Talk:2015 Group 7 Project

From CellBiology
Revision as of 23:49, 20 May 2015 by Z3417843 (talk | contribs)

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 7: Z5049618 | Z3462211 | Z3417458

--Z3417458 (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2015 (EST) Hi everyone, does anyone have any suggestions for our topic ? We can choose pretty much anything maybe collagen ?

Hey! I'm cool with doing collagen - maybe we can specify in collagen diseases?

--Z5049618 (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2015 (EST)Hi! I was thinking something along the lines of cell junctions and cell adhesion molecules such as Cadherins or Integrins. I think we would have to choose just one cell adhesion molecule or just one type of cell junction, such as gap junctions or desmosomes, to focus on if we would choose to go that route. But I'm fine with researching collagen if that's what you guys want to do :)

--Z5049618 (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2015 (EST)So it looks like group 6 already chose collagen and group 3 chose elastin. I'm up for whatever so let me know what you guys think! My name is Brooke by the way. Can't wait to meet you all on Thursday!

--Z3417458 (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2015 (EST) I am happy to do any topic really, collagen was the only one I could think of. We could do cell junctions. Is there enough info on them ? It would be good if we decided asap so that we have a topic that's interesting and before another group takes it.

--Z5049618 (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2015 (EST)I think there would definitely be enough information if we decided to do cell junctions as a whole since there are multiple types. I'm not sure if there is enough to just focus on one type or not, but we can ask and see what Dr. Hill thinks.

--Z3417458 (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2015 (EST) LAB 3 Individual Assessment - Abnormalities

Alport syndrome

<pubmed>15086897</pubmed> The paper discusses Autosomal dominant Alport syndrome and it’s relation to the COL4A3 or COL4A4 gene. The syndrome is identified as a heterogenous nephropathy both clinically and genetically, it is also associated with ocular lesions or deafness . Mutations of COL4A5 genes are transmitted as X-linked semi-dominant , and so males are more likely to be affected. The method involved assessing the autosomal dominant Alport syndrome among several families that were predisposed to the gene. The technique used to identify the COL4A3 and COL4A4 genes was high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The mutations was then evaluated using automated sequencing. All members had their blood samples collected and peripheral blood leukocytes were used to isolate genomic DNA. From the results it was concluded that two of the families expressed the COL4A4 gene and the other COL4A3 gene. The overall assessment highlighted that autosomal dominant Alport syndrome patients have a wide range of clinical presentations among these include end staged renal disease, nonprogressive isolated microhematuria or no symptoms at all.

Thin Glomerular Basement Membrane

<pubmed>16467446</pubmed> The common cause of hematuria is thin basement membrane nephropathy, other causes may include Alport syndrome and IgA nephropathy. Through electron microscopy it has been noted that patents with thin basement membrane nephropathy have normal renal function, negligible proteinuria and their glomerular basement membranes are uniformly thinned. The disease is believed to be linked to a IV collagen trimer. Autosomal thin basement membrane nephropathy has evidently been caused by COL4A3 or COL4A4 heterozygous mutations. However combined heterozygous or homozygous mutations show autosomal recessive Alport syndrome being expressed in the same genes. The paper outlines key characteristics of the nature of the disorder including epidemiology, clinical features, renal biopsy, genetics, pathogenesis, diagnosis and finally management. It provides an insightful and in depth understanding of the abnormality.

Cogan’s dystrophy

<pubmed>PMC1892429</pubmed> The absence or incomplete basement membrane of blood vessels has been found in many tumours. In tumors blood vessels often have several function and structural abnormalities, they consist of mural cells (composed of smooth muscle cells or pericytes), endothelial and the basement membrane. This study focuses on the abnormalities of blood vessel basement membrane and endothelial sprouts in models of mouse tumors. Immunohistochemistry was used to localise markers of endothelial cells and basement membrane in order to fins out the allocation and extent of coverage of vascular basement membrane. Then the linkages between pericytes, endothelial cells and the vascular basement membrane were observed. The final objective was to determine if endothelial sprouts were related to basement membrane. Three tumor mouse models were examined these included; Lewis lung carcinomas, spontaneous pancreatic islet and mammary carcinomas .The method involved immunoflurescence histochemistry, transmission EM and morphometric measurements. From the results it was concluded that in tumors the vascular basement membrane shows significant abnormalities these included multiple layers, loose association with pericytes and endothelial cells, and irregular thickness. The endothelial sprouts were covered by the basement membrane, such features have proved to be consistent with pericytes and endothelial cells among tumors.

Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa

<pubmed>PMC4319308</pubmed> Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (RDEB) consists of several types including the recessive; where mutations are present in both alleles of the type VII collagen gene. The disease involves blistering of the skin which is intractable genetically. In the disease there is loss of genetic function in functional type VII collagen in the cutaneous basement zone. The outcome that is presented is a separation of epithelial structures from underlying dermis. To combat this many studies have focused on allogenic bone marrow transplantations (BMT) which can improve the skin blistering phenotype of RDEB among patients by restoring the functional type VII collagen. This study used mice models to present their investigation. The methods included bone marrow transplants, skin graft models, ELISA , Immunofluorescent microscopy, flow cytometry & cell sorting, PCR, CXCR4 antagonist delivery and statistical data. Furthermore from the results the study was able to show that transplanted bone marrow-derived PDGFRa+ mesenchymal cells are able to supplement functional type IV collagen in the basement membrane zone as the cells migrate to the RDEB mouse skin. So bone marrow derived mesenchymal cells could be a supposed source of functional type IV collagen in RDEB patient skin. Although these finds would need to be further investigated in a human setting, to be considered for clinical applications.

--Z5049618 (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2015 (EST)Were we supposed to submit our work on the discussion page? Not the official group page?

Lab 3 Individual Assessment: Structure Articles

--Z5049618 (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2015 (EST)

<pubmed>PMC3700973</pubmed> Brief Summary: Basement membranes(BM) have bi-functional organization. Each face of the BM has side-specific properties that determine the adherence of epithelial and connective tissues. Mice and chick embryo models confirmed the side-specific properties of the BM.

Project Information: The BM has morphological differences between the epithelial and stromal sides. The epithelial side faces outward and the stromal side inward. The BM epithelial side adheres to epithelial cells and exhibits high levels of laminin proteins, whereas the stromal side adheres to connective tissue cells and exhibits high levels of collagen IV.

<pubmed>PMC3526973</pubmed> Brief Summary: The basement membrane acts as a malignancy suppressor, with matrix proteins that form a barrier to pre-invasive lesions. This membrane regenerates and remodels itself in an adult organism, thus, can become structurally compromised if degradation of the extracellular matrix proteins occurs. Potential roles of self-generated forces in adult tissue remodeling are discussed in this article.

Project Information: Structural integrity, plasticity, and regeneration of the basement membrane are important components to note in the structural information of this project. The basement membrane is not a static structure. It is constantly regenerated creating different ratios of ECM proteins over the life of an organism.

<pubmed>PMC3969375</pubmed> Basic Summary: The basement membrane and the extracellular matrix are structurally modified during acute ischemic injury. Structural changes in collagen-IV-fragments of the basement membrane were detected in a large animal model of ischemia-reperfusion.

Project Information: This article gives information about the two structural components of basal lamina, collagen IV and perlecan, and their functions with the extracellular matrix and surrounding cells.

<pubmed>18834439</pubmed> Brief Summary: The findings of this article reveal the differences between the basement membrane structure of human and rodent pancreatic islet cells. Rodent Beta cells interact directly with basement membranes of capillary endothelial cells while basement membranes in human islets are separate from the endothelia. This article gives information about basement membrane structures and functions.

Project Information: Type IV collagen and laminin are the major structural components of basement membranes. These components are connected by nidogen and other minor components.

Lab 3 Individual Assessment: Functions

--Z3462211 (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2015 (EST)

<pubmed>24582861</pubmed> This article investigates the function of basement membrane in molecular transport of macro-molecules and nanoparticles and it's potential as a drug delivery barrier using a cell culture of Caco-2 (an intestinal epithelial model). The study concluded that the basement membrane attenuated the diffusion of macro molecules and nanoparticles depending on their size and thus had selective permeability. The proteins (laminins, type IV collagen, fibronectin) attached to the basement membrane had a great impact on delivery of drugs through the basement membrane. These proteins of the BM mainly function in cell migration, proliferation and differentiation. Some of the main materials/techniques they used in the experiment were cell cultures of Caco-2, tight junction immunostaining, immunoflouresence to measure permeability characteristics and scanning electron microscopy.

