Talk:2015 Group 6 Project
Group Assessment Criteria
- The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
- The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
- Content is correctly cited and referenced.
- 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.
- Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
- Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of cell biology.
- 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.
- Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
- 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.
- Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.
Hey, so I've just been looking around for a topic and maybe we could do something related to the fibres that make up the extracellular matrix e.g. collagen or elastin? I'm not sure though, what do you guys suggest? --Z5016650 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2015 (EST)
- Collagen - has the most information, if we want to do this topic we have to lock it in ASAP.
- Hydrated Matrix
- Support for cells
- Pattern of ECM regulates:
- cell division
- growth factors
I think it is most likely that the topic will be broken up into structures but we may also be able to talk about the origin of EM and the function (although this may be a component of each structure that we have to discuss).
Z3333429 (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2015 (EST) I haven't heard back from Dr Hill yet. I won't be at the lecture tomorrow because I have a physio appointment so maybe ask him in the first 5 mins of the lecture just to make sure we have locked out topic in.
--Z5050795 (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2015 (EST) Hi, guys! I`m late too.. Sorry about that. The topic sounds good! My name is Laura, I`m brazilian. I`m kind of lost in everything but i really want to work and contribute with the project. I just need to understand what is going on.. Please, don`t hesitate on saying to me what you think i should listen.. =)
- 1 Function --Z5016650 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2015 (EST)
- 2 Structure / Lab 3 Assesment --Z5050795 (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2015 (EST)
- 3 Current Research
- 4 Collagen Diseases
Collagen Type II: Function
This article suggests that the extracellular matrix of the cartilage is mainly composed of type II collagen. In healthy cartilage, type II collagen is not degraded. However, when it is degraded by enzymes this causes joint damage, this is what occurs in osteoarthritis.
In this article, it says collagen type II along with other proteins, has a role in skeletal development. Collagen II also interacts with minor collagens IX and XI to form heterotypic fibrils. Mutations in type II collagen in the extracellular matrix of the vertebrae show the important structural and developmental role of the fibrillar network.
In this article, it mentions that type II collagen is found in articular cartilage, which acts as a load bearing, low-friction, wear-resistant cushion. It is located at the ends of long bones to allow skeletal movement that is painless.
This article says that type II collagen plays an essential role in both fracture healing and long bone development. It is also mentioned that an increased production of type II collagen could enhance full bone formation. Type II collagen promotes bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cell (BMSC) osteogenesis and inhibits adipogenesis. This means that collagen II may have a function in the early stage of BMSC differentiation.
Bone and cartilage both contain COL2A1 gene which has a role in the production of type II collagen. Therefore, mutations in such a gene can show many abnormalities.
Radiograph of the Family Members.
Collagen type II: Structure
Article One: The authors of this article were studyind the relation with cancer progression and collagen disposition in the extracellular matrix. For this, they built a 3D computational model of collagen network to study the mechanic properties of a single molecule and also fibrils and fibers. They review the tripe-helix strucutre briefly and focus on the collagen gel (collagen fibers, interconnected into a three-dimensional fiber network), measuring the distance between the cross-link interactions, the density of fibers and creating models to vary the fibers geometry and see the dinamics alterations. They found that the network geometry is a determinant key in the mechanical properties of the fiber, even more significant than the density. The stiffer and denser crosslinkers increase the mechanical stiffness of the whole network and stress can be acumulated along fibers, which is an ideia to the collagen aligment that occurs in tumor progressions.
Article two: This article links chemical properties of individual tropocollagen molecule (length) and strenght of intermolecular attractions to macroscopic mechanical response of fibril. They studied deformation in two scales to see when it changes from homogeneous intermolecular shear to propagation of slip pulses and when covalent bons within tropocollagen molecules begin to fracture and one of the conclusions is that collagen's properties are scale-dependent (the strength of an individual tropocollagen molecule is different than the strength of a collagen fiber). Although the nanoscale distribution of crosslinks give additional strenght to the fibers, extremely large crosslink densities lead to negative effects.
Article three: In this study, the authors discuss how deformation can change the microstructure at the fiber scale. For this, they simulated a stretching strain to see the evolution of both the fiber and the network and verify the presence of cell-induced aligments. At low strains, no particular aligment was observed but above some levels both fiber aligment and network density increased. In uncrosslinked networks, this aligment is found to be irreversibly imprinted, however, in crosslinked networks the similar fiber aligment and the same geometrical properties are found but with full reversibility. Strain-induced alignments were known to be a combination of reversible elastic effect and irreversible inelastic effects, but now we know that it is primarily an elastic effect.
