From CellBiology

My Student Page


Group Projects
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)

Cell Type (PuMed citations)

Below are the groups to which students have been randomly assigned. You should now on the project discussion page add your own suggestion for a specific topic. Once your group has agreed on the topic, add this as a heading to the project page before Lab 3.

2016 Projects: Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 | Group 6 | Group 7

Group 1: User:Z5017493 | User:Z3330991 | User:Z5020043 | User:Z5020175 | User:Z3489355

Group 2: User:Z5018320 | User:Z5015980 | User:Z3376375 | User:Z3461106

Group 3: User:Z5019595 | User:Z5019962 | User:Z5018925 | User:Z3461911

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

Group 5: User:Z5015719 | User:Z3462124 | User:Z3463953 | User:Z5017292

Group 6: User:Z5018866 | User:Z3329177 | User:Z3465531 | User:Z5105710

Group 7: User:Z5021060 | User:Z5016365 | User:Z5016784 | User:Z3414546 | User:Z3417773

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.
Individual Lab Assessments
Lab 8 Assessment
2016 Lab 8 - Lab 8 Assessment (to be completed before Lab 9)
  1. Add your peer assessment to your own student page to the site.
  2. Add your peer assessment to each project discussion page to the site.
Lab 6 Assessment
2016 Lab 6 -
  1. Identify an antibody against your group blood cell protein that is commercially available.
  2. Add a link to the original data sheet page and identify the type of group blood cell protein.
  3. Include the following information: type of antibody (polyclonal, monoclonal), species raised in, species reacts against, types of application uses, and if available any reference using that antibody.
Lab 2 Assessment
2016 Lab 2 - Super resolution microscopy
  1. Find a recent research article (not review) that uses super resolution microscopy technique.
  2. Write a brief summary of the paper (referenced) and what the super resolution microscopy technique showed.
    1. This should not simply be the abstract of the paper.
    2. This can be 2-3 paragraphs no longer.
  3. Include a super resolution microscopy image from the paper.
    1. Therefore the paper must be from a source that you can reuse.
    2. Image uploaded as in Lab 1 (summary box - description/reference/copyright/student image)
    3. Image should appear as a "thumbnail" (thumb) next to your paper summary (with citation legend) See Test page
Lab 1 Assessment
2016 Lab 1 - Lab 1 Assessment (to be completed before Lab 2) The test page I set up in the Lab
  1. Add your own student page to the site.
  2. Add your signature for Lab attendance.
  3. Add a sub-heading.
  4. Add an external Link.
  5. Add an internal Link.
  6. Add an image from PubMed, PloS or BioMed Central journal related to prokaryote cellular component. Make sure it includes both the reference and copyright information, with the file and where it appears on your page.


Z3376502 (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2016 (AEDT)

Z3376502 (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2016 (AEDT)

Z3376502 (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2016 (AEDT)

Z3376502 (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2016 (AEST)

Z3376502 (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2016 (AEST)

Z3376502 (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2016 (AEST)

Z3376502 (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2016 (AEST)

Z3376502 (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2016 (AEST)

Z3376502 (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2016 (AEST)

Lab 1 Assessment

  • Z8600021 Image is correct reference, copyright and student template.

Search PubMed

prokaryotic cytoskeleton

eukaryotic cytoskeleton

biomed central

PMID 26756351



Cell Biology Introduction

What I've Learnt

I have learnt the basics of coding a wiki page for use throughout the course. This includes adding PubMed publications as an external link as well as internally linking pages. In addition to this I have learnt how to accurately identify copyright information of Journal Articles and when it is appropriate to recreate material found in these publications.

how to make an in-text citation

Bacterial division protein Ftsz. [1]

Student Image

Localization of EGFP and YieF-EGFP fusion proteins in transient transfectants.png [2]

lab 2

  • Z8600021 Image is correct reference, copyright and student template. Your paper summary is also good. (5/5)

Journal Article

The Journal Article I am reviewing concerned current microscopy techniques in the fight for HIV/AIDS.

To do this the study focuses on the structure of the HIV-1 molecule and uses super-resolution microscopy to get an indication on size that was previously not possible with light microscopy, only elctron microscopes. This caused a challenge in the field whereby results from light microscopes yielded much different figures to those used by EM. By using Green Fluorescent Proteins on the HIV-1 molecule they were able to see the molecules in a super resolution microscope which were comparable to the size that was determined through electron microscopes, this discovery has a large impact on the study of HIV as there is now an ability to avoid EM artefacts and still see the structure and components of the HIV virus.[3]

lab 3

  • Z8600021 Image is correct reference, copyright and student template. Your selected papers are useful summaries, I hope you were able to use in the final group project. (5/5)

journal article

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 [4]

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.[4]

Identification, activation, and selective in vivo ablation of mouse NK cells via NKp46[5]

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.[5]

Association of Killer Cell Immunoglobulin- Like Receptor Genes in Iranian Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis[6]

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.[6]

