--Z3330409 (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2013 (EST)
--Z3330409 (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2013 (EST)
--Z3330409 (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2013 (EST)
--Z3330409 (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2013 (EST)
--Z3330409 (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2013 (EST)
--Z3330409 (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2013 (EST)
--Z3330409 (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2013 (EST)
Figure 2. Inferred life cycle and high degree of organellar complexity of the last common ancestor of all extant eukaryotes. Origin of the cell nucleus, mitosis and sex: roles of intracellular coevolution Thomas Cavalier-Smith http://www.biology-direct.com/content/5/1/7
© 2010 Cavalier-Smith; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The use of confocal microscopy in observing melanin and the skin
The human skin is a complex organ in the way that it protects the rest of the body from light and UV penetration. Although its has been determined that “skin optics respect the rules of absorption, reflection and scattering” (Corcuff, P et al 2001), the skin still has features that may prevent direct penetration of light. These include
• The stratified, layered nature of the epidermis
• Biochemical composition of both the epidermis and dermis
• Melanin within the epidermis and haemoglobin from blood in the dermis.
For these reasons, in vivo observation of the skin in its physiology and responses to stimuli has always been somewhat of a challenge. What Corcuff, P et al experimented with was a method of observing the skin of the forearm before sun exposure and for a month afterward using confocal microscopy techniques. Observations were made in regards to melanasome (melanin-containing organelle) caps within basal keratinocytes (skin cells in the deep epidermis). The use of in vivo confocal microscopy also “affords new insight to the role of melanin and its gradual migration after sun exposure”
In vivo confocal microscopy involved reflected singals being used to create an image. Contrast was improved due to absorption and scattering (minimal loss of photons). Another feature that was regarded was realtime imaging to prevent blurring from motion caused by blood pulses and involuntary movement.
• Skin optics revisited by in vivo confocal microscopy: Melanin and sun exposure
PIERRE CORCUFF, CIdLINE CHAUSSEPIED, GENEVIEVE MADRY, and CHRISTOPHE HADJUR, L'Ordal
Journal of Cosmetic Science, 52, 91-102 (March/April 2001)
--Mark Hill (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2013 (EST) You have identified a research article using in vivo confocal imaging of the skin and this meets the criteria for the microscopy. The paper though is from 2001 (12 years ago) and I do not think this meets the "recent research article" criteria. Furthermore you have not used the Pubmed formatting as described in the in-class tutorial and as shown below, see also Project Referencing. Both these factors affected your final mark.
P Corcuff, C Chaussepied, G Madry, C Hadjur Skin optics revisited by in vivo confocal microscopy: melanin and sun exposure. J Cosmet Sci: 2001, 52(2);91-102 PubMed 11382846
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).
--Mark Hill (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2013 (EST) I cannot see appropriate information associated with this image from EMBO J that allows you to reuse here. Unless you provide this information I will be deleting this image.
Integrin α1 Antibody (A-9): sc-271034
-Isotype - IgG (made of 4 peptide chains - 2 light, 2 heavy)
-Raised in mice, used within mice
-Provided at 200µg/ml
-Recommended for detection of Integrin α1 of human and rat origin by Western Blot, IP, IF and ELISA
Group 1 Peer Review
• Good introduction – Sums up what will be on the page well. Informative without being too detailed
• Some sentences were a tad long and were a little confusing to read. Separating some of the longer sentences into two shorter ones would make this intro even better
• A simple picture in the introduction would break up the text nicely
• Pleasing to the eye – Nice colours and succinct info drew my attention and made me want to read into it.
• Obviously, some more information needs to be added to the last 3 rows.
Entry into M phase
• The intro to this section needs to be a little more informative, to assume the readers know nothing about cell biology. What is a G2 phase? What is M phase? Why shouldn’t replicated DNA be damaged and why are key regulators required for this transition?
• Cyclins – Good information, informative and succinct.
• CDK – Once again, good info and succinct. It might be good to add what CDK stands for and why it is called that.
• Pictures are good. Relevant, eye catching and simple.
• The second picture should be a ‘thumb’, much like the first one. The other pictures of the page should be thumbs too so that you can add a little information to what the picture is.
• Overall, the information in this section is lacking some citation.
Metaphase to anaphase
• Im confused by the text in brackets here. Is this an error?