<pubmed>24078382</pubmed> This is a review article which examines the structure and function of basement membranes, specifically the corneal BM. The basement membrane is a part of the extra cellular matrix which connects the extra cellular matrix to the intracellular matrix. It provides cellular anchoring, scaffolding during embryonic development, participates in migration, differentiation, maintenance of differentiated phenotype of epithelial cells. It also controls cellular function by regulating the amount of growth factor and cytokines as well as control cell polarity, cell adhesion and migration via their effects on cytoskeleton. However, the functions of BM can vary depending on tissues. The BM has shown to be very important in corneal wound healing of the cornea by balancing epithelial to stroma and stroma to epithelial communications by regulating the movement cytokines, growth factors from one cell layer to another.

<pubmed>8645562</pubmed> Basement membrane and it's components have been observed as being required for cell polarisation, cell adhesion and migration during wound healing and regeneration; consequently, many genetic diseases relating to the basement membrane are caused my mutations to components of the BM such as in Alport syndrome. In the experiment they use a dystropic mutant mouse dy (lacking laminin-2, an essential component of BM) to analyze function of the laminin-2 in different tissues and thus also study the general function of the basement membrane. The study stems from the hypothesis that "basement membranes are spatially and temporarily unique" suggesting that it is more variable with less distinction of it's various structural components than previously thought. The study showed that laminin-2 abscence is essential in causing a severe and progressive form of muscular dystrophy. Some of the techniques the study used included immunoflourescence and immunoblotting.

<pubmed>23696606</pubmed> This study used electron microscopy to study the ultrastructure of the epithelial basement membrane in rabbit corneas with and without haze. They used photorefractivekeratectomy (PFK) to induce haze and an immmunohistochemical analysis was done to detect smooth muscle actin (a marker for myofibroblast). Then the study used electron microscopy to analyze the ultrastructure of the BM and stroma. The study found that the BM is a critical modulator of corneal wound healing and that functional/structural limitations caused by abnormal regeneration of the basement membrane can lead to prolonged stromal haze via myofibroblast development. This can result as as the basement membrane functions as a critical modulator of epithelial-stromal interactions mediated by cytokines.


--Z3462211 (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2015 (EST)

Things we should mention:

In current research: methods used to research into basement like antibodies? mouse models- knock out mouse? e.t.c.

Images of basement membranes, cells in each of the layers for structure?

Why are things called their specific names...reticular??

The size of basement membrane? do they vary? --Z5049618 (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2015 (EST)-Found that they do vary(between 50-100nm), however, need to find comparative examples of different thicknesses specific to certain tissues in the body.

What types of cells are included in various layers of the basement membranes?

possibly how structure varies depending on location/function of the basement membrane?

Also consider structure of basement membrane in normal vs. abnormal tissue (e.g. structure of basement membrane in normal tissue vs. diabetic tissue?) -> we could use pictures for this

Use a table for basement membrane abnormalities associated with collagen type IV and laminin - but also see if there is any other type?? and include cancer (types) in there somewhere... Focus on how common it is It's aetiogy - genetic (mutation, acquired or somatic) or environmental - but make sure you relate it to how BM is involved

--Z3462211 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2015 (EST)

Links for structure: --> has a good image for various structures and components of BM --> good links on this google search --> has videos on structure and function, might be helpful

--Z3417458 (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2015 (EST) Link for diseases

--Z3417458 (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2015 (EST) Hey girls what do you think of this image ?

--Z5049618 (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2015 (EST)That is a great picture. It really displays what the basement membrane does. I like it.

--Z5049618 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2015 (EST)Thanks again for the info found on structure. It has definitely helped. Let me know if you need me to find articles on certain topics.

--Z3417458 (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2015 (EST) No problem and great I'll upload it later. In the intro of our page we need to discuss what the page will be about, so basically like a small summary.

--Z3417458 (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2015 (EST) Also we need more pictures on the page, if one of you find a video you'd like to use in your section let me know and I can upload it on the page :)

--Z5049618 (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2015 (EST)Okay cool!! :) And yeah, I've been putting up most of my info in the intro. I had originally thought that I would breifly discuss how the BM forms itself but it ended up having a lot of significant information so I will eventually be creating a whole section dedicated to the formation of the BM. :)

--Z5049618 (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2015 (EST)-Okay, so once everyone is comfortable with their sections we should focus on filling out the Into/History/Current Research Sections.

--Z3417458 (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2015 (EST) Links for history

--Z5049618 (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2015 (EST)Just added some photos. Let me know what you think. Also, the photo, Basement Membrane Layers Interactions, needs a reference. Not sure where you got that from. So if you could insert that info that would be great! :) Hope you all had a nice weekend!!

--Z3417458 (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2015 (EST) Awesome ! Thank you, yep I'll add the reference. Did you reference the others ?

