Talk:2016 Group 4 Project

From CellBiology
Revision as of 18:57, 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 4: User:Z5020356 | User:Z3463895 | User:Z3376502 | User:Z3423497 | User:Z5021149

peer review

Group 4 Peer review

Introduction: Great introduction, short and sweet could say where they are though, whole body? Or localized?

History: History is good with only key points included, resulting in me actually wanted to read it and not just scroll past, as it isn’t the main focus.

Structure: I really liked the 3-dot point to divide them however; I think further use of sub dot points could be used to make it really clear on what is classifying them. It would be good to know more about the NKp46, maybe a diagram. I assume you’re going to add information on the activating and inhibitory receptors, which would be good. Also I think the pictures is a tiny bit small, I can’t really see what it is showing to know if I want to click into it for further detail.

Function: I like the 3 main functions section however, I feel it doesn’t relate to the information below. I feel a few sentences could be reworded for ease of reading, as I am a little confused about the relation to MHC1. It would be nice to have a chronological sequence of how they carry out their function. Also some information on CD65 as this is mentioned numerous times but not explained. As well as what NKp46 does being the characteristic features, as I don’t even know what it is, I just know it is there. Paragraph on pregnancy is good and interesting, makes to topic relevant to everyday life. Again the picture needs to be a little bigger, I have no idea what its showing.

Abnormalities: The table gives a great summary, I really like this. The RA section is quite long and a lot of receptors and chemokines are introduced here without explaining them making it quite hard to understand. If they are 100% necessary introduce them in the above topics or omit them and only talk about key points relating to NK cells. The cancer section I felt was more related to treatment rather than an abnormality in the cell, potentially go in the current research section? I felt the asthma section gave me no information at all and needs to either be expanded on or deleted. The anemia paragraph was good and informative. The section on schistosome japoncium wasn’t exactly clear on what role NKc played, I think it would be better not to mention the results of the experiment but just their conclusion.

Current research: I didn’t really know what was going on in the section, maybe some subheadings would help, but overall I wasn’t given a clear understanding of what was currently being researched in relation to NKc.

Overall, a good project that is coming along nicely. I’d focus more on the NKc themselves rather than pathology, as I was left with a lot of questions about the cell. Try to expand on the features of the cell and link them to the function. The banner at the top is really big, and could probably be made a little smaller.

z3461911

General pointers:

  • restructure the info to allow for easy reading and processing of information

A few more specific pointers:

  • The structure subheading also includes development and receptors. It would be better to separate the subtopics and address each individually. I would say structure into development then receptors which can then lead onto your next subheading, function.
  • The last paragraph before receptors in structure addresses function. Either summarise the function and have the main focus on structure, or shift it over to be covered in the function subheading.
  • expand and state a brief function/role of any new points that are introduced eg. NKp46 in structure. It provides context
  • The function section should be re-structured. Either expand on "The are 3 main functions of NK cells" and provide information of these functions under their own subheadings, or use those points and create a brief summary paragraph that can lead on to the functions in immunity, cancer and pregnancy.
  • Dont need that many NK cell related diseases. Maybe 4 or 5 in detail with a picture or two.
  • Provide subheadings in current research, it allows for an easier time digesting info


z3463953

Looks pretty good, but many sections unfinished, here are soem notes: - History is not extensive - Receptor image must be made larger - Receptor section is unfinished - In structure section, the 3 ways that NK identification can be grouped could be bolded. This would make it more distinct. - Some claims are not referenced, i.e.: Recent studies speculate that NK cells also play a role in regulation of dendritic cells, macrophages, T cells and endothelial cells o You cannot tell the reader what recent studies speculate then not reference which you are referring to. - Rheumatoid section is 90% unreferenced. A footnote is meant to be used at the end of each piece of information that was used from that source. Theres only one footnote used in the 8 paragraphs. - Diabetes and lupus sections are unfinished. - The current research section has good content, but doesn’t flow well. And needs to be reread for several small errors, (i.e. there is a random “-“ symbol half way through 2nd paragraph and some of the sentences could be restructured to read better. - No glossary


z3414546

  • Minor spelling errors throughout however a problem with wording in some parts and sentence structure
  • Good introduction
  • History could include more recent discoveries
  • Perhaps add a separate section on development to give more background information and complete the whole story, this can be added before structure
  • Structure
    • Include approximate size of NK cells, other morphological characteristics, set out surface molecules in a table and summarise their function. Also need better image of a NK cell
    • Whilst the information is there and I can see where it is going, it doesn’t read well, revise some of the paragraphs
  • Function, specifically explain the three main functions listed (cytokinesis, cytotoxicity etc.). They were mentioned but they could be elaborated on, in saying this the rest of the information under function is explained well and in sufficient detail
  • Great information on diseases, good use of examples and summary table
    • RA could be simplified further however the rest of the information is clear and concise
  • More images wherever a process is explained e.g. apoptosis of target cells due to perforin

