Difference between revisions of "Talk:2015 Group 4 Project"

From CellBiology
Line 473: Line 473:
--[[User:Z3459282|Z3459282]] ([[User talk:Z3459282|talk]]) 19:22, 28 May 2015 (EST): Hey guys, I'm just wondering if anybody knows how to make the video that I uploaded in the structure section to continuously play - do you know what I mean?
--[[User:Z3459282|Z3459282]] ([[User talk:Z3459282|talk]]) 19:22, 28 May 2015 (EST): Hey guys, I'm just wondering if anybody knows how to make the video that I uploaded in the structure section to continuously play - do you know what I mean?
--[[User:Z3375627|Z3375627]] ([[User talk:Z3375627|talk]]) 22:45, 2 June 2015 (EST) Sorry, i tried to find a way to do it, but unable. I couldn't see any tutorials that allow for autoplay on wiki (or repeat)

Revision as of 22:45, 2 June 2015

2015 Projects: Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 | Group 6 | Group 7

--Mark Hill (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2015 (EST) Your Group Project will now have peer feedback from the class, use this feedback to improve your project before submission.

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: Z3375627 | Z5050801 | Z5050822 | Z3459282

--Z5050801 (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2015 (EST)Hello, classmates! Anyone have an idea about a topic for this project? --Z5050801 (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2015 (EST) We have to define it until tomorrow (26/03/2015)

--Z3375627 (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2015 (EST) As most of the better topics have been taken so far, I think we should grab Fibronectin (unless there is another you'd rather) as a topic soon. If people agree, just make it the heading of our page. i look forward to seeing everyone in the lab!

--Z3459282 (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2015 (EST): Hey guys, sorry for the late reply! I think fibronectin sounds good :) however we can discuss the topic further tomorrow in the lab. Nonetheless, should we put it as the heading of our page in case it gets taken by tomorrow?

--Z5050822 (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2015 (EST) Hey guys, here are the articles and the picture attatched.


1. Therapeutic vaccination against fibronectin ED-A attenuates progression of metastatic breast cancer. A substitute to the nowadays common cancer therapy (monoclonal antibody) consists on the therapeutic vaccination targeting self-molecules. Fibronectin, a compound from the Extra Cellular Matrix has got two alternatively spliced extra domains (ED-A and ED-B) which are expressed during embryogenic angiogenesis, however it practically disappears in normal adults. Nonetheless, the ED-A and ED-B are detectable in tumors’ angiogenesis and also in matrix remodelling. The study showed that mice who were injected with anti-ED-A/B tend to have less metastasis, as well as immunization against ED-B diminished angiogenesis and tumor growth. ED-A is known to be expressed at hight levels in human breast carcinomas (researches developed a transgenic model of human ductal carcinoma in the mice in order to have a trustworthy comparsion) and general metastasis, whereas ED-B shows very low leves in this types of tumors. The immunization of the mice with anti-ED-A reduced tumor burden and the metastasis diminished/suppressed. [1]

2.Human fibroblasts with mutations in COL5A1 and COL3A1 genes do not organize collagens and fibronectin in the extracellular matrix, down-regulate alpha2beta1 integrin, and recruit alphavbeta3 Instead of alpha5beta1 integrin. Patients with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome types I and IV who got mutations in COL5A1 and COL3A1 present diminished Fibronectin(FN) as well as its fibrillary network. Research showed that by providing pure fibronectin to EDS patients, there was a proper binding and gathering between FN and integrin αvβ3, wich is expressed in every EDS cell instead of the normal α5β1 integrin. [2]

3.Fibronectin is overproduced by keloid fibroblasts during abnormal wound healing. Study compared the levels of fibronectin in normal tissue against wounds that developed keloid, a process which consists on an over-production of collagen and other extra cellular matrix components. The keloid tissue presented a huge production of both intra and extracellular fibronectin (due to its mRNA increment), that had no abnormalities in the structure, process and degradation. The fibronectin receptors also raised in the abnormal tissue. When administrated glucocorticoids, fibronectin production was stimulated in both normal and keloid fibroblasts; however, in the last one we had less stimulus. [3]

4.Mutations in FN1 cause glomerulopathy with fibronectin deposits. Glomerulopathy with Fibronectin (GFND) deposits is a dominant inherited disease that affects the kidney, causing some peculiar symptoms as loss of protein and presentation of red blood cells in the urine, hypertension and is most of all due to deposits of FN in the glomerulus. Researchers had a theory that the etiologic cause of GFND might be due to mutations in the FN1, an encoder of FN. The study found a connection between FN1 and GFND when analysing a Italian pedigree. By sequencing the FN1 from other pedigrees, three missenses mutations where found and seemed to alter two domains of FN1, which are mainly related to the binding of FN and the target cells, as well as in the fibrillogenesis. About 40% of the GFND in the study where due to dominant mutations in FN1, and this was described for the very first time. [4]


Fibronectin accumulation in normal and keloid fibroblasts. Figure A: Cell stained for extracelular FN. B: Both intra and extracelular FN.


--Z3375627 (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2015 (EST) Here's my addition to lab 6 Fibronectin wound healing.jpg

Fibronectin Wound healing [6]

Reference Searching z3375627


Plasma Fibronectin (pFN) can be found to be upregulated in tumour cells, supporting tumor retention. Tumor cell adhesion to and invasion in fibrin when paired with fibronectin (fibFN) is mediated mainly by integrin avB3 and activated by the former. fibFN however had no effect on the cell tumor growth. pFN in accociation with fibrin is shown to assist in the cell adhesion of clotted plasma. pFN does not assist in the initial tumor cell arrest.[7]

<pubmed>23356939</pubmed> Sheep Carotid ateries were used to test the coating of proteins on Extracorporeal membrane oxygentators to overcome it's limitations with hemocompatibility, the activation of the coagulation and complement system as well as plasma leakage and protein deposition. Fibronectin increased cell attachment compared to other methods (including uncoated) on ECMO oxygenator membrane. 93% FN cells seeded adhered on treated surfaces after 24hrs compared to 73% on control. adherance occured for 4 days which leads to the discussion of endothelialisation of ECMO membranes to make them more suitable for long term use. [8]


Plasma fibronectin is found to deposit in vessal injury sites (independant of fibrinogen, von Willebrand factor, β3 integrin, and platelets) before before acummulation of platelets which was previously understood to be the first wave of hemostasis. Promotes platetlet aggregation when in conjunction of fibrin, but acts conversely when fibrin is absent. Working off the fibrin gradient, fibronectin is a regulator of thrombosis[9]

<pubmed>22514136</pubmed> A high fat diet was experiment in mice was conducted in order to cultivate atherosclerotic lesion and the effect the lack of plasma fibronectin would have on the formation of these lesions. Mx-Cre-mediated deletion of the the FN gene was found to reduce atherosclerosis formation.