Article four: This study uses scanning transmission electron microscopic mass mapping to develop an image of the structure of collagen fibrils from embryonic cartilage. Cartilage fibrils were harvested from 14-day-old chicken embryo sterna. These samples were then prepared for examination via electron microscopy. The results demonstrated that collagen type II in conjunction with type XI formed 10+4 microfibril structures. Evidence suggested that as long as some collagen type XI was present, over expression or mutations in collagen type II did not affect the assembly of thin fibrils. It is also apparent that microfibrils that contain XI are the nucleus for the accretions of collagen type II microfibrils.
(A) Single U87 glioblastoma cell in a collagen network 10 hours after gel polymerization. bar = 50 µm. (B) Several U87 cells on the surface of a collagen gel 10 hours after gel polymerization. bar = 200 µm. (C) Two cell colonies embedded in a collagen matrix 48 hours after gel polymerization. bar = 200 µm. Fibers (artificial red color) are imaged through confocal reflectance; cell nuclei (green) are labeled with a GFP-histone heterodimer.
Collagen gel morphological changes induced by presence of cells. 
Copyright Vader et al. 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 author and source are credited.
- <pubmed>19529768 </pubmed>
The effect of estrogen on the expression of cartilage-specific genes in the chondrogenesis process of adipose-derived stem cells.
SUMMARY: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of estrogen on genes pertaining to chondrogenesis. Adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) were differentiated into cartilage and then treated with estrogen in order to determine the genetic markers associated with the expression of type II collagen.
- Cell culture: Human adipose-derived stem cells were sourced from patients aged 25-55 years using enzymatic digestion of subcutaneous tissues.
- The cells were then cultured in a modified medium that was changed two times a week allowing for differentiation into cartilaginous tissues.
- Pellet culture: Pellets of chondrogenic APSCs were formed using a centrifuge and then suspended in a treated chondrogenic medium.
- The pellets were then incubated for two weeks and the control group was left untreated whilst the experimental group was treated with estrogen E2.
- At this point in the procedure the medium was changed every three days.
- Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR): Gene expression of cartilage-specific markers was determined using the RT-PCR method.
- RNX-plus kits were used to extract the cellular RNA and any unwanted genomic DNA was removed through the use of DNase.
- Concentrations of RNA were assessed using a spectrophotometer and cDNA was synthesised from the identified RNA and used for PCR.
RESULTS and CONCLUSION: Type II collagen was found in the control group but no type II collagen was observed in the experimental group. Aggrecan was detected in both groups with a significant decrease in aggrecan expression in the experimental group.
The study demonstrated that estrogen has an inhibitory effect on the expression of type II collagen and also leads to a significant reduction in aggrecan gene expression. This means that estrogen is not suitable for use in the chondrogenesis of type II cartilage from ADSCs.
Type 1 regulatory T cells specific for collagen type II as an efficient cell-based therapy in arthritis.
SUMMARY: The aim of this study was to assess the potential of collagen type II regulatory T cells (Col-Treg) for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
- Ethical guidelines were followed and approved of by appropriate ethic committees.
- BALB/c and DBA/1 mice were obtained and separated into transgenic groups of rearranged T-cell receptors (TCRs) and type II collagen specific T-cell hybrids.
- Col-Treg clones were generated from Col II–specific transgenic mice.
- Ova-Treg clones were generated were also generated.
- IL-10 was added to both groups on day 2 and the cells were then cloned.
- Cytokines IL-4 and interferon γ (IFN- γ) were counted using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) after two days of stimulation.
- Cytokine secretions were stained for using fluorescent dye and then analysed using fluorescence-activated cell sorting.
- The immunosuppressive function of Col-Treg clones was then assessed.
- Arthritogenic antibodies specific for collagen type II were injected intraperitoneally into 9 week old DBA/1 mice.
- Col-Treg cells were delivered via intravenous injection into the mice hours later.
- Beginning from 3 days post initial injection, the disease severity was scored using a scale:
0 = normal 1 = weak swelling 2 = significant swelling associated with redness 3 = intermediate swelling associated, or not, with redness 4 = maximal swelling and/or redness in all inflamed digits
- The number of inflamed digits were taken into account and scored appropriately (0 = no inflamed digits, 0.5 = zero to five inflamed digits, 1 = six to ten inflamed digits, 1.5 = one to fifteen inflamed digits and 2 = 16 or more inflamed digits).
- The mice were also weighed to determine any lose in body weight.
- 9-12 week old DBA/1 mice were immunised at the base of the tail with bovine type II collagen.
- 21 days after the arthritis tests, a booster shot was given.
