Talk:2016 Group 2 Project

From CellBiology
2016 Projects: Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 | Group 6 | Group 7
Group Projects - Blood Cell Biology - Updated 21 April  
This year's main topic is Blood Cell Biology. Each group should discuss with group members the specific sub-topic that will be covered by their project.

Here is a list of some of the cell types (Structure and Function)

PuMed citations PuMed Central citations PuMed Central note
Note - that while full publications are available online at PuMed Central, not all these publications allow reuse. You should still always identify the copyright statement within the actual article that allows reuse. Many research labs that receive government grants are required to make their published research available on PMC, this does not mean that the publicly available copy content can be used in your projects.

Remember - No easily identifiable statement usually means that you cannot reuse.

Examples from Megakaryocyte references on PubMed Central

Embryology - content cannot be reused but a useful resource about cell development.

Histology - images these can be reused in your projects.

Group Assessment Criteria  

Group Assessment Criteria

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
  4. The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations.
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
  6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of cell biology.
  7. Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki.
  8. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
  9. The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning.
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.

Group 2: User:Z5018320 | User:Z5015980 | User:Z3376375 | User:Z3461106



  • Z5018320 - 392
  • Z5015980 - 81
  • Z3376375 - 57
  • Z3461106 - 36


  • 109 references - current research, some historic.
  • "Human Blood Smear", Slomianka, L,(2009), Blue Histology, Last Updated 7/08/09. Not sure this is correct reference format, but the details are correct.


  • Z5018320 - 9 images
  • Z5015980 - 4 images
  • Z3376375 - 3 images
  • Z3461106 - 2 images


  • YouTube video relates to project.
  • History table is useful.
  • project finishes with current research. A few extra topics missing here.


Project improvement

Z5018320 (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2016 (AEST) Once you've read all the peer reviews could you please add to this list of things that need to be improved. Everything needs to be fixed by next lab when the page will be locked.

  • Any in-text citations must be coded as footnotes
  • If review articles are used, cite the original source of the information (i.e. reference the article that the review paper has cited as the primary source)
  • Where possible break up large paragraphs into smaller paragraphs with subheadings (especially for disease/abnormality section)
  • General grammar/punctuation
  • Ensure that all images are thumbnails with appropriate description beneath
  • More diagrams, particularly for the function section
  • Add in the carbonate buffer chemical equilibrium equation for buffering ability subheading
  • Add more article summaries to current research section
  • Possibly make a glossary with terms that need better definitions
  • RBCs apparently have a role in immune system. Possibly add to function?
  • Use RBC acronym instead of red blood cell
  • Expand upon ABO section
  • Review and expand upon the blood buffer section

Peer review

Group 2

  • Introduction provided a succinct yet well-rounded overview of what to expect on the page.
  • ' This page also discusses some current research being performed on red blood cells such as 'is the final UNFINISHED sentence.
  • Whole page would be appropriate for another student’s reading/learning as your explanations are very good
  • I really like your table and how it is sortable – it makes it easy to read as a table yet shows your ‘wiki skills’ too.
  • Very good ‘Diseases and Abnormalities’ section, however, I believe a more appropriate title would be Pathology
  • There is a lot of text and not much of a visual aide in some parts, particularly in the structure to function section. Maybe include some relevant images like EM RBCs or the like?
  • There needs to be something more to break up the paragraphs of writing towards the end of the Pathology section.
  • The title of 6.1 ' Eryptosis can help detect Parkinson's disease ' is not a good title – instead you should be more succinct like ' Eryptosis and Parkinson’s Disease ' or just write ' Parkinson’s Disease '. What you’ve got written there is like a thesis sentence, not really a heading.
  • I think you should have a sentence briefly link malaria and sickle cell and note how despite the two individually being pathological, together they arguably form an evolutionary advantage.
  • Where are the graphs?
  • Spelling error: they are able to stay there for around 120days
  • A glossary at the end would be a really good idea – it would also allow for a larger reading audience as the definitions are present for layman and newer student to clarify their knowledge
  • ' Through recent research, it has been discovered that certain blood antigens predisposes individuals to an increased risk to certain diseases ' this sentence either needs to include brief examples or you need to have a definitive sentence in your pathology section linking to this Rhesus factor.
  • ' The CO2 is then converted into bicarbonate HCO3- and a proton + by Carbonic Anhydrase ' is the + really necessary? Students know that protons are positive and I think it disturbs the flow of reading.
  • Nice banner image - but I'm just checking that you have the rights to EDIT/ALTER it?
  • Otherwise, very good start.

Group 2

1. Very good introduction to the Red Blood Cells, with content cited correctly. 2. Organized Headings, sub-headings and tables, make reading much easier, however paragraphs can be more well spaced in some of the sub-topics. 3. Well-cited contents and diagrams. 4. Student's own drawn diagram with own explanation could be included for better understanding. 5. Very interesting research and well summarized information in sub-topic "Diseases and Abnormalities". 6. Relevant information of Red Blood Cells to the study aims of cell biology, showing deep and profound research has been done, making this wiki page a good source of information and educational. 7. More interesting learning diagrams can be included.

Group 2

Great introduction, really provided a basic yet rounded view of what RBCs are and what is going to be included in the Wiki.

The History of RBCs is a bit long. I would take out anything that isnt specific to RBcs such as the point made about 1590.

Under Structure there is mention of endovesicles but its never explained actually what they do, I would include a bit about why they are significant. Vesiculation also needs to be explained and why vesiculation is apparent in inflammation-associated diseases should also be addressed.

The Doermability/fluidity sections needs some work to make it more coherent. Im not sure how antibiotics are part of the membrane composition. How does low levels of ATP actually lead to loss of structure? How does structure relate to RBCs being sequestered and removed from circulation by the spleen?

The cytoskeleton section was well done, really good in terms of related structure to function. The study cited sounds interesting, it might be worth uploading some of the images of mice RBCs that are mentioned.