Plasma Fibronectin is found to help and hinder atherosclerosis. It increases the number and size of Atherosclerosis plaques that form with it's deposition within lesions, but also helps in the formation of a protective fibrous cap, helping prevent rupture of said athersclerotic plaque. Also indicated that plasma fibronectin, rather than the hemopoietic cell-driven fibronectin, is deposited at atherosclerosis-prone sites prior to the development of atherosclerotic lesions.[10]

--Z5050801 (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2015 (EST)Hi! Here are the articles I found:






The complex of ROBO1 Fn3-B2212A Fab as determined by X-ray crystallographic analysis.jpg


Copyright © 2014 The Authors Protein Science published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The Protein Society

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

--Z3459282 (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2015 (EST) Hey guys, below are the articles and the image I found:

Article #1: Influence of fibronectin in cardiac development

The transcriptional repressor gene snail1 assists in the migration of cardiac precursors by influencing the assembly of fibronectin in the embryo. Abnormalities in fibronectin function result in cardiac defects, highlighting the significance of fibronectin during embryonic development. In particular, the ordered deposition of fibronectin in control embryos contrasts to the reduced and disorganised arrangement in modified embryos with inactivated snai1b. Hence, snai1b is needed for effective fibronectin assembly, which enables cardiac precursors to migrate where they are needed for successful cardiac development. Moreover, integrins are crucial for effective fibronectin function. In cases were snai1b is inactivated, addition of integrins salvages fibronectin assembly and minimises cardiac defects. Thus, the study can be concluded as having shown that snai1b modulates the expression of a5 integrin, which ultimately modulates fibronectin assembly essential for cardiac development.[11]

Article #2: Role of fibronectin in fetal development

Fibronectin is seen to play a role in the maturation of the ovarian follicle. During the first and second trimesters of gestation, the mesenchymal compartment cells of the ovarian cortex and the tunica albuginea express fibronectin. This fibronectin is observed throughout the basement membrane of the developing blood vessels. Hence, fibronectin is seen to play a role in the assembly of the primordial follicles, as well as assisting in the embedding of blood vessels. More specifically, the results from this study suggest that fibronectin influences the defining of the mesenchymal compartment during fetal development.[12]

Article #3: Fibronectin in differentiation of human embryonic stem cells

Fibronectin is one specific extracellular matrix protein that most effectively enables differentiation of human embryonic stem cells to definitive endoderm. Subsequently, it can be identified as having a significant role in early embryogenesis. This differentiation of cells is facilitated by integrin receptors. In particular, a5 integrin is required for human embryonic stem cells to bind to fibronectin. The study showed that as this differentiation is occurring, the expression of integrin subunits is increased. Moreover, the cells that are exposed to fibronectin, and other extracellular proteins, begin to secrete extracellular proteins, encouraging further differentiation.[13]

Article #4: The influence of fibronectin on neural crest formation

It is suggested that fibronectin plays a role in cranial neural crest cell migration, as well as neural fold and neural crest formation. This is proposed through the study as a5 integrin was observed in the anterior neural ridge, the cranial neural fold, and in the neural crest cells. Moreover, fibronectin was identified as increasing the activity of a specific protein-coding gene known as BMP5. This gene is associated with chicken cranial neural crest formation. Subsequently, fibronectin is noted as influencing the expression of a growth factor.[14]

Fibronectin and integrin subunits present in a blastocyst.jpg

Fibronectin and integrin subunits present in a blastocyst.[15]

(A) Double immunofluorescent staining for ITGA3 (A, FITC), FN1 (A', Cy5) and merged signals (A"). ITGA3 was mainly expressed at the cell membranes of the TE cells. FN1 and ITGA3 were expressed adjacent to each other but no co-localisation was found (A"'). (B) Double immunofluorescent staining for ITGA5 (B, FITC) and FN1 (B', Cy5) and merged signals (B"). (C) Double immunofluorescent staining for ITGAV (C, FITC) and FN1 (C', Cy5) and merged signals (C"). ITGA5 and ITGAV were mainly expressed in the ICM. Partial co-localisation with FN1 was observed for ITGA5 (B"') as well as ITGAV (C"') by the appearance of yellow areas when signals were merged (indicated by arrows) (Original Magnification ×400).


Copyright © 2009 Goossens et al; 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.