- Col-Treg cells were injected intravenously into the mice on day 20, 22 or 28 after arthritis induction.
- The thickness of each hind paw was measured consistently after day 21 and the severity of arthritis was graded.
- Samples were collected and stained.
- Leukocyte infiltration and erosion were scored according to appropriate scales.
- Immunoglobins were measured.
- Detection of Col-Treg cells was carried out using PCR.
- 9 week old BALB/c mice were injected with ova-specific CD4 cells.
- This group was then immunised the following day with IFA.
- On day 5 one paw was injected with ovalbumin/phosphate-buffered and PBS was injected into another.
- Specific Treg cells were injected intravenously and the mice were killed after 2 days. Samples were then collected and stained.
RESULTS and CONCLUSION:
The results indicate that introduction of Col-Treg cells reduces the incidence and clinical symptoms of arthritis in both preventive and curative settings. There was a significant impact on collagen type II antibodies and there was a noticeable decrease in antigen-specific effecter T cells. These results indicate that collagen type II T regulatory cells could be an effective treatment from patients suffering from RA.
Remission of Collagen-Induced Arthritis through Combination Therapy of Microfracture and Transplantation of Thermogel-Encapsulated Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells.
SUMMARY: This study provided a new therapeutic strategy for autoimmune inflammatory diseases such as Rheumatoid Arthritis particularly with the effect on collage type II.
- 36 male Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats were used for the experiment and ethical guidelines were followed to keep suffering minimal.
- The SD rats were divided into for groups: CON, BLA, GEL and BMC. *All groups were injected subcutaneously with collagen type II emulsion.
- Booster shots were given at d=21 with half the dose.
- All groups received operations one week after booster shots.
- In the BLA, GEL, and BMC groups a hole was drilled into the tibial plateau of the left knee and then the wound was closed.
- The CON group received a sham operation with no drilling performed. *The rats were then allowed to move freely after their respective operations and were monitored.
- Bone marrow was harvested from the tibia and femur of a 3 week old SD rat and the mononuclear cells were isolated. The bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMMSCs) were prepared for use.
- The groups all received different treatments 3 days post surgery.
- BMC: PLGA-b-PEG-b-PLGA (BMMSCs); GEL: thermogel ; BLA (Blank group): phosphate-buffered saline (PBS); CON (control group): PBS
- The rats were then scored in terms of arthritis onset according to level of erythema, swelling or joint rigidity and oedema. An average of the limbs was calculated to determine scores.
- The rats were killed and both distal femurs were examined and photographed for macroscopic evaluation.
- The distal femurs were then fixed and stained in order to perform microscopic of the knee cartilage and surrounding synovium.
RESULTS and CONCLUSION: The results indicated that the majority of SD rats developed some form of irreversible bone or cartilage degradation with the exception of the BMC group. The BMC group displayed scores significantly lower than the non-treatment groups but were still possessed higher degrees of disease than normal rats. This means that BMMSC therapy can reverse synovial hyperplasia to an extent but cannot offer a full recovery.
TGF-β1 conjugated chitosan collagen hydrogels induce chondrogenic differentiation of human synovium-derived stem cells. 
SUMMARY: The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of a biofunctional hydrogel consisting of collagen type II nanofibers and transforming growth factor β1 (TGF-β1) in the regeneration of cartilage.
- Photocrosslinkable hydrogels were prepared.
- TGF-β1 was added to the hydrogels at a concentration of 10 μg/mL.
- Human synovium-derived mesenchymal stem cells (hSMSCs) were suspended in hydrogels and then cultured in chondrogenic medium.
- Growth of hSMSCs was observed with a light microscope.
- Cell viability was observed by staining the samples after washing with PBS and viewing them via fluorescent microscopy. Viability was determined by the ratio of live cells to total cells.
RESULTS and CONCLUSION: The results indicate that collagen type II impregnation and TGF-β1 delivery significantly promoted chondrogenesis. This hydrogel system could be an effective treatment for cartilage defects and the results support the hypothesis that collagen type II impregnation in conjunction with TGF-β1, promote chondrogenesis in hSMSCs.
- <pubmed> 25789269</pubmed> Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "”PMID" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "”PMID" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "”PMID" defined multiple times with different content
"Premature Arthritis Is a Distinct Type II Collagen Phenotype" This article is produced by the American College of Rheumatism. It's focus is on the type 2 collagen gene, COL2A1, and how mutations in this gene can result in a wide spectrum of phenotypes the affect mainly cartilage and bone. It has an extensive review that places the mutations of COL2A1, as a key marker for those patients whom have isolated degenerative joint disease. This paper gives a great foreground of type 2 collagen.