--Z3417458 (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2015 (EST) I am not sure if we can use images from 'Nature' .

--Z3417458 (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2015 (EST) Hi Brooke do you want to use the first image as our 'title' ? Or have you come across any others that might be nice to use above our intro ? Also I edited the intro a little , hope you don't mind. I think we'll need to add a little more to it but it will do for now, we've got other spaces on the page to fill :).

--Z3417458 (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2015 (EST) I've got another 3 paragraphs for my part and then I'll continue helping out on history and current research. Not sure why that box is popping up.

--Z5049618 (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2015 (EST)I have the reference to the other photos. I'll post it when I get a chance.

--Z5049618 (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2015 (EST)And I'm pretty sure we can use the photos from Nature. I had requested to use these two figures and they sent me a message saying I was approved.

--Z5049618 (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2015 (EST)I'm not sure we want to use that figure for the title. I'll keep looking for a good title photo. And I don't mind you editing anything at all! Go for it :) It's good to have a second set of eyes looking over stuff.

--Z3417458 (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2015 (EST) That's awesome you got them approved, good work :).

Group 7 peer review

Really good concise introduction, I like the way at the end you outline what will be included in the page, also a good eye catching diagram is used alongside the text which immediately gets the reader’s attention. Even though it’s incomplete, the use of a table is very good to explain the history. Good use of the diagram alongside the text for the sections, but maybe some reference to them in the text would be useful. Abnormalities section is really good, good introduction to the section and also the use of the collapsible table is really useful but I think you should maybe refer to it in the text and state that to click there for more a bit more background information. I like the way it focuses on renal abnormalities then goes into details into individual diseases and has images alongside. Overall, even though some bits are unfinished this page looks really good as there are lots of diagrams/images and you’ve split up the text well using subheadings and bullet points.

Group 7 Peer Review

Overall, page is coming together well and appears well thought out.

Key points clearly described: I found that the key points were clearly described. In particular I found the renal abnormalities really well done. I felt as if you need more information under functional layers – describe them a bit more – why are they like that? How does that structure contribute to their function? What about the components of basal lamina (lucida and densa)? When I read that section, I just felt that I needed a bit more information.

Understanding? Content, headings, sub – headings, diagrams, tables, graphs? Teaching at peer level? Own innovative diagrams, tables or figures, Interesting examples or explanations?: Your images were really good and beneficial to the page. Just include more images in areas lacking, such as under renal abnormalities. I also think it may be beneficial if you refer to the images in the text, so readers can look at the image and get a better understanding. Some of the images also, I feel need a better description, such as under the image ‘Loss of basement membrane’ – explain how/ why maybe? Also, the little paragraph at the beginning of ‘Function’ about the image adjacent to it – I found that out of place – maybe that text should accompany the image? I really like the little ‘expand for additional info’ components. They were fantastic! The diagrams were well chosen too! In particular, I really liked your hand drawn image under ‘additional info glomerulus’.

Content correctly cited and referenced: References appear properly done.

Evidence of significant research / Adequate research: There is clearly evidence of significant research. However, in some sections I didn’t find this adequate – but I’m assuming this is so because the pages are still being worked on. For example, under current research – why is it only a list of articles? If you’re going to leave that section like that, maybe format the references in a list? Alternatively, if the articles are going to be incorporated as part of your text (not just a reference), you should provide a brief summary/ abstract of what the reader is expected to read or gain from the article.

Other: Some of your paragraphs lacked evident paragraph spacing, making it difficult to read – introduction and heterogeneity of BM. I think that the timeline element under the history section is going to work out well. Formation, plasticity and regeneration appear to be set out like a list. I think it would be better in a paragraph structure. Also when describing the formation, it would be helpful to the reader if you refer to the stages in the diagram, in the text.

Project 7 Group Project

This is my favourite project page overall. It’s an excellent balance of text and images, the formatting is mostly good, and the expanded sections are absolutely fantastic. The style of writing is spot on – there’s enough technical detail that it’s worth reading but at the same time, it’s written in a more relaxed, easy-to-read manner than a typical essay. There are some minor gripes with wording, but if you carefully read over the whole page, that issue should be resolved.

The list of issues with the page are mostly minor, and you’re probably aware of most of them: the current research needs to be distilled into actual words rather than a list of journal articles; make sure your lists are formatted properly so that they appear as the pretty MediaWiki-style bullet lists. It makes everything look much more professional (this is most applicable to the Formation, Plasticity and Regeneration section).

