From CellBiology
    ,                    ," e`--o
   ((                   (  | __,'
    \\~----------------' \_;/
    (        Sam          /
    /) ._______________.  )
   (( (               (( (
    ``-'               ``-'

:) You're welcome - From Sam

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.

2016 Group 7 Project

My Student Page


Z3417773 (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2016 (AEDT)

Z3417773 (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2016 (AEDT)

Z3417773 (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2016 (AEDT)

Z3417773 (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2016 (AEST)

Z3417773 (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2016 (AEST)

Was here on 28th of May-forgot to do my attendance :)

Z3417773 (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2016 (AEST)

Z3417773 (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2016 (AEST)

Z3417773 (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2016 (AEST)

Z3417773 (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2016 (AEST)

  • Z8600021 Attended 10 practical classes, including the one with missing attendance.

Lab 1 Assessment

Search PubMed

Prokaryotic Cytoskeleton

Eukaryotic Cytoskeleton


How to make an in-text citation

Bridging the gap [1]


Carnegie stage table

Lecture 1



What I've Learned

I've learnt how to insert links, create headings and usefully put in a reference without having to format it all myself.

Image Upload

Prokaryotic Defense Systems.jpg

The defense systems in prokaryotes: innate immunity, adaptive immunity and programmed suicide/dormancy.




Copyright ©2012 Makarova et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

   Note - This image was originally uploaded as part of a student project and may contain inaccuracies in either description or acknowledgements. Please contact the site coordinator if the uploaded content does not meet the original copyright permission or requirements, for immediate removal.

Lab 2 Assessment

  • Z8600021 Image reference, copyright and student template with the file you have uploaded. Why not use the correct PMID format for the reference though, same for your summary link as I have pasted below . PMID 22403400 (5/5)

Dual Color Photoactivation Localization Microscopy of Cardiomyopathy-associated Desmin Mutants [2]

This article aims to image the result of mutation of the DES gene that codes for the intermediate filament protein desmin, specifically in the right ventricle of the heart as previous studies have shown that mutations in this gene are related to arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC). By using super-resolution dual color photoactivation localization microscopy (PALM) they imaged the filament assembly resulting from co-expression of both mutant and wild type desmin. Where previous studies have focused on homozygous mutations, this study has has chosen to focus on hertozygous as they are the predominant presentations found in a clinical setting and therefore are more relevant to understanding the pathology of ARVC.
The imaging was accomplished by tagging the desmin in human cardiomyocytes derived from stem cells with fluorescent proteins; two different types to be able to show a difference between the wild-type desmin and the mutant desmin. Three lasers of 561 nm (GCL-150-561; CrystaLaser, Reno, NV), 473 nm (LSR473-200-T00; Laserlight, Berlin, Germany), and 405 nm (CLASII 405-50; Blue Sky Research, Milpitas, CA) laser lines were used to excite the fluorophores to image the filaments to find any defects. This allowed for a 10-fold improvement in resolution over normal wide field microscopy techniques.
PALM of Desmin mutants and wild-type
The analysis found that rather than only forming filaments or aggregates based on if the desmin was mutant or wild-type, the PALM images showed that both types were combining together to make the filaments. This will allow for better understanding of the filament formation defects for future pathology and possible eventual treatment.

Lab 6 Assessment

  • Type of Antibody: Eosinophil Peroxidase-Monoclonal
  • Species raised in: Mouse
  • Species reacts against: Human
  • Application uses: ELISA (EIA), Flow Cytometry (FC/FACS), Immunofluorescence (IF), Immunohistology (IH)
  • Research Article: <pubmed>23931643</pubmed>

Peer Assessments

  • Z8600021 These are good summaries. (17/20)

Group 1

Introduction-Good simple introduction to the cell you’re studying, maybe add a histological image of the cell to allow the reader to visualize

History-Very thorough but maybe too much so? There is a lot of information there, which will be fleshed out in the rest of the page anyway so sticking to the main big breakthroughs in the timeline might be better. Also one of your dates is out of line-you have a 1973 in the 1800s

Structure-Would definitely benefit from having a diagram of the cell here and even one of an individual platelet since you are describing its specific structure as well. Useful to draw one if a good one can’t be found online.

Development and Maturation Process-Again a diagram of the lineage of megakaryocytes would be better than a histological picture of megakaryoblasts as that doesn’t add much to aiding the learner as much as a visual representation of the lineage would. When talking about mitosis in the edomitosis section, use the full names for the stages rather than the short hand.

Signaling-Written as a flow diagram would be easier to read and understand the steps of the signal transduction

Function and Role-Platelet production well explained and diagram was very useful. All sections well explained. Suggest moving the summary diagram to the top of the function section to give a quick overview before rather than after you’ve already done the detail. No over detailing of Haemostasis, well done.