"Autoimmunity to type II collagen an experimental model of arthritis" This paper experiments with Type 2 collagen and it's results show that intradermal injection of native type II collagen, extracted from human, chick or rat cartilage) induces an inflammatory arthritis in approx 40% of rats of several strains. It shows that Type 1 and Type 3 collagen do not have the same effect.
"Ophthalmic and molecular genetic findings in Kniest dysplasia" This was a paper that studied the variability of the ophthalmic phenotype in Kniest dysplasia (inherited disorder associated with defects in type II collagen and characterised by short-trunked dwarfism, kyphoscoliosis, and enlarged joints with restricted mobility). It concludes that the ophthalmic features in Kniest dysplasia are very similar to those in other disorders of type II collagen such as Stickler syndrome. It went into great detail explaining the COL2A1 gene which will be very usual for our project.
<pubmed>12837047</pubmed> The abstract of this article eludes to the use of a denatured type 2 collagen material, UC-II, and it's success in previous studies in the reduction of joint pain and swelling for patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoarthritis. I think this would be a good article for us to look into further. It is inaccessible, due to it not being 'FREE FULL TEXT' but if we would like we could look into it further.
Note: A lot of information was available regarding the use of denatured type 2 collagen when discussing diseases and ways to treat them. This may be a branch that my group might consider including when completing our 'Type 2 Collagen - Disease' section.
X-ray, coronal and sagittal micro-CT images1 
Z3333429 (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2015 (EST) Hey guys Mark emailed all of us and posted on our pages that we need to get moving with our page so I added a title for intro and the section that I did the articles for. I also added the references section so that when you add your content with appropriate referencing all he references will appear at the bottom of the page in order.
Introduction (what collagen type 2 is, why it's important, list other collagens, role of collagen type 2)
Structure (describe the structural components of collagen type 2)
- types of fibres
- developmental stages (function, what cells make collagen type 2, when is collagen type 2)
Function (describe the function of collagen type 2)
- developmental function)
- interactions with other cells/proteins/collagens
Current & Future Research
- methods (IHC, WB)
Glossary (we think this will be useful)
--Z5050795 (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2015 (EST) Hi guys, I added some stuff to the "syntesis" topic but still needs to be improved. I need to put the references and correct the text.. I just posted there because i though was better once people will read and comment our page. (at least they will have something to criticize lol)
Group 6 peer review
Information needs to be put in the introduction and history section because just empty subheadings. The structure section has lots of written information which is good, with a few empty subheadings which need to be finished, but overall very informative and I like the use of the diagram it’s a good visual aid and splits up the text. I’m not sure how the section on developmental stage is relevant to the structure though. Function section looks good with the diagram, clearly labelled and corresponds well to what is written in the adjacent text. I would say a few more functions should be given in this section but that’s all that would need improving in my opinion! The abnormalities section appears unfinished too but I like the introduction to the section outlining what will be in the section. For the current research section I think it’d be good if the different areas that new research is focussing on is summarised and then a brief overview into the studies because it’s quite hard to follow with the paper titles as the subheadings i.e. ‘Type 1 regulatory T cells specific for collagen type II as an efficient cell-based therapy in arthritis’ could be changed into cell-based therapy for arthritis ? Good use of the glossary at the end! The structure of this page is good it just needs a bit more work finishing the content!
Group 6 peer review
I think the project has been divided well into the different sections. However, information is missing from the beginning half of the project (introduction and historical findings) so that needs to be added. I would recommend using dot points for the historical findings. The structure is a bit patchy, it seems as though not all of the information is in the section yet e.g. the proteins, types of fibers. From what is written, it needs to be edited and more concise. The image in the section is good for illustrating the structure but I think more images should be used. Maybe also consider moving the picture you have from the functions section on the structure to the structure section? Also reading the functions section, there seems to be a lot on the actual structure of the cartilage rather than its function so maybe shift some of it to the structure section and emphasize the functions of the cartilage in that section. The recent findings should be created as a separate section or joined with the current understanding/areas of research? The abnormalities needs to be more simplified. Some of that is hard to understand having not read the actual article, also more information needs to be added to the other abnormalities. Make sure to include some pictures of the abnormalities to make it more interesting. The current areas of research seems to be more organized but I’m not sure so much detail is needed? Maybe simplify it a little more and focus on the other sections. The glossary also needs to be expanded a little because there are a lot of terms in the project that aren’t explained. Overall, the page needs more work but it’s heading in the right direction.
Project 6 Review
While a history section isn’t 100% necessary if you don’t get around to it, it ‘’is’’ very important to have a captivating introduction to your topic. It is probably a good idea to leave that until you’re all but finished though, so good job planning ahead.