Function section also well done. Very concise but was easily understood. Im not sure what the Band 3 protein part is about. If it is part of the plasma membrane it should be under membrane composition.

Disease section is very large but it was extremely well done. Each disease mentioned was directly related to content previously mentioned in the wiki. The disease section really enhanced understanding of the material by discussing it in a different context.

Even the current research section was related back to the content that was discussed in the wiki

Really good project. Topics were discussed at a depth that was very appropriate for this level. Biggest thing would be to include more information about the intracellular aspects of RBCs.

RBC Group 2

1. key points clear

  • Really really agreeable writing style. Was so nice to read!
  • "This page also discusses some current research being performed on red blood cells such as"obvious one, but just so you don't forget to complete that sentence.
  • "The levels of Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) within Red Blood Cells is integral in the maintenance and integrity of their membranes. The depletion of ATP within Red Blood Cells results in a deformity in the cell membrane from the Biconcave Disc Shape to a Disc-Sphere Shape" why?
  • "Erythrocytes have a cytoskeleton which is composed of a spectrin-actin lattice which has the ability to contract in response to electrolytes and changes in pH. [24] This elasticity and mechanical strength is crucial for the red blood cell to be able to traverse the microvasculature of the body as it constantly needs to deform and reshape" you say: this elasticity. Which elasticity? What is elastic about the spectrin-actin lattice, how is it contractile and what role plays spectrin in it?
  • "Some red blood cells are hemolyzed with the bloodstream (eryptosis)" what is hemolysis?
  • what is capsizes and ceramide?

2. choice of content, headings and graphs

  • The electron micrograph picture under structure is absolutely great, love it!
  • Good and well structured headings
  • Include a picture for the cytoskeleton
  • Include a picture for function and include equations (gas exchange, equations instead of "CO2 is then converted into bicarbonate HCO3- and a proton + by Carbonic Anhydrase", e.g. CO2 + H2O <-> H2CO3 <-> HCO3- H+ (actually its h3o+ as water will just buffer the proton). HbO2 + H+ -> HbH + O2)
  • In the Gaseous Exchange, you forgot to emphasize the key participation of the pH. The whole gaseous exchange is partly driven by O2 tension (which is just the osmotic gradient) but another key player definitely is pH. high CO2 concentration in the periphery will lead to generation of h2co3 (by carboanhydrase, h2o + co2 -> H2CO3). H2CO3 is a strong bronsted acid and will decrease the pH. The affinity of Hb for O2 is highly decreased with low pH, this will lead to the fact that O2 will leave Hb and diffuse through the endothelial layer into tissue, and Hb will bind H. (HbO2 + H+ -> HbH + O2). The opposite happens in the lung, low CO2 in the alveolae will lead the balance of the equation CO2 + H2O <-> H2CO3 <-> HCO3- H+ to shift towards the left, increasing the pH and thus the affinity of Hb for O2 AND lead the H+ to dissociate from Hb to buffer the increasing pH. Its particularly crucial to mention this as you later mention the extremely crucial function of Hb as a buffer, and is it's affinity for O2 is negatively affect by Temp, H+ (low pH), 2,3-DPG. So pH is an extremely crucial part of RBCs
  • Functions: Erythrocytes have an extreme crucial function in immunology in the formation of immune complexes. Erythrocytes have a C1R receptor which will bind to C3b (opsonin). C3b binds to antibody-bound antigens (e.g. bacteria) and coagulates them and activate the complement system, essentially forming a complex of antibodies, antigen, complement and RBCs, called immune complex. The RBC will then transport the immune complex to the Spleen and lead to degradation of it, partaking as a key player in pathogen clearance.
  • How to erythrocytes communicate, with whom and to what extent?
  • What receptors do they have?
  • you have extremely much on pathologies, in comparison to the other paragraphs. may wanna put that into collapsible boxes and talk more about cell biology

3. Referencing

  • "Erythrocytes are typically biconcave in shape and contain endovesicles which are intracellular membrane vesicles (Dinkla et al.)" use the wikipedia referencing style instead of Dinkla et al.

4. own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations.

  • Picture about RBC circulation is comprehensive and interesting. However: Pictures have legends, include it

5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.

  • I would expect more in depth infos about molecular players, cell structures, signaling etc. It's a nice, really interesting read, but you may go a bit more in depth about those points
  • Include a structure of the haemoglobin molecule

6. Relates content to cell biology

  • Central dogma of biology is form follow function. I love how you emphasized that principle in your text, e.g. in the introduction (biconcave shape provides the greatest surface-area to volume ratio for maximum diffusion efficiency)
    • You guys but in an awesome work to understand the basics of RBC. I would, however, expect to have more in depth information concerning molecular basis, cell signaling, molecules involved etc. This is a really nice physiology and anatomy article, does, however, not feel like a cell biology article

7. Formatting

  • More Pictures, except that its a really well structured and formated page

Group 2

The introduction was well written and in my opinion could possibly be understood by people outside of science. The last sentence of the introduction appeared to be unfinished. Although only 2 references were used in the intro, a few more could possibly be used. The history part was well done with a wide range of references used. Good use of the electron microscope in the structure section. A labelled diagram containing features described could be added to this section so that readers can have a clearer understanding of where things are within the red blood cell. Additionally, the term “Red Blood Cells” is repeatedly used and can be shorted to its acronym form RBC/RBCs for convenience. Information under the two headings function and synthesis seemed a little wordy with minor grammatical errors detected. However, the student image under erythrocyte production was well produced and easy to follow. The diseases and abnormalities section as superbly written with a fairly decent amount of information written for each disease. A fairly substantial amount of information was written about one aspect of current research but it appears to be based solely on 1 research article. This can be expanded by looking into other research articles in the same area and taking reference from there. Overall, the project was understandable and a breezy read requiring only a few minor grammatical changes.