The notes scattered throughout your page indicate that you know what needs to be done now. Some sections need to be expanded, your longer sections (such as Basement Membrane Functions) could be made a little more concise with the aid of diagrams, and sources need to be added in some places. Other than that, you’re definitely on the path to success!

Peer Review

The introduction was written very well and provides an idea of what the overall page is about. I think that it was a good idea to include this, as it will save the viewer time if they were looking for something specific on the basement membranes. The history is obviously still a working progress but so far it is looking good by displaying it as a table and giving your page a balance of visual and written media to keep the viewer interested.

The current research subheading seems like a waste of time to me at the moment. I’m not sure if it is finished, but having 5 papers listed does not tell the reader anything. I think you need to go into detail about what each of these papers mean and explain what this could lead to.

I’m not a total fan of the use of dot points but I guess it does show the information in a simple and concise form. Preferably put a space between the bullet point and the text, as it just doesn’t look right.

The structure component is still a working progress. However, if you are going to use abbreviations make sure to mention the full name atleast once before it or have a glossary that the viewer can refer to (which you have done for most but what is GAG?).

The function and abnormality section is well done. It provides the viewer with easy to understand information with a mixture of visual and written media. From first glance it looks like you have referenced well but you have multiple copies of the same reference in the reference list which is easily fixed.

Overall this project is on the right track however you will definitely need more on structure and maybe a hand drawn sketch of it?

Peer Review

The introduction was written very well and provides an idea of what the overall page is about. I think that it was a good idea to include this, as it will save the viewer time if they were looking for something specific on the basement membranes. The history is obviously still a working progress but so far it is looking good by displaying it as a table and giving your page a balance of visual and written media to keep the viewer interested.

The current research subheading seems like a waste of time to me at the moment. I’m not sure if it is finished, but having 5 papers listed does not tell the reader anything. I think you need to go into detail about what each of these papers mean and explain what this could lead to.

I’m not a total fan of the use of dot points but I guess it does show the information in a simple and concise form. Preferably put a space between the bullet point and the text, as it just doesn’t look right.

The structure component is still a working progress. However, if you are going to use abbreviations make sure to mention the full name atleast once before it or have a glossary that the viewer can refer to (which you have done for most but what is GAG?).

The function and abnormality section is well done. It provides the viewer with easy to understand information with a mixture of visual and written media. From first glance it looks like you have referenced well but you have multiple copies of the same reference in the reference list which is easily fixed. All the images seem to be referenced correctly from what I can tell.

Overall this project is on the right track however you will definitely need more on structure and maybe a hand drawn sketch of the structure. Adding a video may also help the viewer gain more from this page.

Group 7

Group 7 is doing their project on the basement membrane. When examining the layout of the page, it is confusing to see that current research is actually put at the top. If you consider reading it chronologically, it wouldn't make sense because the reader has no idea what the basement membrane is or its function, and already you put the current research before them. Another idea would be to keep the references in one place, though hopefully the ones in the current research section are for frequent use. In the formation section, it really needs to have moved on from dot point form, and it is the same for the functional section. It seems really lacking in the sense that theres not much text, or explanation in that section and I think there should be more elaboration of information to go with the image provided. The structural components of the basement seem simple enough to understand but again, the information isn't presented in a way that seems educational, but its clearly a work in progress. The sections regarding abnormalities and function of the basement membrane is really comprehensive and clearly organised, and is a good model to base the rest of the page on. This assignment page needs a lot of work, both to make the information more interesting but also to actually add information, but so far they have the right idea. Keep at it!

group 7 peer review

Group 7, despite of some lacking information which I believe you will be posting on the following days, your project seems very well organized and explained, contemplating the general content with interesting headings, subheadings and images. The function topic is a bit unorganized; maybe you could first mention the function itself and then talk about the heterogeneity. The abnormalities/diseases topic is well elucidated, as well as the formation, plasticity and regeneration. The functional layers could be further contemplated with some extra information and so does the structural components.

Group 7 Peer review

Excellent project, guys!! I swear I did my best to find defects, your project is simply amazing. Very good looking, much more than enough information, excellent organization.

The introduction part truly introduces – many projects did not ´´introduce´´ appropriately the content in this section – what makes the understanding of the following parts pretty easy. The history section is very concise, but I know you guys have much to add. The ‘’formation, plasticity and regeneration´´ section has a rich and clear text, as well as a pretty good image. This part could be left like this. The idea of adding a ´´functional layers´´ heading was great, it makes the reader understand that the basement membrane is heterogeneous. The remaining parts are also very very good: I can´t find bad things to say.