The biggest problem is that your page isn’t as well-developed as it should be by this stage. There are still raw journal article references and lists that need to be formatted properly, as well as headings with no content. You should also convert the glossary into a table, or at least make the headword of the entries bold.
Remember that you’re writing a wiki page, not an essay, so your aim is to communicate concepts rather than specific results. Some of the language in the “Abnormalities” section is extremely technical (which is good) and causes the reader to skip over most of the details (which is bad). Keep your target audience in mind!
Your paragraphs aren’t overwhelming in size, which is good (though some are a little long – try splitting the “Biosynthesis” paragraph at “After the glycosylation…”). They are also written fairly well. Your page almost has the best layout of any of the project pages. Small suggestion, however: change “Type II Collagen” to a title by enclosing it with 1 equals sign instead of 2:
=Type II Collagen=
Ultimately, you seem to be on the right track. You have the perfect balance of pictures and text, and the progression of the page and division into subheadings is pretty much perfect. It’s now just a matter of actually fleshing out those sections that haven’t been written yet and making sure you check each other’s work for errors.
Group 6 is doing their project on Type II Collagen. The group page at first sight looks really organised, and the most important information is present on the page. I also think that the images included are relevant and good as a summary for the information, but perhaps more pictures can break up the text. There are some issues with spelling and grammar, however that just needs to be edited in the final stages of the assessment. Again its not necessary, but perhaps the information in the "Current understanding and Research" section can be integrated rather than put into categories of papers. However, regarding that last point, it is really good that it was made clear what part of research was being addressed in the information and gave the reader a good idea of what was going to be addressed. I'm not sure what you plan to do with the list of antibodies, but perhaps it is better to put it in a table to condense the information and make it easier to refer to. All in all a good assessment, just needs to be wrapped up at the ends, especially the introduction and history :) Good job! 
This project is still incomplete having nothing written for the introduction and history section. The structure has some information however this is also missing parts. From what I have read so far there are a few grammatical and spelling errors. Maybe have someone else go over it, which is what I normally do because I know I’m not the best at english. You have used some images to keep the viewer engaged however, they are not referenced properly as they do not contain the copyright information.
The function section seems to contain a lot about the structure of cartilage. Maybe move this into the structure subheading and focus more solely on the function of cartilage and type II collagen. Recent findings are also under function which I personally don’t think belongs there unless these a findings about the function of type II collagen. Captions should also be underneath the photos.
When using abbreviations make sure to put what the whole thing is atleast once before it or in a glossary so that the reader can refer to it. What is COL2A1? Im guessing its collagen type 2 gene? But what is A1? If it is maybe put it in brackets to make it more obvious rather than commas. I don’t like how you have incorporated the references in the text because it just makes it so much harder to read fluently. Also when amounts are involved in text, write it out instead of putting the number, for example two instead of 2.
Overall, the project is good as it has got good structure and is on the way however it is missing quite a bit of content across all the areas. Make sure to add a hand drawn image and to fix the image references as from what I can tell that is what Mark loves to take marks off for. Also there are a lot of repeats in your reference list, which can be easily fixed in the editting process. good job so far :)
Group 6 Peer Review
You’ve structured the page well under the topics and sub topics that you currently have. It seems that there still need to be more content added onto some of the sub topics, especially at the beginning. I am sure you’ll have time to complete it all after these reviews. The information is researched well so far, its easy to understand. Consider having more images, maybe showing the formation of the collagen. Also some images under the abnormalities would be good too. If you have trouble finding images that can be reproduced, then draw them yourselves. Make sure you look over the referencing of all the images that you have so far, you don't want to loose marks for having some things missing. A formatting suggestion would be to have the antibodies under the ‘current research’ topic in a table or easy to read format. The group clearly knows how to cite all their content, the in text citations are all formatted really well and according to the correct formulas.The a reference list is correctly added. There are some references that have not been cited but I am assuming that this is because you are still going to add more content from the references. Make sure you add these to the reference list later on. The drawing of the articular cartilage is really good, clear and easy to understand. Overall the group has done some great work content wise and the layout of the page. I’d just suggest some more images, maybe tables and just fill in some of the missing content. Good work so far ☺.
Group 6 Peer Review
Overall , I think you’re on the right track with your page, and once you fill in the missing bits, it will be good!