Group 2

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

History-Thorough but concise and all relevant to your cell

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

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

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

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

Current research-maybe try to condense this section

Group 2 peer review

Introduction: Good introduction that told me a brief overview of what was ahead and introduced related diseases too. A good addition may be a picture in this section of the cell or the heam group. Also there is an unfinished sentence, which I’m sure you’ll fix.

Structure: The difference between fetal and adult RBCs is broken up across a couple of paragraphs and reads a little disjointed. The information on the action of drugs I feel could go in its own section potentially after structure, as whilst it relates it is not ‘the structure of the cell’ (but still interesting and should be included). Also left asking what happens when ATP levels are depleted? What does this change in shape mean for the fate of the cell? The first paragraph on cytoskeleton is a little repetitive; ‘traverse through the microvasculature’ is used twice. Are there pictures of the cryo-electron tomography that we have access too? Diagram of haem structure would also be good here, potentially one showing the binding to oxygen. For the ABO section I really want to know more, I feel this is a subtopic that could be expanded on. Additionally, do you talk about these certain increased risk diseases later on? If so, mention this or at least give an example.

Function: Gaseous exchange paragraphs have good informative content but are a little hard to read at times. In terms of inflammation what do these ROS mean for the surrounding tissue? Buffering ability topic should be expanded a lot more.

Synthesis and regulation: Good overview given in life cycle section. In the production section I wonder how the nucleus is lost as this is a major feature of a RBC? Filtering and destruction and the recycling of Iron are clear however, eryptosis is a little harder to read and gain a full understanding. Also does eryptosis result in the loss of iron? Is that why we need it in our diet?

Disease and abnormalities: Good content however, I think each disease could be broken up into subsections or even just smaller paragraphs. Current research: really interesting topic! I was wondering whilst reading for a while what it had to do with RBC so maybe introduce that first.

Overall a really informative page, major thing to look at would just re-wording the great content so it’s more readable and dividing up some sections. Good links were made to course content as well.


General pointers:

  • stick to the same referencing style. Either Surname et al (year) or superscripts
  • proof read, there are a few grammatical errors.
  • some paragraphs are a bit too long. Consider breaking them up or inserting images.

A few more specific pointers:

  • Maybe use subheadings for Deformability/ Fluidity and Structure under Membrane composition. Allows for less clustering
  • A diagram for gaseous exchange under function would be good to illustrate the process.
  • Focus on one subject at a time eg. "Erythrocytes come to full maturity in the bone marrow, and develop from hematopoietic stem cells" in Erythrocyte production. This can be restructured to list the developmental processes in chronological order to allow for better flow.
  • Break down sentences which are too long e.g "Because the body's requirements for iron exceeds the maximum ... enhancers such as vitamin C [54]" from Iron deficiency anemia in Disease and Abnormalities.
  • Add additional current research on red blood cells if any.


With this groups' assignment I noticed that they also had a very good structure. Things were written in a logical order that built up the readers knowledge of the basics on red blood cells before going more and more in depth. One thing that I did notice however, while reading the assignment was that, in the sections with diagrams/pictures the paragraphs did not seem so hard to read. Under each heading is quite a large portion of writing. Having no bullet points or tables makes it quite difficult to read for a university student who is being newly introduced to the topic. It is not that the information is difficult to absorb, but more that it makes the reader lose concentration, especially the Diseases and Abnormalities section. If there were more pictures or as mention bullet points/tables to simplify the large paragraphs that were written, I think that would make the assignment seem more interesting.


great history and function sections. a couple of issues however in the whole page: - Under the structure section, the first sentenced is referenced with “Dinkla et al.”. This should be made a footnote and have date attached. Remember it doesn’t have to be a pubmed affiliated article to be made a footnote just put in “[1]” - Under membrane composition, it seems you’ve tried to encorporate a subsection “defgormity /fluidity. This looks tacky with just a dash. I suggest making it bold. Just add 3 apotrophes before and after.

       	i.e. if I want the word “bold” to be bold, I would write ‘’’ bold ’’’. 

- I would have wanted to read much more about ABO blood grouping, there isn’t much there, you should also incorporate pictures here. This could be a whole section! - Another seriously important factor of RBCs is that they have a Fc receptor and can carry immune complexes to spleen or liver. The immune function of RBCs is not really touched on, and that’s a major issue. ===group 3: B cell lymphocytes A lot of good quality information but a very bland page. Here are some notes: - History is not very extensive - B-cell development and B cell subset image is very small! I would make it twice as large (800px). And maybe describe it in text more - Section: development, 3rd paragraph: spelling error - Instead of using in text referencing, you should use footnotes (easier for the reader to find the references). Remember it doesn’t have to be a pubmed affiliated article to be made a footnote, just put in “[2]” - Section: development. You introduce the term L chains with no description, the reader may have no idea what that is. Make sure you describe newly introduced terms! - There is an underwhelming amount of images used. Images should be used for: o B cell activation o Mind map of different B cells o Different antibodies - Tables are bland as well, try adding some colour! - Evidently you must finish the immunodeficiency/ and b cell cancer sections! - Also go into more depth about the biotechnology applications of B cells and don’t forget references!