Can Selective MHC Downregulation Explain the Specificity and Genetic Diversity of NK cell Receptors[7]

Model of Natural Killer Cell[7]

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.[7]

lab 6

  • Z8600021 Please format this information so it is easier to read on the page. (5/5)

MCA2537 also known as FcRIII- reacts against human CD16, monoclonal raised in mouse available commercially at sheet. CD16A is expressed by Natural killer cells, the epitome of the protein is recognized by MCA2537. isotype is IgG1 and can be used for flow cytometry and immunohistology (frozen and parrafin). The antigen was used in several research papers.[8] [9] [10]

peer review

  • Z8600021 You have provided peer feedback, though I have seen better from other class members. Have a look at the discussion pages and all the peer reviews and I think you will see the difference. (16/20)


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.

group 1

1. key points are addressed throughout with good subheadings and headings

2. Content is brilliant and love the original diagrams they show a deep understanding of the topic.

3. Nothing in the history section is cited, seems like random information without any references. I don’t know why the references for ET are in a collapsible table at the end rather than the regular reference list just because you found the reference through a different resource doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist on pubmed eg. Rumi et al. resource from “blood” has a pubmed ID; 24366362

4. Diagrams are brilliant I feel like a diagram in the structure would be a really good idea just to illustrate what you’re talking about

5. Significant research has been undertaken as seen through the 34 references I feel like more than one reference however could be used for structure.

6. You have successfully taught the learning aims of cell biology with an informative and interesting wiki page.

group 2

1. Brilliant all around in depth look at RBC very informative

2. Tables, diagrams, and headings are all demonstrative of a deep understanding of the topic, really like the collapsible table with the symptoms of IDA, clever way of including information without cluttering the page with unnecessary information.

3. All content and images are correctly cited throughout

4. Great use of diagrams, the only added one may be a diagram to show gaseous exchange?

5. 78 references in total is really good, shows thorough research into the topic

6. taught the topic of RBC well as per the aims of the cell biology course

group 3

1. Good overall key points throughout, very thorough

2. I feel like history could be longer with the section only including up to 1976. I feel like more could be added about the history of B cells. On a minor point maybe make the font in the header a little larger to make the B-cells stick out a little more.

3. Citing is an issue with none of the images being references properly, for the first image “all rights reserved” does not give you permission to recreate an image. The second image (EM) includes the pmid but on that page it states the information is copyrighted. The third image gives no reference or copyright information. The development section has no references other than in-text Harvard referencing but with no bibliography I cannot see the full reference.

4. More images would be good on the page with some original images to fill it up a little more.

5. It seems a little unfinished with only 18 references there is more research to be done into the topic

6. It does begin to provide a learning tool however I think more work needs to be done

group 5

1. 4 key points easily described through use of headings with subheadings used effectively to demarcate information

2. A lot of good information and diagrams throughout, use of collapsible images very smart.

3. All information both text and images are referenced correctly throughout.

4. Useful information clearly layed out very valuable for education purposes.

5. At 122 references it is evident that the group has done thorough research in the topic

6. Relates very clearly to the cell biology course

group 6

1. key points throughout are clear

2. In the introduction there’s a sentence “T-cells earn their name from their main organ of maturation, the Thymus, which provides the means for their selection and differentiation, as shown in[2][3][4]…” I don’t think the as shown in is necessary I understand it’s to show research but simply putting the references after differentiation will suffice, otherwise it reads a bit more like an essay rather than a wiki page. Also the history section seems a bit out of place where it is, maybe it would make more sense to add it after the introduction.

3. I’m not sure if the SEM can be used under copyright, it says for personal use and not 100% if the use here would be personal. Also not sure about the image from the molecular biology text book, this may be rights reserved.

4. Very valuable teaching tool with a lot of information about the topic overall well presented

5. A lot of references which show a lot of research into the topic. However a lot of them aren’t directly referred to instead just stated as shown in… maybe instead these could be placed in an appendix or further reading section? It breaks the flow a bit when added throughout

6. Overall it is consistent with the course aims of cell biology.

group 7

1. Key points are there however I feel like the very large section on structure could be split into structure and function.

2. Images and tables are good however I fell like more original content could greatly add to the project

3. All images and text is correctly cited with copyright information included

4. Good explanation of terms throughout, handy as a teaching tool.

5. A lot of useful references, the topic appears clearly researched

6. Meets the aims of the cell biology course.


  1. <pubmed>26756351</pubmed>
  2. <pubmed>26016500</pubmed>
  3. 3.0 3.1 <pubmed>22551453</pubmed>
  4. 4.0 4.1 <pubmed>20937115</pubmed>
  5. 5.0 5.1 <pubmed>17360655</pubmed>
  6. 6.0 6.1 <pubmed>26658904</pubmed>
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 <pubmed>26136746</pubmed>
  8. <pubmed>22075274</pubmed>
  9. <pubmed>21746772</pubmed>
  10. <pubmed>21342432</pubmed>