Key points clearly described: I felt that your page was structured / set up well, however there is a great deal of information missing (work in progress). Nonetheless, most of the parts that had information were well done. In particular, I felt the clinical application was narrowed down really well and highlights the clinical significance of the research. Just a note, under ‘Function’, when describing the layers of the articular cartilage, you should make obvious the three ‘zones’, i.e. ‘The first zone is the articular surface’, or even number them, such as ‘1. Articular Surface’ and then include all the information following. I just felt that the zones needed to be distinguished better. The abnormalities section was really confusing and complex to understand. The incorporation of the referencing into the text did not work. I think you need to just reference at the end and only use last names and/ or reword that entire section to eliminate having to reference in text. Seeing the references within the text made me lose track of what I was reading. You also need to break the abnormalities paragraph down, and define the different components mentioned, for example, what are exons?
Understanding? Content, headings, sub – headings, diagrams, tables, graphs? Teaching at peer level? Own innovative diagrams, tables or figures, Interesting examples or explanations?: I thought your hand – drawn image was fantastic! Well done! It really outlines the structure of articular cartilage. I also liked the other images you used, but feel you need to add an image description below the ‘Mature Chondrocytes’ image and add a lot more images in general. An image showing the development stages described under ‘Developmental stages’ would be beneficial.
Content correctly cited and referenced: I think you should look over your references. In particular, under some of the images, you are lacking quite a bit of the necessary information, including copyright!
Evidence of significant research / Adequate research: There is a lot of missing information on your page. You obviously need to do a lot more research and you can see that your page is a work in progress. The more articles you use and the more research you do, the more credible your page will be! As for the parts, where research has been completed; while you have done research, maybe look at a couple more articles so you are not only gathering information from one source.
Other: There are quite a few grammatical errors on your page; a few spelling errors, punctuation and problems with sentence structure. This really needs to be looked over, because it takes away from the quality of your work. In particular, look over the structure component. I like the idea of a glossary! Add words to it that may not be understood by a person who is not familiar in the scientific field. As for antibodies, maybe you should list that information in a collapsible box. It seems out of place on the page the way it currently is.
´´Project 6 Peer review´´ Hey, dear classmates! I see that your project has a lot of potential: this potential, however, should be explored. There is a serious lack of information in many topics has absolutely nothing written. There is no introduction for now, what makes the understanding of the subsequent headings pretty hard. Imagine if a reader with no biological background was to read your page? He would be completely lost. There is also a serious lack of information in the abnormalities section: in the sub-heading about rheumatoid arthritis, a disease that is so common, there is no more than a loose sentence, for instance. Hence, you guys should improve this section as well.
But let´s talk about what you have, as it is useless to talk about what is missing: the biosynthesis part is pretty good, there is enough information to understand how the process works and the text is clear. An image with the biosynthesis pathway would be excellent, if you guys can find it. In the function part, there are some loose sentences that makes the text a little bit confusing. The section about current understanding and ongoing researches is pretty good! You guys could show that there is many field to be discovered by these researches.
I am really sorry about what I just wrote. I did it because I wish that you do a great project in order to have very good marks. I believe you guys will have an excellent project if you work on this project! Keep going!!
group 6 peer review
Group 6, overall the project has got missing topics and lack some organization but I’m sure you will come up with something to fix it. Abnormalities section is quite confusing and unorganized, specially the Kniest Dysplasia, because it seems the information given was just dropped randomly. I think you guys could explore more the diseases by giving some brief information on the clinical manifestations and the main reason collagen type II is related to it. The antibodies subheading could be less specific, maybe just mention the ones you judge to be more clinical or scientifically important. Current understanding and research areas are quite well and has got good explanation, good job on that one!
Group 6 peer review
By having an overall look on group's 6 project page, I can see that the topics are all included, but some information still lacks. Type II Collagen is a very important molecule with a wide range of functions. For this reason, I think that the abnormalities section should be more complete, with some pictures helping the understanding. I also think that Kniest Dysplasia and Rheumatoid Arthritis could be better explained, in a way we can comprehend them better and relate to Type II Collagen more easily.
Overall, so far the project is well-developed, but not completed. Some editing with the addition of pictures and some missing content is necessary. Good job so far, though! :)
Group 6 Peer Review
The page is well-organised but I think you should finish some sections. The Introduction is not still finish and I did not understanding why the type II collagen was divided in a section (the first section). The Structure section is clearly but it is incomplete like sub-sections “protein” and “types of fibres”.
The general function is very brief when comparing with articular cartilage. I think you could describe more functions and then focus on the cartilage. The image of cartilage is very informative. The Abnormalities section is very interesting (the issues chosen are very relevant) but it is still incomplete. For example, I do not understand clearly about Kniest Dysplasia and Rheumatoid Arthritis. I think you can explore more and use images, for example. Furthermore, the studies cited in abnormalities were confused. The Current Understanding and Areas of Research section is also informative and gives a good idea about the perspectives related to type II Collagen.
