Talk:2016 Group 4 Project

From CellBiology
2016 Projects: Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 | Group 6 | Group 7
Group Projects - Blood Cell Biology - Updated 21 April  
This year's main topic is Blood Cell Biology. Each group should discuss with group members the specific sub-topic that will be covered by their project.

Here is a list of some of the cell types (Structure and Function)

PuMed citations PuMed Central citations PuMed Central note
Note - that while full publications are available online at PuMed Central, not all these publications allow reuse. You should still always identify the copyright statement within the actual article that allows reuse. Many research labs that receive government grants are required to make their published research available on PMC, this does not mean that the publicly available copy content can be used in your projects.

Remember - No easily identifiable statement usually means that you cannot reuse.

Examples from Megakaryocyte references on PubMed Central

Embryology - content cannot be reused but a useful resource about cell development.

Histology - images these can be reused in your projects.

Group Assessment Criteria  

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.

Group 4: User:Z5020356 | User:Z3463895 | User:Z3376502 | User:Z3423497 | User:Z5021149



  • Z3463895 - 112
  • Z5020356 - 79
  • Z3376502 - 67
  • Z3423497 - 62


  • 71 references
  • use of current reference sources and some historic


  • Z3376502 - 4 images
  • Z5020356 - 3 images
  • Z3423497 - 1 image
  • Z3463895 - no images

  • Z5020356 - 3 student drawn images, relevant to project but no additional descriptive information in file summary box, including where they got the original concept.


  • This project is relatively short and does not have a good text/image balance. Many sections have no equivalent illustration of key concept.
  • Images lack additional information in the file summary boxes.
  • uterine NK cells (uNK cells) are not discussed in any detail.
  • Video of NK cell attacking target cell - was useful inclusion. You could have included an explanatory text section beside this video.
  • Tables are useful and consistent in colouring, but see my comment in minor.


  • table background colour makes the text difficult to read. Should generally use lighter pastel colours.
  • Function of NK cells section. 3 main functions of NK cells does not match the following sub-section headings
    • the effector function image appears right at the bottom of this sub-section.
  • Function in Cancer sub-sections are poorly organised/structured.
  • Function in Pregnancy - formatting, sub-section is wrapped around the image from the previous section.

peer review

Group 4

The history of NK cells was good, not too long but highlighted the major discoveries related to NK cells.

There is a line saying "do hand drawing showing this" under structure. Make sure this is taken out and replaced with an actual picture .

Granules seen in the cytoplasm give NK cells their name but I'm not sure what this means?

I would elaborate on CD65 bright/dim. What is actually measured to determine which type an NK cell is? This is discussed further on in the wiki but I was left confused for a while until I reached the answer. A student may not read the entire wiki when looking for information.

What is NKp46? What role does this play in NK cells function?

Under Structure, there is a paragraph that talks about the immune synapse and granules of NK cells. The paragraph is on the right track with relating the structure of NK cells to their function, but the whole paragraph needs to be elaborated. Explain what an IS is.

The function in innate immune response needs some organizing. All the relevant information is there but not in a way that is easy to understand. Try talking about activation first, then move into what happens once an NK cell is activated. The distress signals that NK cells respond to should ne explain ie where do they come from and what do they mean.

The RA section is well written. It may be a bit too long, it seems like there is a lot of information in there and not all of it specifically related to NK cells. The purpose of discussing RA is not to provide a bunch of information about RA, but to provide information about NK cells role in RA.

Under cancer, when a study is specifically mentioned I would at least mention the author's name, not just put a reference number at the end of 3 paragraphs. The section was well done with an easy to understand flow.

Without a clear role in Asthma, I would leave this section out. A small part could be added in current research, describing that there is a possible link between NK cells and Asthma.

Define what IST is under the SAA section.

Under Current research, the section on MM was well done. The paragraphs prior to this seem to be giving a conclusion about NK cells. This should not appear under current research but I found the information to be helpful. Think about incorporating this information into other parts of the wiki or create a conclusion section.

The major areas of improvement for this wiki all revolve around expanding and clarifying the information that is there. The content on the wiki currently is good but more needs to be added. Focus a bit more on the structure of NK cells and what their structure has to do with their function.

Group 4

Introduction/history: The introduction is concise and gives us the main functions of the natural killer cells, however the paragraphs could be expanded upon just to give extra insight on what will be further discussed on your page. History is also concise, but could possibly include more information on the discovery of the NK cell itself as it was briefly stated.

Structure: The flow of this section was good and easy to read. It was good that you included a diagram of NK cell (microscopic image). Maybe you can include a flow diagram that will aid your readability of the text - for example when you speak of what NK cells can be divided into functionally and structurally. There were a few minor spelling mistakes that can be fixed.

Function: Good information provided, you could expand on the difference in expression in NK cells involving CD56 (dim and bright) - would this give them different functions? You can add in an image of the process of recognition of target cells. Function in cancer and pregnancy was an interesting read. Slight formatting change - make the image of the natural killer cell effector function slightly larger so that the readers are able to see what it entails.

Abnormalities: the table was great and gave a good overview of what was going to be spoken about further on. Information provided under each subheading was great and readability was good. There was a lack of referencing however, mainly under rheumatoid arthritis.

Current research: probably state what the research is about as a subheading rather than diving straight into it. Also below this, good idea to have a glossary.

Group 4

For the first section of the project, the information given was concise. The heading however could be changed to ‘Introduction’ instead. It was also discovered that numbers were used to sentence 3. This should be changed from ‘5-15%’ to ‘Five-fifteen percent’. (This is just a rule that sentences should not start with numbers). A decent amount of historical information was given but the use of tense was varied. Try to stay entirely in presence or past tense e.g. “Rolf Keissling and Hugh Pross identify a killer cell within mice, that seemed to be genetically regulated and with a natural cytotoxicity that killed many tumours. He coined this as the "natural" killer cell.” Possibly change identify to identified. (This just keeps the readability flow smooth). Under “Structure” numbers could be used instead of dotpoints after this sentence ‘On an individual cellular level Natural killer cells can be divided in three simple ways’. In addition, this section should be proof-read to fix up minor errors such as capilization of letters where needed e.g. Nk -> NK. The ‘Function’ section was written particularly well. Information under ‘Abnormalities in Disease-Rheumatoid Arithis’ was detailed along with a few other diseases. Little information was written about other diseases. The section ‘Current Research’ contained a good amount of information but could have more references added. Overall, the project was satisfactory but lacked images.

Group 4

Your page on Natural Killer cells has a great banner to start off the mood and the information is easy to read and the layout of subheadings I great creating a flow. However the layout needs a little fixing when it comes to the structure part there’s a picture that’s located awkwardly between the receptors under structure and function. Further I noticed that there was missing information on the receptors section under the structure. On the other hand I found that your page had a simplified and numbered summary of the main function of the NK cells under the function section which was great for quick and straight forward information and then you could read into each of the three points in details if you scroll down the page. Also the summary table of NK cells in disease is easy to read and a great way to use visual aid to help with balancing text. In saying this I found that there was little to no visual aids in the following sections – current research and abnormalities. Finally, great use of references.

