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.


Z5019962 (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2016 (AEDT)

Z5019962 (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2016 (AEST)

Z5019962 (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2016 (AEST)

Z5019962 (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2016 (AEST)

Z5019962 (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2016 (AEST)

Z5019962 (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2016 (AEST)

Z5019962 (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2016 (AEST)

Z5019962 (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2016 (AEST)

Lab 1 Assessment

Search PubMed

prokayrotic cytoskeleton

PMID 26756351


BioMed Central

How to make an in-text citation

Bacterial division protein FtsZ.[1]

  1. <pubmed>26756351</pubmed>



Carnegie stage table

Lecture 1

SMH Sydney Paper

Lab Assessment 2

In vitro model of bone to facilitate measurement of adhesion forces and super resolution imaging of osteoclasts

The research presented in this article focused on the visualisation of bone cells, in particular osteoclasts, to enable a better understanding of their mechanism in bone resorption. In order for such precise processes to be visualised, super resolution imaging was used, as this technique allows many structures, including actin within the surface of bone to be visualised. The study looked at why it is necessary for bone cells to be replaced, and how a better understanding of the remodelling process can help to better understand conditions such as osteoporosis.

The process of bone resorption, involves a stage of adhesion, in which transmembrane molecules such as CD44 and αVβ3 integrin interact with the extracellular matrix and other structures to compose sealing zones, which allow osteoclasts to dissolve bone. To better understand the structure of osteoclast, an in- vitro mechanism of allowing dynamic, high resolution imaging to be used needs to be established. Although SRM is useful in allowing these processes to be observed, current in- vitro cell culture models are not optimised for high resolution imaging. This research aimed to understand the conditions of in- vitro bone growth that would produce bone most suited to super resolution imaging.

It was found that bone derived material resulted in smaller osteoclasts, and a higher proportion of resorption related actin structures, in comparison to glass derived materials, which produced larger osteoclasts. The conditions under which bone was grown affected its compatibility with super resolution imaging. [1]


  • Z8600021 Paper summary is good, no reference, copyright or student template with the image you have uploaded.(3/5)

Lab 5 Assessment

Percentage of Phenotypes in over-expressed Tm4 B35 Vs wildtype B35.PNG

Lab 6 Assessment

Antigen against BSAP

Name: Anti-human B-cell specific activator protein Supplier: Features: Monoclonal; IgG1 kappa; anti human BSAP Raised in: mouse Reacts against: humans Uses: Used in immuno-histochemistry. Antibodies to B-cell-specific activator protein (BSAP) may be useful for the identification of pro-, pre-, and mature B cells and in the classification of lymphomas (1-4). Together with a panel of antibodies it is particularly useful in the differential identification of classic Hodgkin’s disease versus anaplastic large cell lymphoma of T- and null-cell type (1, 3). The clinical interpretation of any staining or its absence should be complemented by morphological studies using proper controls and should be evaluated within the context of the patient's clinical history and other diagnostic tests by a qualified pathologist.

Reference that has used this antibody: [2]

Using Western Blotting, found that SAP expression is largely restricted to lymphomas of B-cell lineage and that BSAP expression varies in B-cell subsets and subtypes of B-cell NHL.


Peer Review



  • The introduction is very clear and provides a good overview of the project as a whole, with valuable insight into the important basic information about megakaryocytes.


  • The history section is too long, and i would recommend cutting it down to increase its clarity. Removing the references to history other than those specific to MK cells and platelets, and only including those discoveries which a highly significant to our current understanding of these cells would make this section clearer and the reader more inclined to read the whole table. The information within the table is good, and relevant, there is just too much of it. It would also be useful to put in some references for this section to show where your information came from.


  • The structure section is informative and clear, however it might be helpful to go into more detail of the overall structure of megakaryocytes as well as each zone individually, and how the zones interact with each other. It would also be helpful to include a diagram/image here, showing the different zones, to help the reader visualise the information you are providing.

Development and maturation

  • This section flows well between the steps of maturation, however the sentence structure could be improved to make it easier to read. There are a lot of new terms that a reader may not have seen before, so breaking this up with simpler language would help it to be more easily understood


  • Signalling could be better linked in with the rest of the information on the page. I wasn’t really sure how and where it fit in to megakaryocytes as a whole. What is the purpose of the signalling and under what circumstances does it occur?


  • Clear and well structured
  • The images nicely draw together the information presented, and summarise the cells functions as a whole, as well as providing detailed information on their main role in platelet production


  • Im assuming the the osteoporosis section is not finished, but it requires an explanation on how the condition is linked to megakaryocytes


  • Provides valuable insight into future research involving megakaryocytes. Although each subheading only has a small amount of information, it sums it up well

Overall tips

  • Have a check through the whole page for spelling and grammatical errors
  • Make sure all information is referenced correctly
  • More images, perhaps EMs would reinforce the information you’re presenting and help the readers overall understanding of megakaryocytes. Keep up the good work!



  • A bit longer than would be expected of an introduction. The introduction should provide a brief overview of RBCs as a whole. It was a bit tedious to read a big block of info straight away. Contains good information though, perhaps just needs to be summarised and the detail can come later in each subsection


  • Well referenced and succinctly summarises the important discoveries relating to RBCs and their associated conditions


  • The membrane composition sub-section could be better structured. The paragraphs within it don't really flow on from each other and the blocks of text make it hard to absorb what is being said
  • Some form of image showing the structure of the membrane, and or the attachment of haemoglobin would add to the clarity of the Structure section
  • I think there is more to be said about haemoglobin and ABO blood groups/ rhesus factors, as they are quite central to the understanding of RBCs. The information that is on the page is informative and clear


  • Well researched information, however the large blocks of information makes it tedious to read
  • Seems to be referenced thoroughly


  • The production section would be clearer with subheadings and a more ‘step by step’ description of the how RBCs are produced
  • Perhaps provide a link between the production and the destruction/ recycling of iron to show how they flow on from each other and are part of a cycle, rather than individual processes that are not linked


  • This section is very thorough and provides a lot of information on a good range of RBC associated conditions
  • Perhaps some images, subheadings, or sub paragraphs would be useful to break up the big paragraphs of information


  • Ensure that you read over the whole page to fix up a few grammatical errors, and ensure that you sentence structure makes sense
  • All the information is there, it probably just needs some formatting, editing and rewording. Good job so far!