Group 2

1. Good use of History and introduction, required information is all present although a few years in the history can be removed as it contains a bit of irrelevant information

2. The introduction seemed to contain only 2 references, maybe more information should be included

3. Use of collapsed tables and diagrams are very well positioned to help create a deeper understanding

4. The overall report is interesting and clear to read, however there are a few unfinished sentences and some parts seem to target a different set of audience as in it gets very complicated

5. Very large reference list which is great, clearly shows that the group went to a lot of effort to research RBCs


  • Headings are appropriate and cover important topics
  • Overall interesting but too many blocks of writing, needs to be broken up with more images as well as tables to summarise the information. I don’t think everything needs to be mentioned in such great detail as it becomes tedious to read.
    • Images important for sections on structure, function and disease, these really need to be visualised. Histology images and cartoon images could be used for structure and diagrams could be drawn for RBC function and processes in disease
  • Some inappropriate choices of words (e.g. “global ramifications within the body”) and in certain paragraphs, sentences can be too wordy, making it difficult to understand and follow on with the information (e.g. section on function).
  • The introduction is good however too much repetition of the same information in latter sections e.g. lack of nuclei, this is mentioned several times in structure as well as other characteristics of RBCs. There is also no need to go into too much detail about disorders
  • History good coverage of discoveries that are significant to the topic
  • Synthesis and regulation, clear and well ordered, good diagram as well

Group 2

I really enjoyed reading your assignment, its was very well written and super easy to read so that made it very enjoyable. You also referenced your work very well, which is evident in the amount of references that you have!!

  • The function section is well written and well referenced (keeping in tone with the entire page) but there are no images, which means that there's just a large block of text which can be quite daunting to read. If you included a few images or maybe a student drawn diagram (one of the requirements set by Mark) of gaseous exchange for example, it would add a lot to the page and really break up the amount of information and retain the readers interest.
  • Again, the disease and abnormalities is great, well written and pretty easy to read. However, most of them are just huge chunks of information that are really dense and can result in loss of interest. Something you could do would be to try incorporate some bullet points or even some collapsable tables just to break up those chunks of writing.
  • The current research section is awesome and is really interesting as well, if you had time it would be great if you guys could add a few more things to it and really flesh out that sections. It would provide a good starting place for students who are interested in further researching red blood cells as well.

Over all you guys have done an awesome job and really the most pressing things, in my opinion, would be to add in a few images!! Great job!



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


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


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


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


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


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


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

group 2

1. Brilliant all around in depth look at RBC very informative

2. Tables, diagrams, and headings are all demonstrative of a deep understanding of the topic, really like the collapsible table with the symptoms of IDA, clever way of including information without cluttering the page with unnecessary information.

3. All content and images are correctly cited throughout

4. Great use of diagrams, the only added one may be a diagram to show gaseous exchange?

5. 78 references in total is really good, shows thorough research into the topic

6. taught the topic of RBC well as per the aims of the cell biology course

Group 2

This page is well structure and extremely well detailed, providing substantial information about red blood cells in a clear and concise manner. The introduction provides a strong overview of the cell, and is well detailed. However, the final sentence of this section seems to be unfinished (ending with “such as…”), and I am assuming a brief overview of current research should have been added there to complete the sentence. All the different subsections are extensively detailed, and the information is presented in an easy to read and understand manner. The structure and function sections are particularly well done, with the corresponding electron micrograph image of a red blood cell further facilitating ths information. However, one suggestion would be to add more images or visuals on the page, in order to balance out the substantial amount of information, as well as to make it more interesting and user friendly. All of the information is referenced appropriately and thoroughly, and the synthesis and regulation subtopic in particular provides unique information about the cell. The drop down tables in the diseases section was also a good touch, providing extra information if desired.

Overall, this group page is very well done with extremely detailed and well presented information regarding red blood cells. There is an extensive use of citations and references, indicating the group has undertaken a significant amount of research, and the information has been presented in an easy to understand manner. The page could benefit from more images, however, which can help to solidify the information being presented. In addition, the information within the sections could be broken down into smaller chunks (possibly through the use of more visual aids), as there is currently an extensive amount of paragraphs of text on the page. On the whole however, this group page was very well done.

Group 2 Peer Review

Overall it is a good read, however with some inconsistencies and pacing problems which will be mentioned.

Introduction is well made so far although unfinished. The history section is well made and referenced.

For the structure section, I can suggest just go with the numbered referencing with bibliography like how the wiki page provides without in-text citations. This will make the section easier to read and flows better without the citations "breaking" the intended flow of information present.

The "Gaseous Exchange" in Function section may be explained better with a diagram of the process in addition to the text present.

The pacing of "Diseases and Abnormalities" section can be improved by splitting the single paragraph in each subheadings into several topic based paragraphs (eg. 1st paragraph for general definition of the disease, 2nd - pathogenesis, 3rd-available treatments, etc). Referencing in this section also has some flaws, such as "As reviewed in [55], the WHO defines anaemia as a haemoglobin…". In this case, the reference should be present in the sentence rather than a superscripted numbering, due to the sentence structure. Numbering should still be used but I suggest it should be put at the end of sentences rather than in the middle.

Finally, the Current Research section can be cited better from the primary sources rather than only from the review article as of currently.

Group 2 Review (z5020175)


  • Different points flow well
  • Summarises the different topics discussed under RBCs
  • Referencing is done correctly
  • Unfinished sentence at the end


  • Layout is great & everything is referenced
  • The written findings is worded well and easy to understand


  • Good use of subheadings
  • You might want to show the electron/light microscopy images of erythropoiesis
  • There are a few punctuation and spelling errors for eg. Remove 's' from "protective mechanisms" and add an "a" in between lack and celll nucleus
  • Membrane composition is not really mentioned but the function of the membrane has lots of information
  • What sort of filamentous systems make up the erythrocyte cytoskeleton.
  • The function of the cytoskeleton was explained very well
  • What is the structure of Hb? - Include an image


  • "To bind O2 in the pulmonary capillaries in an area of high O2tension and release O2 in the periphery where there is low O2 tension" - This did not make sense
  • What is the name of the process where O2 binding enhances the binding affinity of other subunits
  • Helping this process… - be careful of diction
  • Diagrams are needed in this section to complement the information.
  • The buffering ability should be explored further
  • Another role of RBCs is to transport immune complexes in the bloodstream to the spleen and liver for breakdown

Synthesis and regualtion:

  • Great diagram used
  • Great use of subheadings
  • Writing is suitable level for student learning but minor spelling errors can be found here and there
  • Erythropoietin should be labelled EPO so that we know on the diagram
  • Great referencing


  • The use of a table for the symptoms is a very smart idea
  • "insufficient iron available for Hb synthesis in rbcs"
  • IDA was explained very well
  • Diseases set out nicely and explained thoroughly
  • Outlines the pathogenesis of disease (genetic basis) well and then talks about clinical manifestations
  • Talks a bit of epidemiology
  • Talks about treatment for thalassemia
  • Links cause and effect well such as how increased RBC in polycthemia can lead to reduced blood flow & making patients susceptible to thromboembolism --> death
  • Demonstrates diversity in diseases associated with RBCs - nutritional, genetic and microbial
  • Doesn't explain how the infestation leads to illness - what are the clinical manifestations

Current Research:

  • This section could be imrpoved by adding in other examples as well
  • The connection between erythrocyte death and Parkinson's Disease (PD) is really interesting
  • Connected how the signalling molecules in PD also affect RBCs and highlights the relevance of studying RBC --> engaging to the reader


  • Great written expression and has lots of clarity
  • Spelling and punctuation errors here and there
  • Engaging to read as diseases are diverse - nutritional…
  • Links in cause & progression of disease to the effects
  • Function requires more images
  • Structure component is focused on function of structural components rather than the structure itself
  • Current research was engaging but only shows one example of the importance of studying RBCs
  • Referencing is good but missing in a few places
  • Lacking student made diagrams
  • Table idea, subheadings and layout were great

Group 2 (z3423497)

  • Well written introduction, very easy to understand and is referenced. Only problem is that it is incomplete but that can be easy fixed.
  • Good use of a timeline, not too long and well referenced
  • Each topic has the key information for each heading stated and the corresponding subtopics that cover the structures and functions of the cell.
  • Information flows well and is easy to read as well as understand.
  • There is a lack of images and the addition of images for each of the topics would greatly help in reinforcing the information
  • Some topics can be expanded on such as haemaglobin
  • Few spelling errors and grammatical errors, but this can all be fixed in the final draft.

Overall, it is a very well written page and the information is concise and easy to understand. The addition of few more pictures and the completion of a few paragraphs will make this complete.


The subheading is very organised and easy to see what is going on. The figure in the structure section clearly shows the red blood cells with the size of the cell, and also the figure in the section of the synthesis and regulation very nicely explains the circulation of the red blood cells. strudture part is very focused on the composition of the cell, it gives details of the red blood cells. the part of the diseases and abnormalities is very well structured with the very detailed information on the variety diseases. moreover, the current research part is very interesting.

I would suggest that the glossary part could necessary to explain to the readers. the history part has too much information, it could be shortened by some key events.

this contents has proper figures, detailed information, very organised subheadings.

Group 2

Going down the project page, the first thing I saw was the Red Blood Cells banner, which you guys put up. I loved the statement it makes, a very strong and detailed image and a great choice. Reading through the project page, I found it to be very informative and there was a great flow throughout, which I think could be because of the layout of the page. Further you guys have done a great job with the text and information I think you don’t need to add anymore context on your page anymore. However I do think that you can incorporate a little more visual aids to balance out the text to visual aid ratio. More visual aids like graphs, more images or even breaking town the chunks of information eg; the function section and making a table out of it would be beneficial to the reader and your project page. Overall, a solid job.

Red Blood Cells Group 2 - Peer review by z3465531

1. Are the key points of the topic delineated and clearly presented in detail?

• The key points of the topic were easily identified as aspects of red blood cells according to the title figure, detailed structured subheadings, and a very clear introduction.

• Clear language was used throughout.

• As a result, the article was almost always easy to follow and informative.

2. Are the content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs appropriate and do they indicate sufficient comprehension of the allocated topic?

• The content presented was detailed, appropriate, and was usually likewise presented, but some sections such as Diseases and Abnormalities and Current Research are perhaps overly specific.

• The figures were appropriate and sufficient in some sections, and they helped convey sufficient comprehension of RBCs. Some sections as mentioned below could benefit from additional figures.

• The title banner, student authored, makes for a great display of the topic, though it seems a relatively minor edit.

• A glossary could be a helpful addition to the wiki page.

• Introduction: The introduction is very clear and straightforward and delivers a very clear description of red blood cells. The introduction touches on all of the aspects of structure, function, synthesis, and disease, previewing the sections to follow, without becoming overly detailed. Be sure to complete the fragment at the end of the section. This has been a common error in other projects, and this cautionary note will not be repeated for the other sections so as not to be too onerous, but be sure to cite review articles, such as reference [1], as “as reviewed in [1]”. Otherwise, this is a brilliant introduction.

• History: Timeline is very detailed and appropriately cited. The timeline seems to be just the right length to give the reader a comprehensive picture of the history of red blood cells without facing excessive details.

• Structure: The section of structure gives a very clear explanation of the specialized structure of red blood cells while even touching briefly on the function and development underlying this structure. More citations, however, are necessary. “ These types of cells lack cell nucleus and some organelles which accounts for its thin biconcave shape.” How? “A suggested reason for this difference in cell diameter is due to the lack of nucleus.” Suggested by whom? Citations here are necessary and would add also legitimacy to the narrative. Fragments such as “Ribosome population decreased to compensate for hemoglobin synthesis” ought to be rewritten into complete ideas. There are several citations in this section which should be converted into numbered links. That said, the material is written very straightforwardly and at an appropriate level of complexity. The electron micrograph of the RBC is great.

• Function: This section is worded very well and gave me a clear understanding of the multiple functions of RBCs without becoming too technical. The way in which many of the citations are delayed until the end of the paragraph is confusing. It would be helpful for the citations to be more closely associated with the specific information that the specific reference contributed. The content here is some of the densest so far in the wiki, so it would be helpful for some cited pictures and the student authored images to assist the reader’s comprehension. In general, the section reads smoothly, but requires more citation.