Overall, considering that the page is still in progress, there are few things to finish and do not forget to look over the references. I think it will be a great page.
Group 6 Peer Review
The project topics have been divided well though the introduction and history have no content present. Each heading has its one mini intro before the more complex content is introduced, even though it results is the repetition of ideas I quite enjoyed it making the transition for heading to heading quite easy. The plan of leaving the introduction blank until all other parts of the project are complete is a viable one, though the history is required to give context to the methods used to get to our current understanding and the basis for further research. The content isn't fully developed especially sections of antibodies and Models. If these are to be included in the final page I recommend making the antibodies either expand/minimize to save space and have any models content be put in current research. Additionally abnormalities require more content on Dysplasia and arthritis. The subheadings of Skeletal bone development and fracture healing require more information an extra 2-3 sentences each would suffice The structure, function and current research content seems to be mostly there with some further small additions needed. The references are formatted correctly except the Type II Collagenopathies section in which there is evident referencing not formatted using the proper script. There seems to be a slight lack of reference in biosynthesis subheading, references is key in providing support for the concepts you are presenting. You will require more than 2 images, preferably at two for each section. Some recommendations would be fracture healing, skeletal bone, number of articles published per year graph, pathways during synthesis but most importantly is clinical pictures of abnormalities. I really like the DIY articular cartilage picture the drawing is very clean. Additionally the collagen triple helix doesn't seem to have any referencing which could get hairy since the copyright information doesn't seem to be present in its description. There seems to be multiple grammatical errors which would need to be addressed before submission, this is particularly prevalent in the structure section.
Though you seem to not have all you content up, all of the flaws in your project are straight forward to address, Best of luck
Group 6 Peer Review This page seems to be a real work in progress. What has been written is great, and the use of images match the text. But there are many sections that are blank, and overall the page lacks a lot of depth. It's quite hard to review this page as it's missing a lot, but this is probably due to the fact that your group hasn't gotten around to working on it yet. More detail could be written on the pathological abnormalities - the information given is quite vague and non-specific. However, if the rest of the project is laid out and written as the completed sections have, it should be a good page.
Group 6 Peer Review
This is a solid start to your project. There is good information described in all sections currently filled out. There are other sections along with stated questions that need to be filled out and answered. You probably were already planning on doing that. Also, re-reading through your current work to check for grammatical mistakes will make your webpage more professional.
I really liked the photo you incorporated in the function section. It clearly illustrates the cartilage zones which helps the reader to visualize the information you have discussed. Adding more photos and other sorts of media into your webpage will balance out the text you incorporate on your page, as well as, make the page more interesting.
I think you have a good start to your function and abnormalities sections. However, it seems there is still a good bit of information needed to fill out all of the holes in your work, especially in the abnormalities section. Just a few tips: When adding in additional information, also think about making the page visually interesting by breaking up the information with visuals that aid the reader in comprehension. Also, I liked that you included an antibodies section. However, when adding in significant amounts of information, this info might work best as a link to the page where this info can be found as this is supplementary to your topic. Best of luck with your editing!
No introduction but that’s fine since introductions are best done at the end of the project. Just don’t forget to mention everything that you will be talking about in your wikipage. Good start with your structure section. It’s definitely discussed the basics of the the structure of type II collagen. However, I suggest that you use more papers. Regarding the biosynthesis of type II collagen, where are your references? Don’t forget to include them. You have a really good photo showing the structure of collagen, if only you could relate it back to your text by saying something like “as seen in image X”. Also, just keep an eye for spelling mistakes, e.g. alpha not alfa.
Great work on your function section! It’s well-researched, has good structure, and your photo definitely relates to your text. I like how you split its function into different sections, which highlights the significance of collagen. My only suggestion for this section is to use more papers to back up some of your information. With abnormalities, I can see that this section is still in the works. There is a heavy use of technical jargons but the information is still understandable. I’m a bit confused as to why the bulk of the text isn’t under Kniest Dysplasia. Overall, I hope that you get the bulk of it done before submission. Try to use around 3-4 papers per disease. I found that those are enough to write a concise and detailed text. As for current research, well done! I see that you only wrote about the aims and he results of the paper. Try to write about more papers if you only plan to write that much for each paper. It’s a good summary of each paper, I just don’t think it shows you’ve done enough work compared to your colleague’s sections.