Natural Killer Cell Group 4:

1. key points clear

  • "Structurally NK cells can be divided into either Immunoglobin super family or killer cell lectin like receptors" what do you want to say? They can be devided based on their receptors, one group expressin IG the other C-type Lectin receptors?
  • "Previously NK cells were not thought to have any similarities amongst all mammal species as well as to each other, this has changed due to the discovery of NKp46 which appears in all NK cells of all species whilst not being expressed by any other cell type.[6]" What? how do they not have any similarities, what is NKp46, what is different by species... elaborate
  • You have to focus more strongly on the three main functions of NK cells: Killing of virus infected cells (regulated by IFNalpha/beta) and killing of cancer cells and killing of antibody-opsonized cells.

2. choice of content, headings and graphs.

  • "Natural killer cells destroy their targets by injecting it with a toxin. This toxin creates holes in the membrane and is the start of a programmed cell death, apoptosis. The membrane is destroyed and the DNA is cleaved into many pieces." This is wrong, *Toxins can be small molecules, peptides, or proteins that are capable of causing disease on contact with or absorption by body tissues interacting with biological macromolecules such as enzymes or cellular receptors. Toxins vary greatly in their severity, ranging from usually minor (such as a bee sting) to almost immediately deadly (such as botulinum toxin)." they are not toxins, perforin and granzyme are TWO proteins that induce apoptosis (controlled! cell death), perforin is a monomer which will polymerize to form channels. The channels will 1. disrupt osmotic gradient and thus interfere with mitochondria etc. and 2. allow granzyme, a serine protease, allow to enter the cell and will activate the caspase cascade
  • these are granular lymphocytes, write more about granules
  • Where is development?
  • insert picture of immune synapse and cytoskeleton and how this works
  • "NK cells are able to discriminate target cells from 'self' cells. These interactions are regulated by activating and inhibitory receptors to create a dynamic equilibrium for NK cell function" How? This is probably one of the most important parts in NK function, this shouldn't just be covered by one sentence but by a elaborate paragraph with pictures
  • You lack activation, the three activation processes, one dependent on innate immunity in an unspecific system (TLRs, C-type Lectins, Scavengers, LPS receptors) and two dependent on the adaptive immune system (IAR System, inhibitory activatory receptor system, MHCI and CD8) and ADCC (antigen-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxity, Fc receptors)
  • Talk about markers to distinguish from other lymphocytes, NK are CD56+, CD3- (in contrast to CTLs), CD8+
  • Diseases is probably as big as the rest of the article. THis is really disproportionate, opt for at max a 4:1 ratio
  • Current research and you cite research from 1999 and 2001? that's not current that's nearly two decades old? and you need to put interesting bits in this subsection not just random studies you couldn't fit in other sections. NK in cancer treatments, NK in autoimmune treatments, genetic engineering stuff, something interesting that makes you excited for the future of NK cells. your content is not really interesting.

3. Referencing

  • Too few/not present references in diseases subsection
  • Most of the pictures are not in text referenced, and you don't need to put the "original link" in the picture, that's not how we learned it

4. own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations.

  • not present

5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.

  • This does not cover half of the content you should talk about the least. Loads of important information, e.g. killing mechanism's, signaling and general depth is lacking

6. Relates content to cell biology.

  • Partially done (actin meshwork in IS etc.) but you have to elaborate that a lot: how do the granules move, how does exocytosis function, granules release cytotoxic proteins into the extracellular space, why do other cells not get attacked? etc.

7. Formatting

  • Why do you insert a picture of a table with a subpar resolution? Just make your own table with references

Group 4

1. A massive jump in history from 1987 to 2007, possible something could be added in-between to an otherwise small history section

2. Lack of a glossary which is needed however the reference list is a reasonable size possible be more if more information is added

3. Overall the report is very bland, lack of subheadings under headings and lack of bullet points doesn’t help the reader stay interested

4. More images is definitely needed

5. The function section needs to be re done, it needs to be split up better to intrigue the reader

Group 4

Introduction-good, simple overview

History-Well done

Structure- “10 to 15% of all peripheral blood lymphocytes”-this is different to your introduction-pick one. Re-word the last paragraph. Suggest diagrams but you already have points to put them in so that’s good. No copyright on the receptor image. Either list the receptors under the headings or delete the headings so it’s just the diagram. However an explanation of what they are would be useful.

Function-“NK cells are able to discriminate target cells from 'self' cells.” How do the activating/inhibitory receptors do this? Function in adaptive immune response section needs to be fleshed out and explained more-ie. What is the long lived effect? What prolonged effect can they have? Again picture has no copyright info. Function in cancer section is interesting.

Abnormalities in disease-great summary table. Can the RA section be condensed at all? First two paragraphs are good then the ones following could be reduced. “In conclusion, STAT3 is an essential pathway”-first time STAT3 is mentioned so that doesn’t make sense. Revise all the information on RA. The cancer section is good but not about abnormalities-maybe reword the whole section as abnormalities and use in disease? In sever aplastic anemia what does “IST” refer to?

Current research-good info however, maybe put in subheadings to break up the research?

Group 4 (z3461106)

Group 4 has started off the wiki with a relatively strong introduction in terms of the functions of the Natural Killer Cells, however, extra detail must be added such as where it originates from and other general information such as its size. Otherwise, it is a nice succinct introduction and the History provided is concise and cited. Perhaps more history can be added from the time span of 1980- 2000 because it is quite doubtful that there were no developments on Natural Killer cells during these two decades.

The inclusion of a histological diagram of the large granular lymphocyte was a brilliant idea as it helped to provide me with a visual representation of how a large granular lymphocyte looks like under a microscope and their relative sizes compared to other cells. It would be great though to include a scale in the picture. It certainly is very good that the group has added a label to the picture and mentioned that it was a blood smear.

In addition, the addition of “NK Cells in Disease Conditions” in a tabulated format assisted in simplifying the layout making it easier to understand how NK cells play a role, the level/type of activity that it stimulates and also possible therapeutic approaches. This is wonderfully expanded upon in the following paragraphs which has provided an increased depth of information regarding each disease. Again, it would be very beneficial if the group could add more citations to ensure that their information is reliable and that these findings have been demonstrated and replicated by other scientists.

Overall, Group 4 has made a very solid attempt in providing information at a profound level. However, more citations and a stronger introduction would definitely be highly beneficial in allowing readers to attain a stronger grasp to NK cells.

Group 4 Peer review

Introduction: Great introduction, short and sweet could say where they are though, whole body? Or localized?

History: History is good with only key points included, resulting in me actually wanted to read it and not just scroll past, as it isn’t the main focus.

Structure: I really liked the 3-dot point to divide them however; I think further use of sub dot points could be used to make it really clear on what is classifying them. It would be good to know more about the NKp46, maybe a diagram. I assume you’re going to add information on the activating and inhibitory receptors, which would be good. Also I think the pictures is a tiny bit small, I can’t really see what it is showing to know if I want to click into it for further detail.