  1. <pubmed>25360764</pubmed>
  2. <pubmed>14970208</pubmed>
  3. <pubmed>2524650</pubmed>
  4. <pubmed>18268355</pubmed>
  5. <pubmed>2524650</pubmed>
  6. <pubmed>21923916</pubmed>
  7. <pubmed>20501851</pubmed>
  8. <pubmed>23356939</pubmed>
  9. <pubmed>25180602</pubmed>
  10. <pubmed>22514136</pubmed>
  11. <pubmed>24667151</pubmed>
  12. <pubmed>25605128</pubmed>
  13. <pubmed>23154389</pubmed>
  14. <pubmed>23587661</pubmed>
  15. <pubmed> 19126199</pubmed>

--Z5050822 (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2015 (EST) hey guys this is my article: Generation and characterization of function-blocking anti-ectodysplasin A (EDA) monoclonal antibodies that induce ectodermal dysplasia for Lab 6

--Z3459282 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2015 (EST): Hey guys, the article I'm using for the antibody lab assessment task is called "Volociximab, a chimeric integrin alpha5beta1 antibody, inhibits the growth of VX2 tumors in rabbits" and the antibody is Volociximab. [edited --Z3459282 (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2015 (EST)] --Z3459282 (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2015 (EST): The identified antibody is Volociximab. It is a monoclonal antibody that acts on a5 beta 1 integrins, preventing the binding of fibronectin. It is sourced from humans, mimicking the actions of the IIA1 antibody derived from mice. The working concentration of Volociximab is 10mg/kg. A secondary antibody that can be used in conjunction with it is goat anti-human IgG Fc-HRP. The paper that has used both these antibodies is Bhaskar et al. (2008). [1]


  1. <pubmed>17786386</pubmed>

--Z3459282 (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2015 (EST): Hey guys, just wondering who was researching structure?

Here is a Table

col 1 col 2
second row

--Z3459282 (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2015 (EST): Hey guys, I added another sub-heading for the assembly of fibronectin so we can all contribute to that - if anyone else has another subheading they want to add, feel free to do so because there's heaps we can talk about for our topic that we haven't yet. I have come across a good review article (PMID 20690820), that we can use to get ideas for more sub-topics :)

--Z5050822 (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2015 (EST) hey guys im working on the abnormalities and soon ill add here some of my con tribution.

--Z5050801 (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2015 (EST) Hey, guys, I am the one who is working on structure. I have selected around 10 articles regarding structure of fibronectin, I am reading them now. After that I will post here useful information :)

--Z3459282 (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2015 (EST): Don't forget that tomorrow is the last day to add any information that you've found before our project gets assessed by our peers :)

The fourth referenced article presents a description of fibronectin adsorption and adhesion to cells on poly(ethyl acrylate) (PEA) and poly(methyl acrylate) (PMA), two polymers with very similar physicochemical properties and chemical structure.The difference between this two polymers resides only in a single methyl group on the lateral chain. This paper also leads to a better understanding of the structure and function of the fibronectin. [1]

  1. <pubmed>25469314</pubmed>

--Z5050822 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2015 (EST) <pubmed>6510595</pubmed> Endothelial cell function in Type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetic patients, both with and without retinopathy, was assessed by measuring the plasma fibrinolytic activity and fibronectin after 10 min venous stasis induced by a sphygmomanometer cuff. After venous stasis, diabetic subjects with proliferative retinopathy had fibrinolytic responses (median 0.13 increasing to 0.26 U/ml) in the low normal range, which were significantly less (p less than 0.005) than control subjects (0.17-0.68 U/ml) and diabetic patients with minimal retinopathy (0.16-0.68 U/ml; p less than 0.01). Plasma fibronectin levels were similar in the different groups, but after venous stasis, rose significantly in the diabetic patients, both in those with proliferative retinopathy (mean 317-399 micrograms/ml; p less than 0.002) and without retinopathy (312-371 micrograms/ml; p less than 0.05) but not in normal subjects (304-333 micrograms/ml). These changes in fibrinolytic activity and fibronectin were independent of blood glucose, glycosylated haemoglobin, or indices of sensory or autonomic nerve function. These disturbances of endothelial function, together with known abnormalities of haemostatic variables and microvascular reflexes, might convert a usually temporary obstruction of capillary blood flow into a pathological capillary closure, and might contribute to the inexorable progression of advanced diabetic microangiopathy in spite of good diabetic control.

http://www.nature.com/modpathol/journal/v15/n8/full/3880614a.html - Fibronectin plays an important role in cell-to-cell adhesion, cell migration, and cell signaling. In the liver, fibronectin expression has been studied primarily as a component of the extracellular matrix, but little information is available on the expression of fibronectin protein in the neoplastic cells of hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs). Twenty-four surgically resected HCCs were immunostained with fibronectin. Tumor and normal liver tissues were concurrently analyzed in all cases, and expression in the tumor was evaluated in comparison to the nonneoplastic liver. The average age at resection was 54 plusminus 18 years for the 18 men and 6 women. Twenty-one of the cases were classic HCCs including 6 cases that were well differentiated, 12 cases moderately differentiated, and 3 cases poorly differentiated. The remaining 3 cases were moderately differentiated fibrolamellar carcinomas. In the normal liver, fibronectin labeled the sinusoids and weakly to moderately stained the cytoplasm of hepatocytes. In HCCs, 15/24 showed overexpression of fibronectin in the cytoplasm, 8/24 showed no change from the nonneoplastic liver, and one case showed decreased cytoplasmic staining. In addition, an abnormal membranous staining pattern was noted in 16/24 HCCs. In contrast to the HCCs, none of the three fibrolamellar carcinomas showed increased cytoplasmic or membranous staining. Excluding fibrolamellar carcinoma, increased cytoplasmic staining and/or an abnormal membranous staining was noted in 19/21 (90%) of HCCs. Fibronectin shows abnormal cytoplasmic and/or membranous staining in the majority of HCCs. The implications of fibronectin overexpression are uncertain but may reflect a critical step in tumor genesis.




The abnormalities presented by Fibronectin are very vast and also have a huge range of clinical and pathological presentations, being caused by alterations on its production, which might be due to gene expression mutations or even over-production without any abnormalities in the structure.

--Z5050801 (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2015 (EST) <pubmed>23740248</pubmed>


--Z5050801 (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2015 (EST) I know that there is one article here which is not referenced correctly, but I will ask the professor how to reference it on today`s lab

--Z5050801 (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2015 (EST) Actually, I found the article on PubMed <pubmed>12857786</pubmed>




--Z5050801 (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2015 (EST) Here are a few articles I found that can clarify the structure of FN, I will go through them

--Z5050822 (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2015 (EST) Hey guys, so far this is what ive put up on the abnormalities. tomorrow ill come w/ more.