Pathology-Consider putting this section into subheadings of: Underlying pathology Signs and Symptoms Diagnosis Treatment To better organize the information as some of it jumps around a bit. The osteoporosis section could do with fleshing out, or at least set out similarly to the other two pathologies.

Future research and glossary-good idea to include both and well done

Overall well done, just a few more diagrams would aid in visual learning as well as break up some of the text heavy sections. Just a few formatting, grammar and spelling errors that will need to be reviewed before the final submission.

Group 2

Introduction-Good introduction, which clearly outlines your cell without going into too much detail

History-Thorough but concise and all relevant to your cell

Structure-when talking about fetal and adult erythrocytes, do you mean immature and mature instead? Membrane composition seems to jump around a lot to different non relating points-need to re format or flesh out the different points been talked about. Check grammar in cytoskeleton section. “Through recent research, it has been discovered that certain blood antigens predisposes individuals to an increased risk to certain diseases.”-maybe give an example? Suggest a diagram of the cell structure.

Function-Check the wording for some of it and unfinished points ie. Buffering ability, but otherwise good section

Synthesis and Regulation-put this before the function section and even the structure section as that makes more sense. The diagram is a bit messy, is there another one that could be used? Well done section otherwise

Disease and Abnormalities-I believe the “As reviewed in” in the first paragraph is referring to the citation 55..make sure you use an in text reference here rather than just a number to the footnote reference. Don’t make the table for symptoms collapsible as it outlines the main information for that section rather than an optional extra. Hereditary Spherocytosis and Sickle cell anaemia sections well written and described. Maybe split the pathologies into subheadings such as: Underlying pathology Signs and Symptoms Diagnosis Treatment Just to break up the large amounts of text

Current research-maybe try to condense this section

Group 3

Introduction-second paragraph probably not necessary, too much detail for an introducing

History-good concise history

Development-need the date on the in text reference for the first paragraph. No reference for your diagram. Check wording and grammar. Put the two points in the first paragraph in a list rather than continuous in the paragraph. Ordering of the paragraphs doesn’t seem right-the first one should come last

Location and Activation-good, use of diagram would help

Types-why does a plasmablast become a plasma cell? What causes that differentiation?

Structure-could definitely do with a diagram. Seems to be no referencing at all for this section-where did your information come from? Surface structure is quite unclear and seems to jump around with no flow, consider re-wording. I see the surface markers section seems to have supposed to of being in dot point form-fix the formatting. In the plasma cells section-what do ‘these processes’ refer to? Copy the referencing style from the other significant findings section for the rest of the project. Maybe put in a diagram of an antibody?

Function-try reducing antibody isotypes section down to a simpler table.

Role in disease-what results from autoimmunity? How is it treated? Section is incomplete for the moment.

Applications-could definitely be fleshed out-how are they useful specifically?

Overall-Inconsistent and non existent referencing. Only use in text referencing if making a direct reference to a paper ie. As found in “blah” or “blah” found that. Otherwise just use footnote referencing so the full reference can easily be referred to at the bottom of the page. When referring to the different cell types eg. B-cells or T-cells make sure how you type it consistent eg. capitalization (B or b) and B cell or B-cell

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 5

Introduction-good beginning overview

Physiology-Good structure section. Function section-provided subheadings to break up the text and make it more readable. Only need one of the diagrams for origin and migration-suggest the one with the bone showing where the MCP go to differentiate. Differentiation section probably doesn’t need to be in a table-just dot points. Degranulation again doesn’t need to be in a table.

Pathology-good diagram. Great setting out of MCAD-very thorough.

Overall a good project, other than a few structural changes there is nothing much else to add.

Group 6

Introduction-has too much information for an introduction-consider breaking it down or putting some of the info in your other sections. The second paragraph has an “As reviewed in” then a footnote reference-this needs to be an in text reference. Suggest putting the youtube video in the development section.

Future research- Good reference to specific research being done at the moment however could flesh out Crispr/Cas9 more.

Overall-Change subheading arrangement to history, structure, development then function-makes more chronological sense. Make sure if your making a direct reference to a paper ie. “As reviewed in” or “As found in” put an in text citation not just the footnote reference to the paper. Overall great information if maybe too much focused on immunology rather than just the cell itself, however as you have that information as well at least it’s not suffering for it.


  1. <pubmed>25945739</pubmed>
  2. Brodehl A, Hedde PN, Dieding M, et al. Dual Color Photoactivation Localization Microscopy of Cardiomyopathy-associated Desmin Mutants. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2012;287(19):16047-16057. doi:10.1074/jbc.M111.313841.