  • 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



  • There is not much constructive criticism i can give for this page. It it set out nicely, each section is appropriate in length, and the use of tables and images supports the text nicely, reinforcing the information being presented. The language used is appropriate complexity for the target audience, and is backed up with the glossary.
  • It all seems to be well referenced and sentence structure/ grammar is ideal.
  • There were a couple of words i came across which could probably be added to the glossary as they were quite specific. I couldn’t find them again, so maybe when finalising each section reevaluate whether there are any words that could be added.


  • Perhaps consider reordering the subheadings under the physiology section. A flow from origin —> differentiation —> morphology (how they appear in their terminally differentiated state) would create a nice flow of how/ where they originate to what they end up looking like. Then have function following on from this, as their functioning occurs in this state.


  • A section on current and future potential research on mast cells would be good to include. This would support the information in the pathology section and give the readers a deeper understanding of the cells role in disease by showing what is being done in research.


  • I would also suggest breaking up or cutting down some of the bigger paragraphs, including only the important information, to keep the reader interested. Most sections are a good length, there are just a few that are quite long.
  • You have covered a good range of mast cell associated diseases here, which provides an in depth understanding of how levels of these cells induce or prevent disease.

Very well done so far!



  • The introduction is a bit long. This section should provide an overview of the whole project and identify the major points about T cells, which this has done, however it begins to go into a bit too much detail, and covers information that should be/ is covered in the body.


  • This section is very well done - appropriate length for a history section, clearly set out in a table, and contains both historical and recent discoveries in relation to T cells - provides a good overview of their function.


  • This section could be worded in a way that would be more easily understood by people who are not experts in T cells. It contains a lot of good information, its just a bit hard to read.
  • The paragraph under the subheading “T cell receptor and Co- receptors” is very hard to read, and perhaps too complicated for this purpose. There are a lot of letters and not a lot of words, and I found it hard to understand what you were trying to say. This might be because each sentence originated from a different source, which shows you’ve done a lot of research, however these sentences need to flow with each other.

Types of T cells

  • The paragraph on T helper cell function needs to be reworded. There are unfinished sentence and some phrases could be worded better.
  • Same applies for the first paragraph on Tregs - basic language would be better than trying to use complicated language that is not making sense. Some of these sentences need to be reordered
  • Reconsider how you reference - including the name of authors or studies with the footnotes would give the readers an understanding of where the information has come from, rather than just having the numbers
  • The entire section on Memory T cells seems to say ‘As reviewed in’ at the beginning of every sentence. Although you are providing a lot of information, it is quite distracting to read, and means the sentences and information don’t flow on from each other.


  • This section is done well, providing a succinct summary of research in the field of T cells
  • Perhaps the CRISPR/ Cas 9 subheading could be expanded on
  • The UNSW current research table is nice, and makes the information in the project relevant to students


  • There are a number of spelling errors throughout, but i’m sure those will be picked up in the final editing process
  • The incredible depth that this project goes into shows that you’ve done a lot of research, however, in a few areas it is worded in a very complicated way that is perhaps beyond what is necessary. I found some areas quite tedious to read. In my opinion, it would be better to simplify it and condense the information as this would make a reader a lot more inclined to want to continue reading.
  • Although T cells are inextricably linked to immunology, i think there are areas where this project goes too far into the immunology side of things rather than the cell biology.
  • You have all of the information/research you need on the page already, it just needs to be sorted through and worded/ arranged in a more readable manner
  • Good research skills are evident. Well done so far.



  • Needs an introduction! This is useful to introduce the reader to what eosinophils actually are and give a brief overview of their location, structure, function etc (Just one or two lines on each to give an overview of what the project is going to be talking about


  • This section is good, i like that each historical discovery is expanded on a little bit, however you should try to include some more recent discoveries

Birth, Life, Death

  • The images used in this section nicely back up the text
  • I think there is more detail that can be provided on each of the factors discussed under this subheading - production, function and destruction are all big areas and require more than a small paragraph on each. I would recommend using sub- subheadings to divide this section up, and expand on each within these. The information you have here is good, its just summarised to provide too little information
  • Showing the progression/ flow from production —> function —> death would make it clearer
  • I didn’t really gain an understanding of the what eosinophils actually do it the body and why they exist


  • This section is succinct and provides a clear description of the structure of eosinophils - the images used are well placed and support the text nicely

Role in Disease

  • The layout of this section made it confusing to read
  • The Asthma section doesn't really focus on the role of eosinophils in asthma development
  • Overall provides a good understanding of eosinophils in disease, however each subsection could be worked on the make eosinophils the focus, rather than the disease as a whole and other contributing factors


  • A few spelling errors, which should be picked up in the final editing process
  • The page is quite short overall - expanding on each of the subsections, and creating a few new subheadings (for introduction, function etc) should improve this
  • A glossary would be useful for the reader, as there were some terms used that i had never heard of and no explanation was provided
  • Good job so far, but improvements are needed

Student Image

Substitutions in prokaryotic RNAPs.jpg

  1. <pubmed>26935172</pubmed>
  2. <pubmed>9694719</pubmed>