Function: I like the 3 main functions section however, I feel it doesn’t relate to the information below. I feel a few sentences could be reworded for ease of reading, as I am a little confused about the relation to MHC1. It would be nice to have a chronological sequence of how they carry out their function. Also some information on CD65 as this is mentioned numerous times but not explained. As well as what NKp46 does being the characteristic features, as I don’t even know what it is, I just know it is there. Paragraph on pregnancy is good and interesting, makes to topic relevant to everyday life. Again the picture needs to be a little bigger, I have no idea what its showing.

Abnormalities: The table gives a great summary, I really like this. The RA section is quite long and a lot of receptors and chemokines are introduced here without explaining them making it quite hard to understand. If they are 100% necessary introduce them in the above topics or omit them and only talk about key points relating to NK cells. The cancer section I felt was more related to treatment rather than an abnormality in the cell, potentially go in the current research section? I felt the asthma section gave me no information at all and needs to either be expanded on or deleted. The anemia paragraph was good and informative. The section on schistosome japoncium wasn’t exactly clear on what role NKc played, I think it would be better not to mention the results of the experiment but just their conclusion.

Current research: I didn’t really know what was going on in the section, maybe some subheadings would help, but overall I wasn’t given a clear understanding of what was currently being researched in relation to NKc.

Overall, a good project that is coming along nicely. I’d focus more on the NKc themselves rather than pathology, as I was left with a lot of questions about the cell. Try to expand on the features of the cell and link them to the function. The banner at the top is really big, and could probably be made a little smaller.


General pointers:

  • restructure the info to allow for easy reading and processing of information

A few more specific pointers:

  • The structure subheading also includes development and receptors. It would be better to separate the subtopics and address each individually. I would say structure into development then receptors which can then lead onto your next subheading, function.
  • The last paragraph before receptors in structure addresses function. Either summarise the function and have the main focus on structure, or shift it over to be covered in the function subheading.
  • expand and state a brief function/role of any new points that are introduced eg. NKp46 in structure. It provides context
  • The function section should be re-structured. Either expand on "The are 3 main functions of NK cells" and provide information of these functions under their own subheadings, or use those points and create a brief summary paragraph that can lead on to the functions in immunity, cancer and pregnancy.
  • Dont need that many NK cell related diseases. Maybe 4 or 5 in detail with a picture or two.
  • Provide subheadings in current research, it allows for an easier time digesting info


Just like all the other groups, the first thing I noticed about this groups' project is that it followed a good structure. It started with the most broadest information in the introduction section and then led to more in-depth information in the sections about disease and current research (the inverted triangle technique). It was great that this group included a photo in the section about the structure of Natural Killer Cells (NKC). This was very helpful as that section is essentially trying to allow the reader to form an image of what NKCs look like. Surprisingly not all the groups did this so that was good. On the other hand, the images with the caption "Receptors of Natural Killer Cell" and "Natural Killer Cell effector function" were so small you could not see the diagrams on those images clearly. In that case it would be better not to use those photos at all. Try to download large images so that you can expand them/shrink them to your preferred size. Also, to me personally, I thought the Rheumatoid Arthritis portion under the heading "Abnormalities in Disease" was abnormally long. This could mean that the reader could lose interest. The information was good however it was just a little overwhelming. The group however did make up for this issue by including a table! This table was to summarise the diseases. This was a great idea!


Looks pretty good, but many sections unfinished, here are soem notes: - History is not extensive - Receptor image must be made larger - Receptor section is unfinished - In structure section, the 3 ways that NK identification can be grouped could be bolded. This would make it more distinct. - Some claims are not referenced, i.e.: Recent studies speculate that NK cells also play a role in regulation of dendritic cells, macrophages, T cells and endothelial cells o You cannot tell the reader what recent studies speculate then not reference which you are referring to. - Rheumatoid section is 90% unreferenced. A footnote is meant to be used at the end of each piece of information that was used from that source. Theres only one footnote used in the 8 paragraphs. - Diabetes and lupus sections are unfinished. - The current research section has good content, but doesn’t flow well. And needs to be reread for several small errors, (i.e. there is a random “-“ symbol half way through 2nd paragraph and some of the sentences could be restructured to read better. - No glossary


  • Minor spelling errors throughout however a problem with wording in some parts and sentence structure
  • Good introduction
  • History could include more recent discoveries
  • Perhaps add a separate section on development to give more background information and complete the whole story, this can be added before structure
  • Structure
    • Include approximate size of NK cells, other morphological characteristics, set out surface molecules in a table and summarise their function. Also need better image of a NK cell
    • Whilst the information is there and I can see where it is going, it doesn’t read well, revise some of the paragraphs
  • Function, specifically explain the three main functions listed (cytokinesis, cytotoxicity etc.). They were mentioned but they could be elaborated on, in saying this the rest of the information under function is explained well and in sufficient detail
  • Great information on diseases, good use of examples and summary table
    • RA could be simplified further however the rest of the information is clear and concise
  • More images wherever a process is explained e.g. apoptosis of target cells due to perforin

Group 4 peer review

I found the topic to be very interesting and your page quite informative. The historical findings table could be added to, particularly in the gap between 1980 and 2007. The page definitely needs more images to complement all the information, such as an electron micrograph of a NK cell and an illustration of the cell membrane receptors/proteins (the one you have right now just lists the receptors). The images that you do have need to be resized to make a couple of them a little larger (and the banner smaller), and the copyright information needs to be added to the image descriptions. A hand drawn image is also required, although I do see the reminder for this on the page. There are a couple of empty subheadings that need to be completed, and the glossary will be a nice touch once it's finished.

As a whole the page needs more article references (34 is ok but more will be better). The disease section in particular needs more reference tags throughout the body of each paragraph rather than just one at the end, and if this one reference is a review article then you need to go back and find the original source that the review is citing (just look at the review's reference tags) and cite that source instead of the review. This alone will bulk up your own references section. There are spelling and grammatical errors that also need to be ironed out. Other than that I actually like your page and look forward to seeing it completed.



  • Succinct and provides a good overview of what NK cells are and what they do


  • Could be longer - if you can find more information about when all the information that is currently known about these cells was discovered, this would be useful to include. A more informative history section would be a nice was to summarise what is known about these cells


  • The structure section starts off talking about how NK cells are produced - perhaps put production/ differentiation under a seperate subheading for clarity
  • This section doesn’t really seem to cover much information on the actual structure of the cells, or if it is there, its not made clear. All i was able to understand about their structure from reading this was that they are granular with no nucleolus and a transparent cytoplasm
  • Perhaps a diagram would help demonstrate the structure of NK cells


  • The use of subheadings makes this section clear and easy to read
  • The information seems to cover all of the main functions of NK cells
  • It might be good to explain what CD56(dim) and CD56(bright) are initially as they are not terms that most people would have come across before


  • You have covered a range of diseases, which is useful as it allows a good understanding of how NK cells function in immunity through showing what happens if they don’t effectively function
  • The study on Asthma could be expanded on
  • Rheumatoid arthritis section could be cut down and worded in a way that provides the important information in less words (it is well written though) - perhaps look at more research articles than just the one and summarise the findings that are common between them.