Regarding the photos, most of them are properly cited and safe to use. The student drawn image has the appropriate copyright. I only have an issue with the image used for the structure of collagen. The file name has a typo, collaghen instead of collagen. Also, it doesn’t include any references or copyright. 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
Overall a good effort has been made in regards to the content of this page, but there are still sections that need to be added to or tidied up. Similarly, some sentences can be constructed differently so that what is being said is clearer to the readers. Additionally, I think an introduction is critical and including historical findings will help the readers put everything into context and have a good understanding of the topic. They don’t need to be extensive but I think they should be present. Also, I think it may be worth adding a small introduction to the antibody section before listing all the antibodies because right now the inclusion of this section is not very clear. Lastly, the 5 most recent PubMed articles at the bottom of the page currently seems slightly out of place so it may be worth putting it under its own sub-heading for current research.
Furthermore, the structure of the abnormalities section needs to be tidied up, and I think it would be worth seeing if you guys can find images to accompany the different abnormalities so that the readers attain a visual representation of these issues. Possibly an animation can be included somewhere in the project. The glossary is good, however I suggest constructing it in a table to add some variation to the layout of the page. Also, make sure that all terms have a definition.
Project 6 Critique:
An introduction that gives a fairly general overview regarding your topic would be nice, and perhaps you could also use the introduction section to outline what you intend to discuss in your project. Your history section seems to be a bit too incomplete to use a paragraph format, perhaps there is someway you can make a timeline type format, just something to consider. Your structure section is still lacking in a couple of places, but your image really contributes to the sections that you have. I really enjoyed your function section, it was very concise and thorough.
For your abnormalities section you may want to frame the beginning of the section with a heading, when I started reading the fist body of text in that section I wasn’t exactly sure what I was reading about. If the beginning of this section is meant to be an introduction to the section, perhaps frame it in that manner. Your research section was nice, highlighting a couple of research studies, perhaps could do with another image or two to keep the reader interested but over all a nice job thus far. ‘
GROUP 6 PEER REVIEW
The page has been organised well into the relevant headings. However, information for the introduction and history sections are still missing and the structure and abnormalities sections are incomplete. The information presented in the structure section shows extensive research; however there are some issues with spelling, grammar and expression at times. This can be improved with proof reading. References are also missing in parts of the structure section.
The function section is well written, concise and this is definitely is the strongest section so far. The information under abnormalities can be summarised better and perhaps bold the title of the paper that is referenced in the text. Try to simplify the subheadings under current understanding and areas of research, as they are really long sentences.
The page is lacking in visual stimulus. The antibody section and the glossary can be tabulated for better presentation of the information. Good use of subheadings to break up information in different sections. References 19, 20 and 22 are not referenced properly. Overall, good work in progress and the group is on the right track. However, the large amount of missing information indicates that more research is needed.
Group 6 Peer review
Introduction needs some information. Something that will orientate the reader into the basic concept of Collagen. History section is good for the molecular structure of collagen. Appears to be lacking from Collagen family as there is nothing below text. Information in beginning of Structure section is presented well, however work needs to be done in finishing the work. there is very little ciations in the body of text that needs to be rectified. The Skeletal bone and Fracture healing sections need more information added to the sections as there is a lot to talk about that is missing. Need to add more abnormalities and some more pictures in this section under at least a few of them to provide some variance in the medium. At the moment, the subheading in the abnormalities section is dismally empty. Current research section looks good. maybe add one more closer to submission date and maybe some links. Antibodies section is well laid out. and the formatting of this section is visually appealing. consider the work that has gone into this part and do something for the previous areas. Models and Methods sections need information. Glossary is a nice addition. perhaps place them in a table for a better look. Citations, more information, pictures, and an overhaul on the formatting. It's coming along but needs some work to get it looking good. Keep it up.
Group 6 Peer Review
This page needs a little work before its finished. You have obvious sections that are yet to be written but thats okay as long as you get to them eventually. Your introduction is clearly one of these. Keep it simple and clear and try to get an eye-catching image in there to liven it up a bit. As a secondary note about images on the page, 3 throughout the whole page is nowhere near enough so definitely consider doing an image search and adding more in there.
The function section needs more images as well. I can see the heading you've put in as a guide of what you are planning to include and it looks good, just keep going. The abnormalities section is way too short so maybe do some more research or just write a bit more from the papers you have already. The current research you've included right at the end should be moved to before the references list.
I'm not sure why you have included the antibodies from the lab here. From memory this should have been added to your individual pages but maybe clarify this during the lab this week. there is no context for it to be there so it looks a bit weird. Your glossary is a nice inclusion but in terms of the layout and format, it looks a bit clumsy. If you get time, reviewing this would be good. I hope you guys put in the effort to really refine this page and finish it off. Its looking good so far, all the best!