the cells have been treated with 5-inhibitor s-trityl-L-cystein that functions as centrosome inhibitor, the Golgi behaviour has been viewed more clearly and systematically. Such chemical created a fixed triple-stained colour: green for protein GM130, red for a-tubulin and blue for the Golgi's DNA. The images has been collected systematically to show the location of each fragments that composes the whole Golgi body during cell mitosis. By this study, there has been hints to why Golgi undergoes disassembly and reconstruction during the cell division process of all mammalian living things and its significance in cell division. For now, the reason for interaction between Golgi and different mitotic machineries are still unknown, however further studies about ubiquitin ligase would give understanding to p97 which is responsible for post mitotic Golgi membrane fusion.

The Golgi Apparatus Maintains Its Organization Independent of the Endoplasmic Reticulum

In this experiment, the Golgi enzymes has been observed and treated under physiological conditions in the endoplasmic reticulum. The reason for the experiment is to find the reason behind the recycling of golgi membranes in the ER. Using the chemical repamycin that serves its function as an inducer of FKBP and FRAP proteins, it became possible to observe the FKBP-tagged Golgi enzyme to FRAP-ER protein when the enzyme visits the ER. The experiment was paramount since this study suggests that Golgi proteins cycles through the ER and at the same time undergoes into biogenesis in ER as well. This is significant since it exposes the existance of Golgi-ER recycling pathway.

Analysis of De Novo Golgi Complex Formation after Enzyme-based Inactivation

This study focuses on the Golgi maintenance during interphase cell division as well as the relationship of ER and Golgi complex during interphase. Using a drug free method where the Golgi body and its dynamics has been deactivated and replacing it by a synthetic Golgi-like marker with architecture, it has been tested and achieved a result that cells were unable to create a normal trafficking activity during the interphase method. Similar with the third paper, it has been suggested that the interaction between ER is paramount to achieve a balance maintenance during interphase. Such integration would be needed to create a Golgi-like structure that will be essential as a building block for Golgi complexes. Hence, Golgi complexes would be used for biogenesis of new normal Golgi elements when it comes to it's morphological and biochemical functions.