  • Subheadings would really help here - you discuss different research that has had different findings so divide it up to make clearer what the current research is looking at.


  • There are a few spelling errors throughout the page
  • Filling in the glossary would be useful to introduce terms that are not commonly known
  • More images/ diagrams would help to support and break up your information
  • Overall really good job so far! Just needs fine tuning

Group 4

Over all you guys have done a really good job, it reads quite well with only a few spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. There is a depth of information that makes the page informative without being confusing which is good.

  • The structure is good so the entire page flows really well and I thought you used appropriate subheadings that makes the page easy to read and follow.
  • The section on Rheumatoid Arthritis was a little bit confusing in terms of the reference; I was unsure whether all the information was from reference number 26 at the end of the paragraph or whether that referred to just the results discussed. Incorporating a few more references would also add more depth to the section and provide an opportunity for further research if students were interested.
  • Like I said before, the subheadings you used were appropriate and made the page easy to follow, but making sure each heading has information underneath is important to make sure the flow of the page is effortless.
  • The summary image of the abnormalities in disease is great!! I thought that was really interesting but a short sentence just before that to explain it a little bit would be a nice touch.
  • The function section was interesting and the information was well communicated but a little bit of an explanation about the three main functions listed at the top would be really awesome; maybe some links to articles could be a nice touch and allow more in depth analysis without having to go into detail on the page itself.

You guys have done an awesome job so far and the major things I noticed was just final editing and maybe adding a few images!

Group 4

This page is well detailed and informative on the whole and well structured, providing readers with a good understanding of natural killer cells. However, the history section appears to require more information, as there are not enough dates on the timeline outlining the history of the cell. The specific subtopics are quite informative and well structured, although a few additional images would help to supplement the text. Additionally, while the images are a good visual aid and help to supplement the information on the page (especially images such as the effector function diagram), a few of them are not properly structured, as some are missing the image descriptions and others do not have copyright statements. The abnormalities in disease section is well done, with good descriptions of specific diseases. The table at the start of the section is a good addition, as it provides a nice overview of the role of natural killer cells in disease. However, this section requires more references, as in many cases there is only one article being referenced for each paragraph or section (such as in sections like rheumatoid arthritis and cancer). Additionally, on the whole, this page requires a few more references, and I believe this can be achieved by added more of these into the abnormalities in disease section. The current research and glossary sections are a good addition to the page, however the glossary needs to be completed.

Overall, this group page provides a lot of well detailed information regarding natural killer cells and is very informative on this topic. While this information is presented in a concise manner, the page could be further improved with the addition of more images and visual aids, and a more detailed explanation of these images. The references of this page also needs to be added to and improved upon. However, on the whole this is an informative and well done page.

Group 4 Peer Review

A very informative read about natural killer cells overall, although some sections are not finished yet. Some spelling issues can also be spotted, eg. "nueclei".

Some information can be separated into different subheadings, for example the three different classification of NK cells in the structure section (can be put under something like "Three classifications of NK cells on cellular level") followed by the bullet points like currently presented. However, the sentences and paragraphs are nicely flowing throughout most of the page.

History can definitely be expanded, like how their function and activities were found, etc.

If possible, a generalised diagram for NK cell functions can be added to provide a simplified information as an option to the readers who do not require the details too deeply.

In the disease section, more references can be added to each abnormalities to provide different viewpoints as case comparison or even add more information to the existing abnormalities. For example, adding short descriptions and the roles of other cytokines which influences rheumatoid arthritis other than IL22.

Glossary is lacking, its addition will significantly increase the readability of the page by giving readers good definitions (such as for ankylosing spondylitis and primary Sjogren syndrome) of the terms used in the main text while avoiding unnecessary or unrelated definitions / descriptions to be present in the main sections (ie. maintain the flow of the text)

Lastly, adding subheadings to the current research topics will be perfect to separate individual research's description and its role and application to modern science. This ultimately also improve the flow of the section.

Group 4 Peer Review (z5020175)

Introduction: The introduction summarises the main features of Natural Killer Cells quite well but there is a lack of flow with the last 2 paragraphs. The history table is formatted well but there appears to be limited information on the history of NK cells.


  • Easy to read
  • Its good that you recognised the need to add a drawing
  • "which are then differentiated into the bone marrow allowing circulation around the body as peripheral blood after the homeostasis" - This doesn't make sense although I understand what you mean
  • Spelling and grammatical errors need to be corrected
  • You have to establish that NK cells are classified as large granular lymphocytes (LGL). However, a LGL is not always an NK cell; it can also be a CD8+ T cell.
  • The three different divisions of NK cells can be put under subheadings
  • You're missing information on the activating and inhibitory receptors but at least you've pointed it out


  • Can you please explain how a surface marker (CD56) is a cell function?
  • You didn't really explain how NK cells distinguish self and non-self clearly and you could add in a simple diagram here
  • This section is written well and not dense with jargon
  • Great use of a study to add onto the function in cancer
  • Is it cytokinesis or cytokine production? Cytokinesis is a process that occurs in cell division and is not the same as cytokine production

Abnormalities In disease:

  • The addition of a table was a good idea
  • Lack of referencing in Rheumatoid Arthritis
  • An extensive list of different diseases was explored which is good

Current Research:

  • Use subheadings
  • Written well and contains ample information.

Overall Points:

  • Missing Development and Maturation of NK cells
  • The writing is at a suitable level for students
  • Certain parts such as history and function is lacking information
  • Uncompleted bits and need some more diagrams
  • Lots for current research and disease abnormalities

Group 4 | Natural Killer Cells

History : Concise and clear! 1980 - 2007 not many developments? 27 years is a while!

Structure : Can't wait for this hand drawing! Hahaha. What is CD56? Good to see some connection to function tendencies though due to structure! May also help to list out the receptors to be clear with it. Diagram should assist written information. Could definitely be filled in more.

Function : NK cells induce production of IFN-y and TNF which enhance cytotoxicity. Why and how do they enhance cytotoxicity? Ideas here seem a bit scrambled and feel more like pieces of information that haven't quite been put together in a helpful and engaging way for the reader. I found the function with cancer and pregnancy to be clear and interesting!

Abnormalities in Disease : Great diagram! Breaks up text well and gives a great overview or the role of NK in various diseases as well as possible ways of approaching treatment using NK cells. Huge block of text with rheumatoid arthritis with only one reference? Asthma can be flushed out more in regards the regulatory role of NK cells and lung eosinophils and how that causes or is related to Asthma. Unfilled out subheadings. Flesh them out :) They look interesting!

Current Research : For navigation and clarity purposes, perhaps the use of subheadings in the section would be helpful, maybe like : Innate Immunity, NK Signalling, Multiple Myeloma... Otherwise it seems a bit hard to navigate and wade through!