The abnormalities presented by Fibronectin (FN) are very vast and also have a huge range of clinical and pathological presentations, being caused by alterations on its production, which might be due to gene expression mutations or even over-production without any abnormalities in the structure. Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome: patients with Types I and IV who’s got fibroblasts with mutations in COL5A1 and COL3A1 present diminished Fibronectin production as well as its fibrillary network, not organizing FN and collagens in the ECM; also, these mutations down-regulate alpha2beta1 integrin, and recruit alphaVbeta3 instead of alpha5beta1 integrin.

Keloid: keloids consists on abnormal wound healing).A Study [1] compared the levels of fibronectin in normal tissue against wounds that developed keloid, a process which consists on an over-production of collagen and other extracellular matrix components. The keloid tissue presented a huge production of both intra and extracellular fibronectin (due to its mRNA increment), that had no abnormalities in the structure, process and degradation. The fibronectin receptors also raised in the abnormal tissue. When administrated glucocorticoids, fibronectin production was stimulated in both normal and keloid fibroblasts; however, in the last there was less stimulus.

  1. <pubmed>2524650</pubmed>

Glomerulopathy with Fibronectin Deposits (GFND): is a rare dominant inherited disease that affects the kidney, causing some peculiar symptoms like loss of protein and presentation of red blood cells in the urine, hypertension and is most of all due to deposits of FN in the glomerulus. Researchers suggested that the etiologic cause of GFND might be due to mutations in the FN1, an encoder of FN. Their study found a connection between FN1 and GFND when analysing an Italian pedigree with eight people presenting the condition. By sequencing the FN1 from other 14 pedigrees, three missenses mutations where found and seemed to alter two domains of FN1, which are mainly related to the binding of FN and the target cells, as well as in the fibrillogenesis. About 40% of the GFND in the study where due to dominant mutations in FN1, which stablished a major explanation for the disease, although it may implicate in further investigation. [1]

  1. <pubmed>18268355</pubmed>

Metastatic Breast Cancer: Fibronectin has got two alternatively spliced extra domains (ED-A and ED-B) which are expressed during embryogenic angiogenesis, however it practically disappears in normal adults. Nonetheless, the ED-A and ED-B are detectable in tumors’ angiogenesis and also in matrix remodelling. A study [1] showed that mice who were injected with anti-ED-A/B tend to have less metastasis, as well as immunization against ED-B diminished angiogenesis and tumor growth. ED-A is known to be expressed at hight levels in human breast carcinomas (researches developed a transgenic model of human ductal carcinoma in the mice in order to have a trustworthy comparsion) and general metastasis, whereas ED-B shows very low leves in this types of tumors. The immunization of the mice with anti-ED-A reduced tumor burden and the metastasis diminished/suppressed, and that leads to considering targeting vaccines as part of the usual therapy or in replacement of monoclonal antibodies ones.

  1. <pubmed>25360764</pubmed>

--Z3459282 (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2015 (EST): I added the abnormality info from here onto the project page - feel free to change things around. Also, I added a sub-heading for fetal fn function - feel free to add to it :)

--Z5050801 (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2015 (EST) Guys, I am going to rewrite now what I wrote about the structure of fibronectin. I will write in a Word file then I will post it here. ;]

--Z5050801 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2015 (EST) For who is in charge of the function of fibronectin:

<pubmed>6736130</pubmed> Z3459282 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2015 (EST): Thanks - I added some stuff from the article. If anyone thinks I've missed important info just add it in :)

--Z3459282 (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2015 (EST): I changed the structure of the function section but it's still not perfect so you guys can change things around if you like. I saved the original layout of this section in a word doc, so if you guys are unhappy with the changes we can always put it back to the way it was :)

--Z5050801 (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2015 (EST) Hi!! The structure is far from perfect, I have to agree... I will write more things tomorrow, because I found so much info that I have to select what to put here

--Z3459282 (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2015 (EST): How's the structure stuff coming along? If you want, just add everything you have to the project page and we can all help organise the section and get rid of things we think aren't that relevant :)

--Z5050801 (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2015 (EST) Some articles that might be interesting, if you guys want to take a look: <pubmed>7308204</pubmed>




Group 4 peer review

Really like the organisation of this project, the order of the subheadings flows well as you first introduce it with the history & structure and the function and then how this can go wrong. Good amount of text for the introduction, the only thing I would suggest is to get an image to go alongside the text – maybe showing where it’s highly expressed in the body i.e. lymphatic tissues/muscle fibres etc. Good use of bullet points to explain the history, kept really concise and clear. Lots of information on the structure section but again it’d be good if an image/animation (if you can find one) should be put in here just to split up the text a bit. Good idea to split up the 3 different types and use bullet points, maybe put images to the right hand side of this where there is the blank space. Also, good image below but this may look better if it was alongside text and also with a caption and reference in the text explaining what it is a bit more. Really good range of information on the function section, clearly explaining each subheading with a good amount of text! Would say similar for the abnormalities section, but for this I think photos maybe showing the phenotypes of some of the conditions mentioned would be good so people can visualise these abnormalities. Also a glossary may be quite useful! Overall, this page looks neat and organised, most of the information appears to be there which is good, I just think a bit more colour (diagrams/images) is needed to make the page a bit more eye-catching!

Group 4 peer review

The page seems to have a lot of sections and looks like it has been divided very effectively into the different sections. My main suggestion for this page would be to include more illustrations demonstrating what the text is describing, this could be used very effectively in the structure section.

The use of dot points really helps because sometimes it seems like there is too much text (the beginning of structure). It would be great if you had text caption for the picture in the structure section describing the image otherwise the reader might be confused why it is being used.

The functions section is also very comprehensive. You talk about a lot of aspects including wound healing, role in tumors, atherosclerosis, blood vessels e.t.c and it is quite concise and well written so easy to understand as a reader. However, again it would be great if you had more illustrations. Having illustrations for abnormalities/defects would also make your page very interesting, maybe showing some of their clinical manifestations? Also, I think the section on current research would be more effective if it was placed at the beginning of the page, possibly before or after the introduction.