• An introduction would benefit this section well, explaining what metaphase and anaphase are and why the complex and checkpoint are relevant to this part.
• Good information. A picture could help break up the text.
• I like the definition that started this section. Simple yet effective.
• The ‘mitogens’ section is very well written. It was an enjoyable read, and was structured nicely. A picture here could be nice. And just a slight spelling error in the first paragraph, ‘Mitogens effect cell division by overcoming the intracellular…’ should read ‘mitogens AFFECT cell division’.
• PDGF history – This section was well written too. Overall, a good section. A few more citations here wouldn’t hurt.
• A good idea – Listing diseases that can occur involving cell division and putting it in table form is not something I would’ve thought of. Very creative, very relevant. I will be looking forward to seeing this table once it is completed.
• It might make the table even better to add a ‘treatment’ column. But once the table is complete, it may not need it. Your call. Current/future research
• Current research requires more detail
• Future research was good. With a bit more citation, it will be perfect.
- Introduction is informative and succinct. However the first sentence (definition of cytokinesis) could be more detailed. The definition given is a bit broad and could apply to mitosis as a whole. What stage of mitosis does it occur? What occurs in this process that separates it from other processes?
- Overall, information here is good, well referenced and relevant.
- Im confused by the colours – Why are the first 2 dates a different colour to the last one? Should it be alternating instead?
- Overall, a good section. Processes and complexes are explained and defined well. As far as I can see, citation is good.
- The links to the glossary work very well.
- A few more pictures both left and right would make this section pop.
- Good structure. Detailed and succinct
- Citation needed
- Having a definition for ‘microfilament’ would be good.
- A picture could be good but not necessary
Animal vs plant cell
- Having thi section as a good idea. There are lots of differences between plant and animal cells and this section describes it well.
- Point form makes this easy to take in
- In DIRE need of citation
- Once again, this is another good section. Its good to know what happens when things go wrong and this section does it well. Well written.
- NEEDS CITATION
- I like how there are link with every heading.
- A lot of good and relevant information. Structured and written well.
Overall this is a very good page. My biggest concern is that there are only 40 references for such a lengthy page. A lot of information has very little (and sometimes no) citations. This would be my number one priority as copyright/plagiarism is taken seriously. The glossary was also a bit lengthy for my liking.
- Good introduction, Very detailed. Relevant and interesting pictures
- Although just an introduction, citations are still a good idea.
- Very detailed history of the spindle apparatus. Well written too
- Pictures within the table look great
- Colours are pleasing to the eye
- Just be sure to add info for ‘1890s’ and either add information to the last two blank rows or get rid of them.
- Well written, informative. It could help if it was a little more succinct but overall, this wasn’t a big issue for me.
- Good citation
- I really liked this section. It was structured well, was informative and was easy to read (whilst still being very scientific).
- Subheadings worked well
- Adding a picture or two would help break up the text
Mechanism of formation
- Good information. Similar in style/structure/detail to ‘structure’.
- Similar to ‘structure’, this section can afford to be a bit more succinct. It was a bit much to take in.
- Pictures worked well. Relevant and aesthetically pleasing.
Current research, complictions
- Overall, not much criticism for these sections.
- Well written, good use of referencing.
- Good structure and succinct enough to read.
- Pictures looked good and were relevant to the information.
- Good use of glossary – Not too long and defined relevant words.
- Starts off well, first 2 paragraphs are informative without being too detailed.
- However overall, a bit long for an intro. I feel that the 3rd paragraph could be considered more of ‘function’ rather than part of an intro and could possibly find a place somewhere else on the page.
- Good picture. Relevant and eye-catching.
- Last paragraph is good at introducing the whole rest of the page. Could afford to be more succinct though.
- Nice colours – Neutral and pleasing to the eye.
- Good use of referencing
- Good amount of significant dates and information. Not overly detailed (which is a good thing). This is a good section.
- First thing I noticed was some overlap of information between this section and the introduction. Take information out of one of the sections (preferably intro) to make more succinct
- Outer nuclear membrane – This is very short. Could do with more detail. What is the endoplasmic reticulum? Why is it continuous with the membrane? Why is it located so close to the nucleus?
- Inner nuclear membrane and nuclear pore complexes – Well written, well referenced. Good amount of information.
NE at the onset of mitosis
- Well written, good information. Well cited.