Finally, the only thing I have tell you is that you should improve the history section. Besides that, the project is simply excellent! Congratulations!!!

Group 7: Pros: Your project page has a good amount of information that is balanced under each heading. You guys have broken down the topic into subheadings and this really shows that you know where you want to go with your chosen topic. I like how almost every section has a picture accompanied with it – makes it very interesting to read. There is correct use of referencing. Cons/improvements: You guys don't have a glossary or a hand drawn diagram. The function section seems a bit too chunky – maybe include some small subheadings within it.

Group 7 peer review

This page is on Basement Membrane, a very relevant structure for epithelium and other cells. So far, the page is very well organized. I think that there is an important use of images on this page, making it easy to understand the introduction, formation and functions of the Basement Membrane. The structural components section, although it has no pictures, is well-explained with a concise text, making it easy to understand and not boring to read. The referencing is also well-done.

On the abnormalities section, I liked the way additional information about glomerulus and rare abnormalities were performed, giving to the reader the option of expand or collapse. This is a good manner to organize some extra information. Furthermore, I reckon the abnormalities have a good description and the provided images facilitate the complete understanding of the clinical manifestations.

Overall, I think group 7 is making an excellent job so far. Perhaps adding a video could help the reader have an even better comprehension.

Group 7 Peer Review

The key points were clearly described. The sections were divided in relevant issues and I like the organization. The introduction is very informative and easy to understand. The “history” section is brief but I consider that it is still in progress. The “current research” you should summarize something and not only list some articles. The “Formation, Plasticity and Regeneration” and “Functional Layers” sections are also clearly and informative. The images were well chosen.

In the “Structure Components” you use an abbreviation (GAG) without explain it before. It can cause confusion for those people do not have any knowledge in biological sciences. Despite of this, the section is very well structured but it is not complete. For example, the perlecan section is not finished.

The “Function” section is very informative. The relations between organs and Basement Membrane were very well explained. However, in the beginning, the sub-section “Heterogeneity of Basement Membrane” seems random or confused. The “Abnormalities” section is the best section so far. It is very clear and informative, with great hand drawn image in the expand section.

Overall, considering the page is still in progress, it is a very informative page. There are few issues to complete or finish, but I am sure that you will fix up them.

Group 7 Review

As a general remark the project looks close to completion with small additions required in content pictures and some formatting changes. Your main strength is in the writing style it flows well with minimal mistakes and technical terms are used but not to excess.

The introduction is well worded and the accompanying image displays multiple simplified aspects of the basement membrane. The history section should be expanded on since it displays the methods used to reach our current understanding and the basis for future research. I like the use of a table with the dash of colour; it is a great way to present many small events and would recommend adding many more important studies/events. Formation section has great information divided as dot points according to source used, these should be integrated into 2-3 paragraphs since which some much text the dot points look out of place. Functional layers I think should be a sub heading under Structural components but if there is a specific reason why it’s not doesn’t worry. The Structural component is the only section lacking in terms of content, further description of laminins, perlecan and collagen IV required. You use GAG in structure components without explain the abbreviation. The Function and abnormalities section both amazing very little problems in the amount and delivery of written content. The expandable box for the rarer abnormalities and the glomerulus is a great idea to include more optional information without making the page looking over complicated. For current research seems to be numerous studies referenced under the heading which hopefully will be expanded on after the peer review, this section is required to make the page seem more up to date and future focused.

The images used are integrated well and formatted to not be oversized I would advise additions of chemical diagrams of the structural components and additional image for basement membrane function to break up the sheer volume of text and an additional 1 or 2 images for the abnormalities section. Referencing is almost perfect except for the article dump under the current research heading and the introduction of abnormalities , even though the information is very general its looks unusually to have so much text without a reference.

Great project, only minor tweaks needed before Completion

Group 7 Peer Review The page looks great so far. It does seem to be a little short on content overall. The structure section should really include an image - this is crucial. However, the use of images for the other sections is effective. The content is broken down into sub-headings very well, and this makes it much easier to navigate through and pick out information. The final section on abnormalities is very detailed and the use of images here is very helpful. I'd say that to improve the page, you'd have to add some more images (specifically to the structure section which definitely requires at least 1 image) and perhaps videos if you find it necessary.

Lastly, with referencing, I can see that you have repeating references. Try to fix this by using this format “[1]” when putting in your in-text citations to prevent repetition.

  1. <pubmed>XXXXX</pubmed>