• Synthesis and Regulation: This section is worded very well and, in particular, gave me a clear understanding of the steps in RBC development. The figure is very instructive for RBC development, but it requires an informative title and description attached to it on the main page. If you are unsure how to do this, be sure to review the relevant section in the introductory labs. There are chunks of text dispersed throughout the text that are missing citations.

• Diseases and Abnormalities: This section and its many subsections contain the clearest most complete citations for the references, and also pay attention in many instances to the importance of citing a review article differently than primary research. The citations are integrated into the text well. The quality of writing in is superb and conveys a sophisticated understanding the highly technical content. The content is perhaps covered in some excessive detail, as it is easily the longest section in the wiki, but it would seem a shame to cut down on such a well-crafted review of the maladies associated with RBCs.

• Current Research: This section gives a well expressed account of a single primary research article, but it seems to be only one example of current research, and described in seemingly excessive detail. A section titled Current Research ought to represent more of the current field of research in RBCs, and give less technical an account of the research. The section also seems like an oddly specific for a section serving as the conclusion of the wiki. A separate brief conclusion and glossary might be beneficial.

3. Are citation and references for the topic appropriate?

• There appeared to be a sparse number of citations where the material presented was not appropriately attributed to the source of the information. In many cases, either information cited from review articles needed to be identified as such or additional citation of information in general was required. The notable exception to this is Diseases and Abnormalities. Team members ought to emulate the research techniques and citations that were employed in the making of this section.

• No major citation errors were immediately apparent in the wiki document, but it would be a wise course of action to double check for any errors, as any mistakes would be a serious source of concern.

4. Is the wiki instructive to peers by making use of insightful diagrams, tables or figures and/or examples or explanations authored by the group members? • The wiki did present material in a manner friendly and instructive to peers.

• There was a student created image, although the edit seemed somewhat minor.

• The figures have appropriate descriptive names, except in the case where there is no descriptive name provided at all.

• The electron micrograph of the red blood cell to gives a beautiful picture of the cells being described.

• It could be useful to look at some of the media created by students in Group 1 including their banner, clearly depicting Megakaryocytes, and summary picture clearly depicting the different biological roles of megakaryocytes.

5. Is it clear that dedicated research has been conducted to connect basic and applied sciences, and does the effort go beyond the formal class material?

• Dedicated research and connections were made between basic and applied sciences, in particular in the section Diseases and Abnormalities. Current Research could use more diverse content.

• The students displayed considerable effort to go beyond the formal class material to research their topic in depth, however, as mentioned earlier, with the exception of the section Diseases and Abnormalities, much of the information used came from review articles not cited as such, or not cited at all.

6. Does the group relate the content of the wiki to the primary learning aims of cell biology?

The primary learning aims of cell biology are to understand the relationship of structure and function within the cell as well as broadly within the tissue and organism.

• The project clearly addresses structure and function within the sections so titled. The section Synthesis and Regulation and the other sections, particularly Diseases and Abnormalities, help to put RBCs in the context of the rest of the body.

7. Final thoughts

Reading this wiki page on RBCs was certainly informative and helpful toward advancing understanding of them. The structure and delivery of the information appears to be to the appropriate level, if sometimes perhaps more technical than might be expected of this course. The main areas of focus should be the aforementioned citation issues and completing some sections such as the Introduction, Structure, and Current Research that appear unfinished to varying degrees. In general, however, this appears to be an excellent and informative project. Great work, and good luck with finalising your project in the coming weeks.


  • I like the banner, it is a great first thing to look at when you see the page.
  • The introduction is good but the last sentence is incomplete.
  • In the history section, a lot of the same references have been used for multiple years and findings. Maybe you could try to find the research paper that made each finding and reference that for each one.
  • The structure section is nicely done, it is easy to understand yet not too simplified.
  • Under the function section, try reworking the very first sentence, it’s just a little convoluted. Also the last sentence under gaseous exchange, I’m not sure whether it’s just unfinished but it seems a little out of place.
  • Maybe try reworking the first sentence under regulatory functions, I’m not sure it makes sense.
  • Under buffering ability, I think maybe the 2,3-diphosphoglycerate (DPG) is the start of an unfinished sentence, otherwise it looks a bit out of place.
  • The picture next to Erythrocyte production needs a reference and a legend underneath it, other than that the synthesis and Regulation section looks really good and thorough.
  • Maybe a video could be added somewhere, maybe to do with synthesis or regulation, or even gaseous exchange.
  • The diseases and abnormalities section is great, the information Is well written and explained. I like the collapsible table of symptoms.
  • I like that a current research section is included, however maybe instead of just summarizing one research paper, you could include a few brief summaries of current research papers that are relevant.
  • The references are well organized and look quality.

Group 2 Review

I like the way you break up the structure section- it works well to move from the general features of erythrocytes into more specific details about its membrane and cytoskeleton. However, you have limited research articles in this section. While you reference a review article, it would be useful to look at some specific experiments undertaken that have revealed unique/interesting features- for example: how do the major proteins interact with each other, or with the cytoskeleton? You do this better in the cytoskeleton section. The subsection on deformability/fluidity was a little confusing- I don’t understand why you start talking about antibiotics here. The function section is too brief. I think this should be the focus of the project, as it links together a lot of other sections- e.g. how does structure contribute to function, how do structure and function change as the RBC matures. Again, there was a lack of specific research articles in this section that might help elaborate your information. The best section was the disease section.

Each disease goes into an appropriate depth of detail and incorporates relevant research- e.g. the specific mutations that have been found in hereditary diseases of RBCs, and the pathogenesis of polycythaemia draw on some interesting research findings. 

The current research section is good, but I think it would be better if you try and find research pertaining to each section and include it within/at the end of the section. Your figures are clear you should refer to them in the information- otherwise it is hard to see exactly what they are showing.