- A good read, this section is quite good. A picture could help break up the text but not 100% necessary
Breakdown of nuclear envelope
- Opening paragraph is good. Opens this section well
- Good picture
- This had a lot of good information and was once again well written. However there was a lot of information and was a bit much to take in. I feel this needs to be edited to be said in less words and cut out anything that’s not fully necessary. Pictures could also help break up the text and make the section more palatable.
- Good section – Well written and succinct!
Reformation of NE
- Same as above – well written and not too long.
- Good information, well cited. A picture could help make this more aesthetically pleasing.
Open vs closed mitosis
- Good section, interesting topic. Picture looked good, drew my attention and was relevant to info.
- Information looked (and read) like one big ‘chunk’. Subheadings could help break up this section.
- A good section. A picture to the left would look nice and break it up from the section above and below it.
Current and future research
- Good overall. Interesting and relevant information.
- Could do with more citation. Seems like a lot of detail for the amount of references there.
- Simple and effective. All the information I needed to know was there. Cool picture too. The picture would be better as a thumb and a subheading within the thumb to explain what it is.
Meiosis v mitosis
- This looked confusing as it was dot points within sub-sub headings within sub-headings under the ‘meiosis mitosis’ heading. Removing the numbered dot points and instead writing out the information as sentences would help it look better and flow better too.
- I feel some more information could be added. The difference between meiosis and mitosis wasn’t really explained.
- Good info and succinct. Well written. Not much criticism for this section.
Sister chromatid separation
- Information was well structured and formatted. Interesting section, well done! My only issue was that there was no citation in the first paragraph yet quite a bit of information.
Anaphase-telophase AND kinetochores
- Similar to MAT section – This was a good read. Very interesting, well written and not an overload of information. Referencing is good. Good use of pictures however putting one to the left could help them ‘pop’ a bit more.
Chromosomal motors, molecular aspects of anaphase
- Overall, these are good sections. Well done, I enjoyed reading these and learnt a lot.
- Good use of sub-headings. Broke up information well.
- Pictures would help break up text
- Good section, its good to know what can go wrong if processes don’t occur properly.
- Some points were a lot to take in. Try making some of the points a little more succinct.
- Good use of pictures, good referencing.
- Good sections. Information is well structured, not too much to take in.
- A good glossary – Not too large and defined a lot of relevant terms.
- Good introduction. Explained well what a mitochondria is and why we need it. It was a bit on the long side and I felt the explanation of why we need ATP could afford to be summarised into an even smaller section of the paragraph.
- the issue with the picture needs to be sorted out.
- I feel like the heading implies that the mitochondria is a process or essential organelle of mitosis. Maybe a heading more like ‘The mitochondria and its behaviour during mitosis’ might be more appropriate.
- Contained all the necessary information and nothing more (which is a good thing!). My only issue was that it looked and read like a ‘chunk’ of information. Separation into smaller paragraphs would help.
- The opening sentence is a little confusing. It might help to break this into smaller, more cohesive sentences.
- Good use of subheadings. Broke up this section nicely. Information under each subheading is overall, very good. Well done.
- the citric acid cycle pargraph requires referencing
- The picture of the citric acid cycle would work better as a thumb with a small explanation underneath it. Same goes for any other picture that isn’t a thumb.
- The explanations of the complexes under sub-sub headings worked well. Made it easy to take in the large amount of information.
- Good section. Simple and effective table. Colours aren’t offensive to the eye.
- Find out how to make the table fit within the constraints of the page. At the moment, the width stretches beyond that.
During cell division
- Intro was good, explained what retrograde and anterograde was. Not too much information for an intro either.
- Overall good information. Relevant and detailed.
- Referencing was a bit suspicious. Was all the information really from that first reference? It wouldn’t hurt to add more references if they were used (appropriate ones of course).
- A picture or two would help break up the text.
Fission and fusion
- Overall, a good analysis and comparison of these two processes.
- Good use of subheadings. These sections weren’t an overload of information, they were succinct.
- Seems well referenced!
- Good picture
- This section is overall pretty good. Good structure and lyout to the information. Well referenced.
- As always, pictures help information look good and also back up what is written.
- A very good section to have. An interesting read and very relevant. Detailed without being over-the-top. Not much criticism for this section.
- I thin this section should be its own section and not a sub-section within physiological significance.