Overall, the project is coming along very well and it super organized. I would say you need to add more illustrations throughout the page but other than that it’s really good!

Group 4 Project Review My biggest gripe with this page is the amount of text. There’s hardly any graphical augmentation or subheadings to break it up into easily readable chunks. You’re currently sitting at 2 652 words, which I think is a little excessive. Probably time to bring that number down by converting some of the larger paragraphs into easy-to-digest pictures.

The text is, however, well-written, which really reflects well on the page’s professionalism and readability. Some sentences could do with a little bit of rewording and adjusting, but that will be a matter of making sure you each read over the whole page and adjust what you feel is necessary. Having another (three) sets of eyes looking over your work can do wonders for readability.

There are some minor formatting woes that are detrimental to the presentation of the page. Make sure your ref tags are placed appropriately and consistently. You have a couple of references flanked by a full stop on both sides, and a bunch of others that don’t have a space between them and the next word. A couple of your references (16 and 17) are empty for some reason, also.

I may be coming off as overly harsh, but there’s a lot of good stuff here. I’m now halfway through the peer assessments and this is definitely the most complete and well-written wiki page I’ve looked at so far, so well done! It’s now just a matter of polishing the page up and trimming off the excess text.

Group 4

Group 4 is doing their project page on fibronectin. When reading the introduction, I felt that it included too much information from the structure - I would really expect to see some words like "disulfide" in the actual description of the structure in detail in the appropriate section, so maybe it would be an idea to review that section. The history section seems to be a little small, but it would be a good idea to put it in a hand drawn timeline or something, rather than just seeing a few dot points. I also feel like there are a lot of subsections to each category of information, but there's not a lot of detail regarding each one, perhaps it would be easier to either put them in more general categories, or elaborate on each of them more if there is time. I'm hoping that the current research section will give me more insight regarding the relation of fibronectin with disease, and integrating its function with its relationship with the extracellular matrix as well. There are some replicates in the reference section, that can be fixed as well. I feel like more images can be used to better represent the information that is being discussed, and it might even provide a good explanation for parts of material that you can't actually cover in the text, but can talk about the mechanics in the picture instead. Overall this project is pretty good, but there are some things can be worked on in terms of structuring the page, and making it easier to navigate.

Group 4: Fibronectin Pros: The project page is well organised and has a sufficient amount of information under each heading. The topic seems well maintained and there is a flow throughout the page in terms of content. There is proper use of referencing Cons/improvements: You guys could definitely make the project page more interactive by including diagrams, videos, and graphs. You would also benefit from the use of a glossary. You guys haven’t made your own diagram/picture yet so maybe work on that.

Group 4 peer review

The project presents a good introduction, history and structure explanations about fibronectin. However, I think the text is too long and lacks on understanding. It would be better understood if the information provided was more concise and some picture were added in order to break down the text.

The function section is also well-explained, giving different examples of fibronectin roles. Nonetheless, I believe there could be some more pictures on the page, in order to avoid a boring reading.

Regarding abnormalities/defects, I also believe that there is too much text and no images, making the page not to attractive for the readers.

Overall, the page is well constructed and organized, but I reckon some images could be added in a way the project is even more interesting.

Group 4 peer review

First, the page is well-organised, even though there are a lot of sub-sections but I think it is not a problem because the sub-sections are brief. The introduction is very clearly and helpful for those who do not have any knowledge about the fibronectin. The history section is brief but I consider satisfactory informative.

The structure section is good. However there are few problems, for example I think the first two sentences the term “fibronectin” is repetitive. Furthermore, it would be more informative if you put a fibronectin structure that is more clear and simple. The assembly section is clear, but I think it would be better with a image.

The function section is very informative. In the subsection “wound healing” there are some sentences that are a little similar in the paragraph. The subsections was great divided in relevant issues. However I think that if you put more images would be better.

The Abnormalities/defects section is also very clear and informative. However, I think that it should be more images too, because it would illustrate better the diseases and break up this extensive text.

Overall, I really like the page and it is very informative so far.

Group 4 Peer Review

I really enjoyed this webpage. Your work was neat in organization which gave the information a good, progressive flow. The structure section was well put together and there is evidence of detailed analysis of the information provided. The chronological structure of information aided in reader comprehension of this subject.

Though the text was laid out well, there was a lack of pictures, video and other media tools present to help with reader understanding. Much of the text became tedious to read due to the lack of visual aids within the webpage. The photos that were included need a legend of some sort explaining what they are and how they relate to the information in the text. Including more media within the introduction, structure, function, and abnormalities sections would give visual interest to your webpage.

Overall, I thought I gained a good understanding of what fibronectin is structurally and how it functions within the body. The only questions I have are, "Are fibronectin structures uniform in every cell within the body?", and, "Do all cells possess the same amount of fibronectin, or is there variation?". These questions may provide useful information to include in your webpage. Nevertheless, you have done a great job!

Peer Review

The introduction is well done giving the reader a general idea of what fibronectin is. However, the page only contains two images, one of which does not have a caption. At the moment it just feels like slabs of text making it very dull and boring to read. You definitely need to add more visual media throughout the entire page such as pictures and videos. I like how you have done the history section. By using dot points it has keep it simple and easy for the reader to comprehend. Maybe convert it into a table to brighten up the page and make it visually appealing since it is just slabs at the moment.

The structure section contains good content and explains the structure of fibronectin well. I like how you have given three examples and briefly outlined the difference between them. Again images are needed, maybe put the image to the side so it isn’t just slab of information then text. You definitely need to add a caption to the picture to explain what it is, otherwise it is just pointless having there. I like how the function section is broken up into its various individual functions. However, I think you need to speak generally first before you jump into each individual function.

