Talk:2016 Group 2 Project

From CellBiology
Revision as of 18:55, 11 May 2016 by Z5015719 (talk | contribs) (Peer review)
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

Peer review

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.


z3461911

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.


z3463953

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!


z3414546

  • 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!

GROUP 2:

Introduction

  • 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

History

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

Structure

  • 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

Function

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

Synthesis

  • 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

Abnormalities

  • 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

Overall

  • 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.

Project sub-topic

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! Btw my name is Popo. 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 vslides.unsw.edu.au?

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 =[

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>