Overall okay job in what they've provided. Mostly easy to read and understand. Missing out some key details. How are NK cells formed? Where are they formed? How do they get to where they are needed?


the figure for the banner is very nice and interesting. the history table is easy to understand. the table in the diseases clearly gives the very nice summary, but it also has to contain the proper reference. the section of diseases contains many types. the explanation of different function in different types of diseases is very well explained.

I would suggest that the content of the development could necessary. the structure section has to focus more on the structure of the cells, not the development and the types of the cells. the topic named Rheumatoid Arthritis in the diseases has to contain references. the glossary part has to contain some information, and also need more figures to help the understanding of the readers. the receptor section seems unfinished. the size of the figure in the section of function in cancer has to increase as the figure is hard to see.

Natural Killer Cells Group 4 - Peer review by z3465531

1. Are the key points of the topic delineated and clearly presented in detail?

• The key points of the topic were easily identified in Contents with detailed structured subheadings, and a straightforward introduction.

• Clear language was used throughout. At times, however, the vocabulary and technical terms went without full explanation.

• As a result, the article was generally easy to follow and informative.

2. Are the content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs appropriate and do they indicate sufficient comprehension of the allocated topic?

• The content presented was appropriate and usually likewise presented, but some sections such as Rheumatoid Arthritis in Abnormalities in Disease are perhaps too long and specific.

• The figures were appropriate and sufficient in some sections, and they helped convey sufficient comprehension of NK cells. Some sections from additional figures, but the initial goal should be confirming that the figures are permissible by license so far.

• The title banner, makes for a great display of the topic, though it is not immediately clear that the copyright allows for the reproduction of the image on this wiki. The copyright is “This image is protected under U.S. copyright law. Prior to purchase it can be used for one time, internal comp purposes only.”

• A glossary will be a helpful addition to the wiki page when completed.

• An important note that applies to many sections: Large sections of the wiki are have no citation, or only have a collection of citations at the end of a long paragraph. Citations need to be added within the text. Even if a piece of information seems basic, try to find support for it in a review article. Additionally, a common error in other projects, if using a review article, be sure to cite review articles “as reviewed in [#]”.

• Lymphocytic NK Cells (Introduction): The introduction is very clear and straightforward and delivers a brief description of NK cells. The introduction touches on all of the aspects of function and diseases, but is perhaps light in addressing structure and synthesis, previewing some of the sections to follow, without becoming overly detailed. It might be wise to include previews of the other important sections.

• History: Timeline is relatively short, though appropriately cited. The timeline seems is shorter than some of the other projects because of the relatively recent classification of NK cells, but it might be worthwhile to look for additional important events in the history of NK cells. Look at the History section presented in Group 2 as a good example for referencing in a timeline and a suitable length. Those events described so far, however, do seem significant.

• Structure: The section of structure gives a very clear explanation of the specialized structure of NK cells while even touching briefly on the function and development underlying this structure. More citations, however, are necessary. The histology slide of a large granular lymphocyte is a clear picture, but its relevance to NK cells is not immediately apparent from the text that is given: “Most commonly NK cells are large granular lymphocytes, meaning that have large round nueclei with an absence of a nucleoli surrounded by a large transparent cytoplasm. Granules can be seen throughout the cell giving the cell its name.” Be aware “nueclei” is misspelt. Be sure to finish this section, and be careful of the image that you have uploaded for receptors, unless you have requested and received permission to use this image, it should not be uploaded to your wiki page. That said, the material is otherwise written very straightforwardly and at an appropriate level of complexity.

• Function of NK cells: This section is worded very well and gave me a clear understanding of the multiple functions of NK cells without becoming too technical. The citations, however, need to be more frequent. For example, right away the question “The are 3 main functions of NK cells 1. CD56(dim) in cytokinesis 2. CD56(bright) in cytotoxicity 3. Clonal properties for tumour growth inhibition” needs justification by citation, i.e. How do you know this? And to whom do you owe credit for having this information? The way in which many of the citations are delayed until the end of the paragraph is confusing. It would be helpful for the citations to be more closely associated with the specific information that the specific reference contributed. The content here is some of the densest so far in the wiki, so it would be helpful for some cited pictures and the student authored images to assist the reader’s comprehension. One picture is supplied, but again, the picture does not appear to be allowed to be freely used unless the authors of this wiki have requested and obtained permission from the journal Science. In general, the section reads smoothly, but requires more citation integrated into the text, rather than a single citation at the end.

• Abnormalities in Disease: The summary table at the start of this section is a really helpful tool for originating reading of the subsequent sections to follow. Again, however it is unclear, looking at the original article from which it was obtained, whether or not the table can be used in its entirety verbatim. If you are unsure how to do this, be sure to review the relevant section in the introductory labs. There are chunks of text dispersed throughout the text that are missing citations. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to modify this table for use in your own words so that the requirement of a student created figure is also fulfilled? While this section is worded well and describes in detail different associated diseases, the citations are really insufficient. This section and its many subsections contain the very few citations for the references, in one case only citing one reference for 8 paragraphs of text. Throughout this section, only one reference is cited for each subsection. Pay attention in many instances to the importance of citing a review article differently than primary research. Be sure to use correct citations for the two incomplete subsections when writing them.

• Current Research: This section gives a well expressed accounts of research topics, but they all are cited to articles that are each over ten years old. Nevertheless, the topics described to seem interesting, if somewhat esoteric to the content provided in this course using terminology such as “HLA haplotype-mismatched”. A separate brief conclusion and glossary might also be beneficial.

3. Are citation and references for the topic appropriate?

• While the citations for this group were preferable to some groups which neglected to cite some entire sections, the citations tended to be sparse and citing references for general paragraphs rather than the specific information within the paragraph. In many cases, either information cited from review articles needed to be identified as such or additional citation of information in general was required.

• It is only readily apparent that the figure Histology slide of large granular lymphocyte is permitted to be freely reproduced, a figure which needs further clarification of its relevance specifically to NK cells. It would be advisable for the group to confirm that the other citations do not contain any licensing errors, as any mistakes would be a serious source of concern.

4. Is the wiki instructive to peers by making use of insightful diagrams, tables or figures and/or examples or explanations authored by the group members? • The wiki did present material in a manner friendly and instructive to peers.

• There was no student created image.

• The figures have appropriate descriptive names.

• The table summarizing NK Cells in Disease is extremely helpful in describing the key applications of NK Cells in disease conditions and is a valuable part of the project, provided that it is allowed to be used.

• It could be useful to look at some of the media created by students in Group 1 including their banner, clearly depicting Megakaryocytes, and summary picture clearly depicting the different biological roles of megakaryocytes.

5. Is it clear that dedicated research has been conducted to connect basic and applied sciences, and does the effort go beyond the formal class material?

• Research and connections were made between basic and applied sciences, in particular in the section Abnormalities in Disease and Current Research sections, but the quality of that research is called into questions to be paucity of different resources cited in each particular subsection.