The abnormality section is good but I think it is missing important information at the current moment which is expected as it is still a working progress. I think you need to explain what each of the abnormalities are such as ehlers-danlos syndrome instead of just saying what causes it. You say they have ‘diminished fibrillar network’ but what does that mean for the patient?

Overall, the content and structure of the page is good. However, you really need to add more visual media to keep the reader engaged. Also make sure to fix your reference list as there are a few repeats.

Group 4 Peer Review It's not a bad page. Content is not lacking, but there is not an awful lot of content either. The structure section does seem to be very detailed, which is great. However, overall, the page is lacking from visual stimuli. The use of dot points for structure is great, because it helps in 'deconstructing' the structure of the molecule. Sometimes if structure is just explained in a paragraph, it can be confusing and overwhelming. Definitely though, it'd be a good idea to support structure information with visual stimuli. I'd say that the addition of a few more images or even videos would do wonders to this page.

Group Review 4

Organisation of Content is strong with simple easy to understand subheadings. The Introduction is very in-depth addressing many of the technical aspects of fibronectin, potentially to excess. Some of the over the top information include the size of the monomer, concentration in blood and multiple unexplained acronyms; ED-A, ED-B, RGDS. I would recommend the removal of such in-depth description and instead mention that is has roles is wound healing, blood vessels, inhibition of cell adhesion and embryogenesis along with mention of the most significant abnormalities. The history is good but could be slightly improved by increasing articles to include those up to 1990 and put it into a table to make it more attractive.

Structure section is well made with sufficient content, the dot points are a good way to reduce amount of words and put down a lot of technical information easily. You should pair the structural picture to the right of these dot points to avoid a large void of white on the right of the screen. Additionally other you could find alternative more simplified images and have the present one have the capability to expand since its complicated nature can cause excessive confusion. Assembly, Function had sufficient detail well written information with good referencing, though significant lack of pictures. AN addition of 4-6 pictures in the latter half of your page would make it more visually appealing. Some of the abnormalities only focus of the molecular process without reference of the clinical symptoms that they cause (Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome). At the bottom of the page there is a current research heading, this should be expanded on show the page is up to date with present advancement in the area of fibronectin. Additionally you will require to add an image you created yourself to meet one of the assignment requirements.

To summarise page is well constructed, though multiple images need to be added and introduction should be toned down.

Group 4 Peer Review

Overall, I think your page is coming together well and is on the border of completion!

Key points clearly described: I found that majority of your key points were clearly described, and the main concepts were addressed. In particular, I found that the concepts under ‘Function’ and ‘Abnormalities’ was summarised really well. However, in the introduction, I think you should define what the extracellular matrix is and what a glycoprotein is, rather than just describing fibronectin as ‘an essential ECM glycoprotein.’ Possibly even have a glossary at the end of the page defining them. In the introduction the information was difficult to read because I felt there was too much information. Keep the structure and function separate from this part. Only have a brief sentence in the intro on each. Under ‘Structure’, I also feel you need to change how you have listed FnI, FnII and FnIII. A table may be more appropriate. Other scientific terms, such as ‘opsonise, angiogenesis and atherosclerosis’, should probably be defined in the text, or in a glossary at the end of the page. Include any terminology used on your page that is not common scientific language. Also, why is current research only a list of references? If that’s how you choose to display the current research, then I feel you should at least summarise the articles/ write an abstract, so the reader knows what the article is about.

Understanding? Content, headings, sub – headings, diagrams, tables, graphs? Teaching at peer level? Own innovative diagrams, tables or figures, Interesting examples or explanations?: Your page needs a lot more images! Add some to the introduction. Because there is a lot of content, pictures will break the text up. In the history section possibly a timeline layout is better and more appealing to the eye. The image in your structure section needs a label and / or a description of what is being shown. Maybe even refer to the image in the text where possible. An image for assembly, highlighting the process described, would be ideal, as it would help the reader understand the concept. Furthermore, I feel that a description is needed under the ‘Wound Healing’ image, so that the process is clearer, or alternatively, referring to parts of the image in the text. From ‘Role in Tumours’ down (especially embryogenesis) the text looks like a lot and is difficult to read through. Break the text up with images or maybe you can even list the different functions and/ or abnormalities in tables? I also noticed that you don’t have your ‘hand – drawn’/ created image. I think you should include one. ☺

Content correctly cited and referenced: Everything text wise, appears to be correctly cited. However, just look over the image references. You’re missing some details such as figure legend and web link.

Evidence of significant research / Adequate research: While there is evidence of significant research on your page, as you do have a lot of information, I’m not sure about the current research section. I feel as if that area is a work in progress.

Other: Avoid long, lengthy paragraphs, e.g. Introduction, Embryogenesis. Make sure the paragraph breaks are evident otherwise it’s too difficult to read. Avoid repetition of words in close proximity, such as ‘fibronectin’ in the first paragraph of structure. Overall, have a look at grammar and punctuation. While your page seems to have been edited for grammatical errors, I still noticed a few. Just a note, it would be better if you had larger/ more evident titles for ‘History, Structure, Function, Abnormalities’, like that of Fibronectin.

Good start with introduction. It’s very detailed and well-researched. Just don’t forget to include what is in your page when you’re doing the final touches. A small section on history but very detailed in terms of the year and the event. You can try making a visual timeline on this and that will definitely add quality to your page. As with structure, I can see that it’s also filled with information. It is well-written and understandable however, I feel like you should include a diagram of this structure of fibronectin just to aid the readers in visualising it. This is a good opportunity for you to include any student-drawn images. You also mentioned the isoforms of fibronectin. Is this FnI, FnII, and FnIII? If so, just add a sentence saying that these are the three isoforms of fibronectin. Good use of dot points regarding FnI, FnII, and FnIII. What I suggest is, if you can tabulate this information, put it in a table. Also, regarding the photo included, where does this relate? Don’t forget to add a description of the photo.