Project general discussion

Z5018320 (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2016 (AEDT)Hi guys! So are we supposed to choose a sub-topic from the list of blood cell types provided?

Z5015980 (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2016 (AEDT) hello! Yes we do, is there any topic in particular anyone wanted to do? I am leaning towards red blood cells or the lymphocyte T cell, but all the topics seem pretty good.

Z5018320 (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2016 (AEDT)I'm not fussed, red blood cells or T cells both seem interesting

Z5018320 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2016 (AEDT) Since we have to put our sub-topic as the heading for the page before tomorrows lab, I'll make it red blood cells since that will likely be a popular choice

Z3376375 (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2016 (AEDT) Yeah I'm down to go with RBC! Nice to meet y'all :)

Z3376375 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2016 (AEDT) Sorry I replied so late, got home pretty late! Will do some readings in preparation for our first group meeting tomorrow!

Z5015980 (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2016 (AEDT) also cool to go with RBC

Z3376375 (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2016 (AEDT) The things he brought up :

  • What they do
  • Structure
  • Internal structure
  • How they're manufactured
  • Intermediate cells in development
  • Special features? - granules, exocytic function - antibody production, cell surface markers
  • Who first discovered it?
  • When were they isolated?
  • Project Page : Should be suitable for another university student. As detailed/superficial as you want. Not total simplification.

Z3376375 (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2016 (AEDT) Hey just letting you guys know that I emailed all of our z emails including Z3461106 just to make sure that everyone's on the same page!

Z3376375 (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2016 (AEDT) Can we take images from

Z3376375 (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2016 (AEDT) We've currently agreed on having some deadlines for tasks that we constantly reassess each week. This is to clarify our expectations for our group and to make sure that we're working towards the group project being finished on time.

Our next deadline is on the Friday, 1st of April. This is is just completing our Lab 3 Individual Assignment. Having our 4 summaries for our 4 chosen research papers uploaded to our page + image so that everyone can reconvene and allocate work evenly.

Before you start reading your research papers and summarizing them, please write what papers you're covering on our discussion pages so we don't overlap! Thanks!

Z5015980 (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2016 (AEDT)sounds good! i think we should be able to use images from vslides, as long as it's referenced

Z5018320 (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2016 (AEDT) Hey, I've taken the liberty of starting the introduction with basic information that will likely be expanded upon in greater detail throughout the page

Z5018320 (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2016 (AEDT) Also don't forget that at least one image on our page must be self-drawn or modified. I was thinking maybe a flow diagram of the life span of RBCs, or perhaps an RBC banner for our page if someone knows how to do that

Z3376375 (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2016 (AEDT) ^ I like this idea of a flow diagram! I'll ask some of my design friends if they can help me out. Also sorry for not getting my research paper summaries up. I will do them tomorrow night! Then we can reassess things on Saturday in terms of where we want to head with this project + allocation of work!

Z5015980 (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2016 (AEDT)yeah the flow diagram sounds good. i'll also have my work up tomorrow morning, sorry for delay had internet issues. I've got an image of a malarial infection on a RBC, not sure if i should add that in because there is already another image up in the disease section, maybe more is good?. Also has there been a reply from the other member (no.4)?

Z5018320 (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2016 (AEDT) I believe we all have to post our images on the project page as well as our personal page, so go ahead. Our 4th group member is actually my friend's brother so I'll ask what he's been up to

Z5015980 (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2016 (AEST)i just added in a link on Eryptosis under that sub heading, thought that article was pretty good. I don't mind writing about that if everyone's cool with it

Z5018320 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2016 (AEST)I'm happy to work on the history and diseases and abnormalities (and finish the introduction when the time comes) if that's ok

Z5015980 (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2016 (AEST)yeah that's fine, i can do synthesis and regulation and work on current research (i've got an article on that already anyway)

Z3376375 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2016 (AEST) Alrighties. I've been that guy! Set the deadlines, and come up short on them! Was pulled in for work heaps and didn't manage my time well. I'm locking myself in a cafe away from my work and will be doing all my summaries now, so I'll have all my summaries up tonight! Then I'll read through all of your stuff and begin flushing out some of the parts that you guys haven't covered! Will post up here again when summaries are done! Sorry for lateness!

Z5015980 (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2016 (AEST)is there a date we should set when to get the info done on the page?

Z5018320 (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2016 (AEST) Perhaps by the 29th April (end of week 8) try to do as much as you can since we'll all probably have our hands full with midsems

Z3376375 (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2016 (AEST) Sure. I guess I'll try to cover some of the structure function stuff, since you guys have history, diseases, abnormalities, synthesis and current research. Also any word about/from our 4th member?

Z5018320 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2016 (AEST) I added an image as a banner for our page, but I'm not sure I really like it. What do you guys think?

Z3461106 (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2016 (AEST) Hey guys, sorry I've been late to the bandwagon. As discussed in Lab 4, I've been assigned to the Structure section and am willing to help in the Diseases and Abnormalities section. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Cheers!

Z5015980 (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2016 (AEST) all good, also the banner is nice

Z5015980 (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2016 (AEST) just searched and found that RBC also have a buffering capability. Is it okay if we add that in under function?

Z3376375 (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2016 (AEST) Yeah love the banner! Some of Mark's feedback : Diagram of a timeline? Histological pictures of their development? How does spleen differentiate red blood cells to recycle them?

Z3376375 (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2016 (AEST) Will be filling in some structure and function stuff before laboratory tomorrow.

Z3461106 (talk) 07:43, 01 May 2016 (AEST) Just letting you guys know that I've updated some more information about the general structure of the erythrocytes and its membrane composition. I've also added some information about the differences between fetal and adult erythrocytes. However, I feel that I'm running into a bit of a pinch when searching for journals with the creative commons license as I find that I commonly need reference to older articles. How do you guys go about this usually?