• The students displayed considerable effort to go beyond the formal class material to research their topic in depth, however much of the information used came from review articles not cited as such, and the subsections would benefit from a synthesis of research from multiple different sources, whereas most paragraphs in this paper have only a single citation.

6. Does the group relate the content of the wiki to the primary learning aims of cell biology?

The primary learning aims of cell biology are to understand the relationship of structure and function within the cell as well as broadly within the tissue and organism.

• The project clearly addresses structure and function within the sections so titled. The other more applied sections help put NK cells in the context of the rest of the body, but the wiki seems to be missing a section on development to give further context of NK cells within the tissue and organism as a whole.

7. Final thoughts

Reading this wiki page on NK cells was informative and helpful toward advancing understanding of them. The structure and delivery of the information appears to be to the appropriate level, if at times perhaps more technical than might be expected of this course. The main areas of focus should be the aforementioned citation issues and completing some sections such as the Structure, Abnormalities in Disease, and possibly adding the sections Development, Conclusion, and Glossary. In general, however, this appears to be an instructive and informative project. Good work, and best of fortune with finalising your project in the coming weeks.

Review group 4

In your structure section you talk about differentiation. It would be better to have your section on development and differentiation before this, and then explain in ‘structure’ how the composition of the cell changes (including the clusters of differentiation you talk about). Overall your information in this section is lacking a lot of detail and it is not coherent. You jump from talking about ‘functionally natural killer cells can be differentiated into…’ (this should be in function section) to ‘structurally natural killer cells can be differentiated into …’ without going into any specific research. Also simple things like spelling and capitals are missing which makes it look non-academic. The function section has better detail, and is better explained- e.g. you explain specific chemical signaling that enables NKs to distinguish self and non-self. However, you should go to a few specific research papers (e.g. the ones you reference in ‘History’) and then try interpret the key findings yourself. This will add complexity to the information you already have and make it a more useful academic resource (since it is targeted at university students). A good example of this is your section on rheumatoid arthritis- you explain the disease, its pathogenesis and incorporate some interesting research on the role of NKp44+NK cells and the proinflammatory cytokine IL-22. The earlier sections should aim to match this level of detail. The current research section is also good. Overall, there is a lot of missing detail and at times it is difficult to understand the relevance of the information. Drawing on relevant research and making sure each section sticks to its subject will improve your project.


  • I really like the banner, especially that it has a white background so you can’t tell where the border of the picture is.
  • The introduction is maybe a little bit too brief, although I think it should be concise maybe some more general information could be included.
  • The history section is also very brief. Maybe a few more years could be included as there is a 20 year gap between the last and second last findings.
  • Under structure, a citation could be added in the legend of the picture that is on the right. Also in this section, the bullet points could maybe be formatted in a clearer way, its hard to tell that there are three points trying to be made as they don’t look grouped together.
  • The receptors section is unfinished and a citation can be added to the legend of the picture here.
  • Under the function section, there are 3 main functions listed, however the functions that are explained are very different. I think for the three functions you listed, you should then use those as subheadings and explain them.
  • Maybe a video could be added somewhere, perhaps in relation to function.
  • I think the Rheumatoid Arthritis section needs more than one reference. It is a large chunk of writing so more references would show there has been a lot of research done, otherwise it looks like you’ve gotten all of the information about RA from just one paper.
  • The summary table of NK cells in disease is good but maybe you could include a sentence just explaining that the table was taken from another source.
  • Type 1 diabetes and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus is incomplete.
  • The current research section is great to have, however the first paragraph isn’t really explaining what current research is going on. Maybe introduce the research being done to begin with.
  • The glossary needs to be filled out but it’s great to have it included.
  • The reference section looks good, maybe more can be included as there is a lot of text relative to the amount of references listed.

Topics to cover

Please add suggestions for topics


Please add links to relevant images

Article Links

Please post relevant articles here

History ( ( ( (


Z3376502 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2016 (AEST)

Ex-vivo expanded human NK cells express activating receptors that mediate cytotoxicity of allogeneic and autologous cancer cell lines by direct recognition and antibody directed cellular cytotoxicity [1]

The article is about whether it is a viable possibility to use self-transplanted (autologous) natural killer (NK) cells in fighting solid tumours. The article highlights four issues including the basic limit on the number of NK cells in blood, the requirement to activate the NK cells in order to fight the tumour, issues with commercial or large scale production of compliant cells as well as issues faced by autologous implantation. The article has several remedies for these issues. In relation to structure (my subsection) the article outlines specifically how the structure of the NK cells is relevant to the ability to be able to fight solid tumours such as the overcoming of inhibitory signals from the cell which are used to prevent cytotoxicity. This is done by downgrading inhibitory receptors such as DNAM-1 and enhancing activating receptors in the cell such as KLDR1.[1]

Identification, activation, and selective in vivo ablation of mouse NK cells via NKp46[2]

The article questions the phenotypic definition of what is a natural killer cell. Previously various cell surface expressions were used to define and stain NK cells in mice such as NK1.1 and C49b, however this was problematic due to not being specific to natural killer cells (some B and T cells also contain these surface expressions) as well as not being expressed by all strains of NK cells. this lead to the study of NKp46 which was found to be received by NK cells exclusively as well as by all strains of NK cells, early conclusions also show that this is true for all mammalian species suggesting that NKp46 is phenotypic of all mammalian NK cells. This is important in regards to my section as it explains definitely what it is that defines an NK cell and what separates them from the very similar NK T-cells.[2]

Association of Killer Cell Immunoglobulin- Like Receptor Genes in Iranian Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis[3]

This article is about the effects on NK cells on the pathenogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. It questions the effect on various haplotypes of NK cells and their receptors and questions what role these receptors play on RA. The article is largely about the various types of NK cells splitting into two functionally different groups; activating and inhibitory. The other way to split NK cells is to split on a structural difference with there being a immunoglobin superfamily (including the pathologically important killer cell ig-like receptors) and killer cell lectin like recptors. For the purpose of this article there is a larger focus on Killer cell Ig-like recptors (KIR) with the authors finding that haplotypes of these receptors having a large impact on the etiology of rheumatoid arthritis.[3]

Can Selective MHC Downregulation Explain the Specificity and Genetic Diversity of NK cell Receptors[4] This articles highlights the evolutionary pathways behind NK cells specifically the effect viruses have played on diverse inhibitory natural killer receptor genes. To do this the authors looked at viruses which decrease expression of MHC-1 to escape responses from the host. It was found that downregulation of non-overlapping MHC-1 subsets does indeed drive the evolution of specific inhibitory natural killer receptor genes. This is important in relation to structure as I feel understanding the evolution of the cell helps understand the structures behind the cell.[4]

Abnormalities in Disease

Lab 3 Assessment : Summaries of Articles Regarding NK Cells Absnormalities in Diseases

1. Abnormalities of quantities and functions of natural killer cells in severe aplastic anemia

Severe aplastic anaemia (SAA) is a rare autoimmune disease caused by bone marrow failure, where it is unable to produce sufficient blood cells for the body. Natural Killer (NK) cells are lymphocytes that play an important role in the pathogenesis of autoimmune disease, which host defence against malignancies, viruses and allogenic cells. They either kill target cells directly or encourage production of cytokines and chemokines. This study aims to investigate the quantitative and functional changes of NK cell subsets in peripheral blood of SAA patients before and after immunosuppressive therapy (IST). Results showed that the percentage of NK cells and its subsets in peripheral blood lymphocytes was decreased in SAA patients, but increased dramatically after IST. However, the ratio of NK cells increased and restored to normal levels in patients after intensive immunosuppressive therapy. This study also found that the median expression of NKp46 on NK cells of newly diagnosed SAA patients was higher than that of healthy individuals. Similar, the expression of perforin in newly diagnosed SAA patients was also higher than of controls. The expression of CD158b and the median expression of granzyme B in NK cells however, had no statistical difference between two groups. The highly expressed of NKp46 and perforin on the NK cells from these patients might be the cause of hematopoiesis failure in SAA.