I really like what you’ve done with your function section. It’s very easy to understand since they’ve been broken into different parts. You’ve managed to include what the role of fibronectin is for each function and how they do it. With abnormalities, I like that you have lots of diseases included. This definitely highlights the importance of fibronectin. I can see that you researched about a lot of different diseases related to fibronection. However, I can see an imbalance with the quantity and the quality. Try to use more papers, around 3-4 per abnormality if you can. Try to include the role of fibronectin with some of the diseases (e.g. how the lack of fibronectin causes this diseases). But I do like the fact that you included the therapeutics involving fibronectin. I checked all your images and they’re all properly referenced and safe to use. Also, fix your subheadings. Lastly, with referencing, I can see that you have repeating references. Try to fix this by using the format given in the Lab 1 Handout - One page Wiki Reference Card


The information on your page so far is well written and concise. The function and abnormalities section go into great detail but it is great that it has been divided into many subheadings to break up information. The introduction is too long and fibronectins can be defined better in fewer words. It should be a very short engaging paragraph that gives a quick summary for the audience. The introduction goes into great detail about the relationship between fibronectin and the extracellular matrix, but some of this information can be removed and appear in other sections later. Perhaps, you can define fibronectin in a few sentences and then have the subheading “the relationship between fibronectin and the extracellular matrix,” to include more information.

The structure section can be improved with headings (“secondary structure”, “isoforms” etc.) to break up the information. Good use of dot points to summarise important information about FnI, FnII and FnIII. This information can be tabulated for better presentation. Information about assembly is very brief and should be expanded on. You can list out the steps of assembly or better organise the information to highlight the process of assembly.

The page is currently lacking in pictures. More pictures will help to break up large blocks of information. Good use of subheadings especially in the function and abnormalities section and these sections should set an example for the other sections. Diagrams can be included in the assembly section, which will help to explain the process. Tables can be included for the history section to show a timeline of the historical developments.

References 16-17 and 40 don’t appear on the page, which is most likely due to a coding error that can be easily fixed. There are some spelling errors but this can be corrected with proofreading.

Group 4

The text is good, the information is well organized and good to read. The current images are big and they need to be exposed like that, but maybe add some other images to break the text flow would be nice. Maybe format que images in a way that they fit between the texts so there would not be a blank space beside the images, of necessary adjust the size of them. There's also some references missing, better fix this before the submission. Good luck and congratulations!

Group 4 Peer Review

Immediately, there’s a link to the ECM – good job. The rest of the introduction however has too much information and too much structural information here. Move this further down your page to where it is more appropriate.

The information in each section is actually quite detailed and would benefit with some images so that it was easier to visualize and help aid your explanations and concepts. The structure section I think needs to be reviewed as it jumps around too much in trying to describe each component of fibronectin. The dot points used to describe Fn1, Fn2 and Fn3, were a great idea and the information is clear and concise.

I can’t currently see how the image ‘The complex of ROBO1…’ fits into your wiki because there’s no information relating to it (other than a few sentences in the disease section). As well as the other images, make sure you further explain the image, to give readers more information, in the actual image file.

Your embryogenesis section is a great addition to your wiki and is well done. An image here would be useful though. Add some images to your disease section for better visualization on what you are describing. I’m not sure if you’re leaving the ‘Current Research’ section as it is, but it would benefit from a sentence or two, explaining each article and why you think it’s relevant/important.

Your sub-headings show you have a good understanding of what your topic is about, and what your wiki needs in order to inform your readers about topic. Your text referencing is extensive and well documented so far, good job. Image referencing needs some fixing up before submission though. There are some grammatical errors so be sure to go back and fix them up.

Group 4 Peer Review

This page is both well-informed and well presented. You have made a solid effort at producing a really well-rounded project. One thing I would say about the page is that its appearance is boring and bland. You can't underestimate the effect visuals have on engaging your audience. Certainly at the top of your page a clear & colourful diagram would really help liven it up a bit. But also throughout your page there are massive blocks of solid text. It would be to your benefit to alter this a break them up with diagrams and sourced images. You will need to hand-draw one anyway as a requirement. The images you have used seem appropriate and well sourced but just plonked on the end of the sections more as an afterthought than as a complement to the text. Overall, smaller in size, included within the section and more in number would be my advice.

The information is well written and researched. you're references section is a beast so good work there. One point of confusion was the section including the dot points about Fn I, II & III. This layout as is is not the most effective way of presenting the information. maybe consider a table here as a way of better organising it. Also a glossary at the end might be a good inclusion to make sure you have explained all the technical terms you have used.

Overall you guys have done really well, the page just needs a few minor tweaks to make it engaging for the reader. All the best & good luck!

Project 4 Critique: I personally found your introduction to be a bit too lengthy and too detailed for an introduction, I would have enjoyed a brief overview of the molecule, its structure and function, and then discuss how the remainder of your project page was going to elaborate upon the subject or outline the remainder of the topic. Your timeline is a nice component to your project, and if there is a way to possibly change the format to stand out a bit more I think it would really contribute to the look of your project. Also I think you may want to consider an image or diagram for your structure section, it would really help to organize the different components in a labeled fashion. The image that you do have in your structure section I think needs some sort of explanation because I couldn’t understand how it related to this section of your project. I also thought that your function section was a bit broad, perhaps you could refocus this section and outline some of the major functions, because it seems to be a bit lengthy. I liked the information you have in your abnormalities section, but I think the formatting of this section and current research section could be improved to add to the over all appearance of your project.

Group 4

The information in this project seems to be organised well into simple subheadings which allows ease of access for readers to go to their desired section when reading through the project. The introduction has great descriptive information breaking down the structural aspects of Fibronectin as well as lightly touching on the function as well (might be slightly too much for an introduction though). The history section of the project is nicely put, however there seems to be no historical data post 1980s? And also tabulating the data may be aesthetically pleasing.

The structure section is informative and describes the function, form and interaction of all its individual components, this was nicely done, and the break-down of text made it much easier to read and access information. I think this section could be improved by adding a structural image on the side of the text to allow the readers to understand what these components look like or how they interact with one another. This can be said with the assembly section, maybe make use of a flow diagram with your information to show a simplified process of Fibronectin formation.There is abundant information in the Function and Abnormalities section, but as of now it seems like a massive wall of information (good information), which can be addressed by adding in more images in-text or on the side.