Z5018320 (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2016 (AEST) From my understanding (and please correct me if i'm wrong) you can reference the information in any journal article regardless of its copyright license. It's only when you want to reuse/reproduce any material (i.e images, figures, or copy/paste a table) that you need to find an article with a creative commons license that lets you do so

Z5015980 (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2016 (AEST) ^ yeah you're correct. I'll have the future research section and the part of the life cycle done by tonight, but i'm still confused about what to include for the self drawn image. I'll ask Mark about my idea to draw out the different stages of RBC development, but not sure if that's enough

Z3376375 (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2016 (AEST) Yup! Only need the creative commons license when you want to reuse/reporduce the material! What stages are you planning to draw out? (I look forward to seeing your drawing!)

Z5018320 (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2016 (AEST) If you happen to find any more historical discoveries related to RBCs during your reading just add them to the table

Z5018320 (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2016 (AEST) Here's an image I found that you could maybe base the drawing on [[1]]

Z3461106 (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2016 (AEST) Thanks guys for your swift replies! And yes, I will make sure to add further history discoveries onto the table if I find any other important events.

Z3376375 (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2016 (AEST) in terms of the drawing that you're planning to do, is it like : Stem Cell --> Progenitor Cells (BFU-E --> CFU-E) --> Precursor Cells --> Mature Cells? that sort of thing?

Z5015980 (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2016 (AEST) i was going to do a drawing of the lifecycle of a RBC, from the bone then spleen etc.

Z3376375 (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2016 (AEST) Right got it! Side note. I can't be with you in the second session of this lab because I was sick and came in late, so Wallace has told me to go with the second group. I am sorry for this inconvenience that I can't work with you guys from 12-1 =/

Z3376375 (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2016 (AEST) Hey also, my plans for some of the function stuff is that I also might do my own diagrams due to the lack of creative commons license on articles (much sadface) and will upload them after peer review session is over. Really hoping that we can balance out the text/image/figures/diagram ratio. Hoping to stay away from hectic blocks of text which I've currently done =[

Z5015980 (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2016 (AEST) what we have to edit sounds about right. Z5018320 if you could link that article you said that we could add under current research, I don't mind writing about that - just to have another study in there

Z5015980 (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2016 (AEST) i think we need to add in the info on RBC development - loss of nucleus etc. Would that be under synthesis and regulation? Or do you guys think that that needs its own section?

Z3461106 (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2016 (AEST) Are you talking about Erythropoiesis? I think that is a great idea, Z5015980! Maybe we can work on that together this week as we group edit this wiki page. Also, in addition to the current research section I would like to propose using this article (PMID: 27090487) to talk about how erythrocytes can also be used in nanomedicine. I believe that this might be a current hot topic and draws alot of interest.

Z3376375 (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2016 (AEST) Good job guys. It looks nice and pretty now :) I made a google slides presentation for our Stem Cells here :

Research papers

Z5018320 (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2016 (AEDT) <pubmed>26969771</pubmed> <pubmed>22208203</pubmed> <pubmed>25322756</pubmed> <pubmed>26784696</pubmed>

Z5015980 (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2016 (AEDT) <pubmed> 26988297</pubmed> <pubmed>26984406</pubmed> <pubmed>26872376</pubmed> <pubmed>25411230</pubmed>

Z3376375 (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2016 (AEST) <pubmed>24750669</pubmed> <pubmed>18988878</pubmed> <pubmed>24453417</pubmed> <pubmed>23449853</pubmed>

Z3461106 (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2016 (AEST) <pubmed>24453417</pubmed> <pubmed>25676371</pubmed> <pubmed>25048613</pubmed> <pubmed>25280420</pubmed>


Sentence at the end of the introduction is incomplete. Structure section could have used a diagram too. Referencing is inconsistent – some footnotes and some in-text APA style. These in-text APA style references have not been included in the reference listing. ABO and Haemoglobin sections are a bit too brief. Erythrocyte production diagram has no caption or reference. Eryptosis section – erypoptosis is used incorrectly a number of times. Sentence structure is inconsistent and needs some improvement – “It is approximated that they are produces”. IDA symptoms section is incomplete.


Information: Did a very good job of defining scientific jargon and terminology before explaining further details, enhancing my overall understanding of all concepts. Just one example of that was in the “Function” section —“Transferrins are plasma proteins that transport iron into immature red blood cells. Transferrin receptors upon erythrocytes do not interact with iron but regulate and control the uptake of iron by most cells.” The sequence of information presented was orderly and logical making it quite easy to understand, despite the lack of supporting images and/videos. In particular the information in the “Diseases and Abnormalities” section was presented in a very easily understandable manner, despite the complexity of some of the processes. Depth of information: There was good depth of research sufficient to gain sufficient understanding without being overwhelmed with irrelevant details. There was great depth and scope of reading and research as shown by the variety of references used. Conciseness and Readability: Overall, most paragraphs had an organised flow of information and direction which enhanced the readability of long sections of text. Generally very readable with nice, consistent narrative voice throughout. Perhaps, more paragraphing could enhance the natural flow of information and to break up large chunks of text. Use of sub-sectioning could improve the organisation of information such as for “Deformability/ Fluidity” and “Structure” under the heading “Membrane Composition” Also, the relevance of the information in the ‘Buffering Ability’ subsection should be reviewed Current research lacks detail and needs refinement but is headed towards the right direction. The lack of spelling and grammatical errors made text very easy to read and professional. Layout and Images: Layout was neat and organised with good use of headings and expansion tables. There was good use of images to support corresponding text. Images were labelled well and were relevant to the topics presented. There was also correct use of citation and referencing. Perhaps more judicious use of subheadings could help organise information better. Referencing: Abundant references presented and correctly placed throughout the text. Referencing was generally consistent and orderly.