2. Analysis of Natural Killer Cells in Patients with Aplastic Anemia

In humans, NK cells have been identified as large granular lymphocytes, and they bear the cell surface antigen markers Leu 7 and Leu 11. This study analysed NK cells in 43 patients with severe aplastic anemia using cytoxicity assays and microfluorometry with monoclonal antibodies, prior to and after treatment with antithymocyte globulin (ATG). Similar to the previous findings, the result also showed that the NK cells in the peripheral blood of patients with aplastic anemia is reduced compared to normal patients. NK cells in acute aplastic anemia patients was however not statically different to from chronic patients. Other than that, Nk cells in the bone marrow was also being measured in order to test the possibility of NK cells in mediating hematopoietic suppression in aplastic anemia. It is found that NK cells in aplastic bone marrow was decreased as compared with normal and to approximately the same degree as was observed in blood. These results indicated that high NK cells was not concentrated in the target organ of aplastic anemia. LGLs in aplastic anemia had defective NK cells. It is discussed that defective NK function is a consequences of the underlying bone marrow failure and therefore do not support the suggestion that hematopoietic suppression in aplastic anemia is mediated by NK cells.


3. NKG2A expression and impaired function of NK cells in patients with new onset of Graves' disease.

Graves’s disease (GD)is an organ-specific autoimmune disease. It was said that the role that NK cells play in the pathogenesis of Graves’s disease (GD) is still remain unclear. This study explored the presence of activated and inhibitory receptors if NK and NKT cells in the peripheral blood of patients with new GD onset. The result of this study showed the significant decrease of NK cells in the peripheral blood of untreated GD patients. It is concluded that a lower number of activated NK cells may participate in the pathogenesis of GD but whether impaired function of NK cells leads to the onset of GD or the onset of GD leads to impaired function of NK cells still remains unclear.


4. The characteristics of NK cells in Schistosoma japonicum-infected mouse spleens

Schistosomiasis japonica is an parasitic disease, where during infection the deposition of its eggs can lead to immunopathological reactions, such as granuloma and fibrosis formation, which are the main contributors to the host lesions. By using mice that are infected with Schistosoma japonicum , this study aim to study the charactheristics of NK cells in affected mice. The result showed no significant different in NK cell percentages between the normal and infected groups but NK cell numbers significantly increased after infection. It is found that NK cells from C57BL/6 mouse spleens were activated and produced more specific cytokines like IL-2, IL-4, IL-10 and IL-17 and less IFN- γ during the host defense process against S.japonicum infection.

<pubmed> 26319521</pubmed>[9]


Z5021149 (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2016 (AEDT)Hey guys, totally not sure if this is where we are supposed to discuss! Does anyone have an idea of what they would like to do for a topic? I was thinking just the red blood cell as there is probably lots of research and info about it out there. Its about structure and function and RBCs have such a recognizable shape that facilitates their function. What do you guys think?

Z5020356 (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2016 (AEDT) Hi guys! I'm up for doing any of the topics really, but I do agree RBCs will probably be the most straightforward. Looking forward to seeing you all in lab on Thursday!

Z3376502 (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2016 (AEDT)Yeah I'm happy with RBC Also any of the lymphocytes would have a lot of literature from pathology and the like. So if we can't do RBC (That may already be taken) I'd be happy to do lymphocytes.

Z5021149 (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2016 (AEDT) Looks like another group chose RBC :( how does everyone feel about NK cells?

Z5021149 (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2016 (AEDT) Im going to put up NK cells as our topic as we were supposed to choose one before the lab. We can change it later.

Z5020356 (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2016 (AEDT) A pretty interesting article we can use for current research: Killer Cell Immunoglobulin-Like Receptor Alleles Alter HIV Disease in Children

Z3423497 (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2016 (AEDT) I've added a few headers on the project page, some of the topics that we should target. We should decide on what sections we would like to do. Also add the relevant links to articles and images on the discussion pages, so we can collectively review some of the stuff before we upload it on the page.

Z5020356 (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2016 (AEDT) Yep, sounds good!

Z5020356 (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2016 (AEDT) Happy to take Current Research

Z3423497 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2016 (AEDT) I will be doing the history

Z3376502 (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2016 (AEDT) Hey guys, just going over all the literature now and most of the articles relating to the structure of the NK cells are review articles not research articles... I think i'm going to have to go pretty far back to get many research articles on structure.

Z5020356 (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2016 (AEST)Hey guys, our historical timeline is still looking a but scarce, is anyone working on that currently? I, myself am adding more to the diseases section and will finish current research soon.

Copy and Pasted FB chat history

Z3376502: Hey guys, just going over all the literature now and most of the articles relating to the structure of the NK cells are review articles not research articles... I think i'm going to have to go pretty far back to get many research articles on structure. there's only a tiny amount of info on structure in all the articles i've read so far

Z3423497: Yeah it's hard because we can only use journals to find the information

Z3376502: And only research articles. There's quite a few review articles.

Z3423497: if you guys are stuff, i just realised you could check out the references links. they used on the wiki entry for nk cells just to have a starting point

Z3463895: hi guys, just wondering.. For our lab 3 assessment are we supposed to research anything regarding NK cells or like the sub topic that we are all assigned to research on?

Z3376502: Subtopic.

Z3463895: Thanks

Z3376502: I've mostly done just need to finalise and put on the group page.

Z3463895: and we have to paste it on the group discussion as well?

Z3376502: Yep.

Z3463895: I see. I actually don’t remember where to find the discussion

Z3376502: Go onto the group page and at the top it'll say discussion.

Z3463895: Ahhhhh saw it. Thanks

Z3423497: haha ill be honest, i havent even touched my section yet. so busy with my other assignments. hoping to finish it tomorrow night

Z3463895: same

Z3423497: then hopefully we can all start on the bulk by this coming lab

Z3463895: actually what am i supposed to look at in the “abnormalities in disease”?

Z3376502: Abnormalities in disease will most likely be looking at cancer. It plays a HUGE role in cancer tumours. Probably a whole subsection on cancer alone will be appropriate. There's emerging research in HIV but definitely cancer is the big one.