Overall, the information is all there on this page! I think it would be nice to add those pictures (you do need a hand-drawn image to meet assessment criteria) to the relevant sections as well as information on the current research to see where we stand on our understanding of Fibronectins. Other than that, great job guys!

Group 4: Fibronectin

You have a nice introduction to your page that is obviously well sourced. Your history section contains plenty of detail and this makes it both informative and interesting. The structure section is clear and informative but could benefit from a diagram or schematic drawing to help the audience understand the structure in conjunction with your text. People have mentioned that the isoform part of your text might be presented a little better in a tabulated format and I agree. It would help break up the larger slabs of text and make it look nicer. The breakdown of the function section makes it easy to understand and it includes plenty of relevant information in functions and the specific roles of fibronectin.

The abnormalities section contains lots of great information. Each disease has a good description but could use images to break up the text. I like his page so far and I think the most important change you can make is to fix your subheadings so that they appear as headings with a line underneath them. This will make it easier to see the sections on the page. Good work.

Group 4 Peer Review

The layout of you page is effective and all the content provided is easy to understand. I’d consider having some more information in some sub topics especially abnormalities and current research. I am assuming you have the article references there because you’re going to still add information there. You’ve done great work and a lot of research is obviously seen from your extensive reference list. Your referencing is done really well, the in text citations and then just one reference list at the end is good. In your reference list there are empty spaces, just double check the formatting for those. Ensure that all your images do have a full reference included refer to the editing basics tab on the left hand side of the cell biology home page and scroll down into the images section. I’d suggest more images for all the sections, maybe a table for your history section. The images, tables and drawings will make the page more vibrant. Therefore I think your page is great so far, it just needs some more visuals to make it more colorful.

Great effort so far, keep up the good work :).

Group 4 Peer Review

Your group projects page contains lots of information with appropriate headings and subheadings relevant to Fibronectin. A great amount of research and effort has been invested into your group project page and is reflected by the quality of your work, so well done guys! There are approximately 60 references in your reference list which is fantastic; some articles are repeated a couple of times but this is just a minor thing.

From first glance of your group project page it is clear that there isn’t a lots of images on your page but it is clear that all of your energy has been directed towards the content. Just don’t forget to upload images for your project before the final submission. Your images seem to have the correct copyright declaration information but don’t include the “student template”.

The page has separate sections divided by bolded titles, perhaps consider if it is worth changing these to bigger titles? E.g ==Title== and have your subheadings bolded. However, this is just a suggestion to help make it more visual appealing.

Group 4:

The introduction has been done well, providing an intro into the topic of fibronectin. You should consider inserting a general image of fibronectin here. Citation throughout this section appears to be quite extensive and done correctly. The timeline is a good teaching skill which sets out the history is an effective manner. The section however appears to be unfinished. Consider adding addition text under this subheading. The structure section appears to be done quite well with a lot of text given. The image used is very good in visually aiding the reader. You should however provide a description of what is going in in the images and relate it back to a segment of the text. The subheadings indicate an adequate amount of research on this topic while making it easy for the reader to follow. You should consider fixing the very short paragraphs that appear out of place.

The assembly has been done well, it however is very short. You should consider expanding the text and elaborate of the assembly process. You should also consider inserting an image of this process. The function section has also been done very well. The picture and subheadings indicate an adequate amount of research on this topic while making it easy for the reader to follow. The text under each subheading is however very short. You should consider expanding on some of the shorter sections such as ‘role in blood.’ Similar to the function section the abnormality section needs extra work. The subheadings indicate an adequate amount of research on this topic while making it easy for the reader to follow. You should consider adding a picture to this section and expand on the text under each subheading. The sections on therapeutics and current research appear to be unfinished. Expanding on these sections will improve the wiki page.

Overall this project is very good, but needs a bit of work. The pictures used are very good however there should be a wider range of pictures to aid in the teaching aspect of the wiki page. The choices of headings used are quite good, covering the key areas necessary to inform learning and indicating a good understanding of the topic. The way in which these headings are edited should be revised. Consider changing the subheadings such as introduction, function etc. to headings so a line divides each section in the text. The content effectively demonstrates an adequate amount of research on this topic and is very informative. Furthermore the information is quite detailed going beyond basic science while relating back to the cell biology aims. The Content is correctly cited with in text citation used throughout the wiki page. The references are also done correctly and appear quite extensive except for a few references missing from the bottom (16 and17). If these errors are fixed this project could be very good.

--Z3459282 (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2015 (EST): Hey guys, having read through all the reviews I made a brief list of some of the suggestions that were made. This way we can easily refer back to the list and ensure we've addressed the major problems.

  • Image alongside introduction and in the structure section, as well as for each abnormality mentioned.
  • The structure image that is already present on the page should be referenced in the text and should have a caption under the image itself. Also need to check the way it was uploaded as someone said it didn’t have all the necessary information.
  • Check full stops and spaces in regards to references. Also, there are blank references and references that have been repeated.
  • Include a brief overview of the function of fibronectin before going into all the sub-sections.
  • Further information is needed to actually describe what the abnormalities are. Make each sub-heading equal in quantity and quality.
  • Glossary needed to explain terms such as ED-A, ED-B, RGDS, extracellular matrix, glycoprotein, opsonise, angiogenesis and atherosclerosis.
  • Condense introduction.
  • Bigger headings and lines separating them – maybe make them bold.
  • Break structure up into sub-headings.
  • Add to assembly section.

--Z3459282 (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2015 (EST): Hey guys, I'm just wondering if anybody knows how to make the video that I uploaded in the structure section to continuously play - do you know what I mean?

--Z3375627 (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2015 (EST) Sorry, i tried to find a way to do it, but unable. I couldn't see any tutorials that allow for autoplay on wiki (or repeat)