Z3463895: Abnormalities in Disease.. Oh, Thanks Michael. I find it a bit hard to research

Z3423497: yeah cause you have to use journals

Z3376502: Yeah cancer is pretty easy. Whilst looking for structure I found a million articles about cancer.

Z3423497: the journal articles we have to reference from dont have to be recent right?

Z3376502: I don't know for sure. But I don't think so. Particularly when talking about history haha.

Z3463895: yea dont think so

Z3423497: hope so haha because some date back to 1975

Z3463895: woah that’s old

Z3463895: what happened if the research article need to be paid?

Z3376502: Try accessing via the unsw library website.

Z3376502: for function, for me

Z3376502: Mark mentioned that we may be doing the peer review tomorrow so we need to add some more stuff to the page.

Z3423497: Yeah doing that tonight

Z3463895: Same will do it tonight

Z3463895: Just wondering, do we have to use articles or we can just use google?

Z3376502: For now no but it'll be easier if you have them.

Z3463895: So we can’t?

Z3376502: I mean for now you can use Google

Z3463895: Oh ok Thanks I’ll try my best

Z3423497: best thing to do , is google the question then search the articles on pubmed from the links that come up from google search

Z3463895: Thanks, By the way this is a good article

Z3463895: But its review. Can I just use it for a while?

Z3376502: Yep

Z3423497: by the way, you have to add references for images

Z3463895: yeah I added

Z3423497: which topic are you doing?

Z3463895: disease. I am actually struggling haha

Z3423497: you at uni or at home? Im still at uni haha

Z3463895: can I like temporarily use their table diagram? Im home

Z3423497: I was going to say meet up, but dw lol. What table you talking about?

Z3463895: haha next time. Oh they have a table

Z3423497: the one you uploaded?

Z3463895: Yea but I kinda like screenshot it cause I couldn’t save it

Z3423497: Yeah if its from a journal article? Can you link it to me and ill fix it up

Z3463895: Its review tho

Z3423497: you cant find the primary source?

Z3463895: let me check, I don’t think there is.

Z3376502: It doesn't have to be perfect guys (for referencing it's easiest to get it right the first time) just some content to start the ball rolling. I just did like dot points with references.

Z3376502: Hey who’s doing function?

Z5020356: I can do that! Sorry guys I couldn’t make it today.

Z3376502: That’s ok alright so it’ll be peer review next week. I think concentrate on function more than current research.

Z5020356: yep ok I will do that defs

Z3376502: hey guys just a heads up the peer review is taking place tomorrow. the page is pretty bare so can we all add some stuff tonight (and if need be tomorrow morning) we also need an intro so if someone wanted to do that? I'm going to extend my part tonight and desperately try to find some images to put on the page good luck guys

Z3463895: yup working on my part. Will do intro if I have time

Z3423497: yeah I’ll add to the intro and I’ll help out with the other topics

Z5020356: here is a good poster for drawings

Z3376502: Awesome I'm gonna put a picture in tonight of a large granular lymphocyte as that is what most NK cells are. I'm just gonna use that histo page he put up.

Z3423497: did you want to change that poster into a hand drawn image? because we still need one of those

Z5020356: okay cool im going to finish structure and add more to disease

Z3423497: I’ll draw something that’s related and scan it

Z5020356: I mean finish function

Z3376502: I thought so haha

Z3463895: is NKp44+NK not the same as NK? Im so confused haha

Z3463895: actually no what is NKp44+NK haha

Z3376502: It looks like a type of NK cell. I'm not 100% sure though.

Z3463895: I thought s too but I cant seem to find out

Z3376502: I'm going to add some stuff in the morning probably to the introduction.

Z3376502: So too you can do some and we can go through it again in the morning (it's not the most important part right now. But your part is pretty solid already) Also it's called an nk cell cause it naturally kills without the need of a vaccine or pre exposure.

Z3423497: has anyone read up on receptors? i found a really cool diagram

Z3376502: ooh do share.

Z3423497: This article is fucken mad. Im going to use it to make the intro lol doing the intro now

Z3376502: Sweet as that's awesome. I'll probs use that after the peer review too haha

Z3423497: im just going to throw it up under that header

Z3463895: Do we have to finalise our wiki page by next Thursday?

Z3376502: yep

Z3463895: ok

Z5020356: Is anyone adding to the timeline at all? Im going to try add to the other sections by tomorrow i just finished doing the table for disease abnormalities

Z3423497: I'll be adding to the timeline. Do you have any new findings I should add?

Z5020356: Maybe something on NK cell and cytomegalovirus, Being like the first discovery of NK cell function in viruses

Z3463895: I still having some unfinished diseases to add. Will add in tonight. Are all the other sections fully done?

Z3463895: Can we put textbook as reference again?

Z3423497: i dont think he wants us to use textbooks so I would say no

Z3463895: ok no problem

Z3376502: Hey guys just got back to sydney. Getting into the project page. Too when will you be able to do those drawings? I'm gonna focus on images today I think and maybe tomorrow work on finishing off my section fully.

Z3423497: I can do that today. Which ones did we agree on to draw?

Z3376502: Awesome. I found a pretty good one to put up. I'm not sure they're in here somewhere.

Z3423497: Yeah send me a link if you find it. Probably draw the ones that are copyrighted

Z3376502: The one I found is copyright free. I don't remember which ones were copyright.

Z3423497: Should I still draw it lol

Z3376502: what else do you guys think we need on our group project. i put some images on there and a video and created that table

Z5020356: Also I think we just need to add a few finishing touches to our wiki

Z3376502: hey who uploaded that image?

Z5020356: I'm working on a table for inhibitory receptors and will add more to the tumour suppressor pathways

Z3376502: did you upload that picture above?

Z5020356: Not me haha

Z3463895: Not me too

Z3376502: i'm gonna replace it cause it's not copyright free

Z3376502: that one is similar but open source

Z5020356: yea

Z3463895: ok

Z5020356: ok good work

Z3463895: Do you guys have any hand drawn images to put up?

Z3376502: Nope I put in an original image that I created.

Z5020356: I put up three. Hopefully that are ok im not good at drawing!

Z3463895: Looks good!


History section is a bit short and would benefit from a bit more detail. Adding more diagrams would enhance the page. None of the diagrams are referenced. Receptors section is incomplete. Referencing is quite sparse in some sections – it would be good to have more than 1 reference per section to ensure that your view is substantiated. There are some editing comments in brackets that need to be actioned or removed. Capitalization, grammar and sentence structure could do with improvement.


  1. 1.0 1.1 <pubmed>20937115</pubmed>
  2. 2.0 2.1 <pubmed>17360655</pubmed>
  3. 3.0 3.1 <pubmed>26658904</pubmed>
  4. 4.0 4.1 <pubmed>26136746</pubmed>
  5. <pubmed>25688241</pubmed>
  6. <pubmed>24661133</pubmed>
  7. <pubmed>3083891</pubmed>
  8. <pubmed>25281394</pubmed>
  9. <pubmed>26319521</pubmed>