Group 4 peer review

I found the topic to be very interesting and your page quite informative. The historical findings table could be added to, particularly in the gap between 1980 and 2007. The page definitely needs more images to complement all the information, such as an electron micrograph of a NK cell and an illustration of the cell membrane receptors/proteins (the one you have right now just lists the receptors). The images that you do have need to be resized to make a couple of them a little larger (and the banner smaller), and the copyright information needs to be added to the image descriptions. A hand drawn image is also required, although I do see the reminder for this on the page. There are a couple of empty subheadings that need to be completed, and the glossary will be a nice touch once it's finished.

As a whole the page needs more article references (34 is ok but more will be better). The disease section in particular needs more reference tags throughout the body of each paragraph rather than just one at the end, and if this one reference is a review article then you need to go back and find the original source that the review is citing (just look at the review's reference tags) and cite that source instead of the review. This alone will bulk up your own references section. There are spelling and grammatical errors that also need to be ironed out. Other than that I actually like your page and look forward to seeing it completed.

GROUP 4

Introduction

  • Succinct and provides a good overview of what NK cells are and what they do

History

  • Could be longer - if you can find more information about when all the information that is currently known about these cells was discovered, this would be useful to include. A more informative history section would be a nice was to summarise what is known about these cells

Structure

  • The structure section starts off talking about how NK cells are produced - perhaps put production/ differentiation under a seperate subheading for clarity
  • This section doesn’t really seem to cover much information on the actual structure of the cells, or if it is there, its not made clear. All i was able to understand about their structure from reading this was that they are granular with no nucleolus and a transparent cytoplasm
  • Perhaps a diagram would help demonstrate the structure of NK cells

Function

  • The use of subheadings makes this section clear and easy to read
  • The information seems to cover all of the main functions of NK cells
  • It might be good to explain what CD56(dim) and CD56(bright) are initially as they are not terms that most people would have come across before

Abnormalities

  • You have covered a range of diseases, which is useful as it allows a good understanding of how NK cells function in immunity through showing what happens if they don’t effectively function
  • The study on Asthma could be expanded on
  • Rheumatoid arthritis section could be cut down and worded in a way that provides the important information in less words (it is well written though) - perhaps look at more research articles than just the one and summarise the findings that are common between them.

Research

  • Subheadings would really help here - you discuss different research that has had different findings so divide it up to make clearer what the current research is looking at.

Overall

  • There are a few spelling errors throughout the page
  • Filling in the glossary would be useful to introduce terms that are not commonly known
  • More images/ diagrams would help to support and break up your information
  • Overall really good job so far! Just needs fine tuning

Group 4

Over all you guys have done a really good job, it reads quite well with only a few spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. There is a depth of information that makes the page informative without being confusing which is good.

  • The structure is good so the entire page flows really well and I thought you used appropriate subheadings that makes the page easy to read and follow.
  • The section on Rheumatoid Arthritis was a little bit confusing in terms of the reference; I was unsure whether all the information was from reference number 26 at the end of the paragraph or whether that referred to just the results discussed. Incorporating a few more references would also add more depth to the section and provide an opportunity for further research if students were interested.
  • Like I said before, the subheadings you used were appropriate and made the page easy to follow, but making sure each heading has information underneath is important to make sure the flow of the page is effortless.
  • The summary image of the abnormalities in disease is great!! I thought that was really interesting but a short sentence just before that to explain it a little bit would be a nice touch.
  • The function section was interesting and the information was well communicated but a little bit of an explanation about the three main functions listed at the top would be really awesome; maybe some links to articles could be a nice touch and allow more in depth analysis without having to go into detail on the page itself.

You guys have done an awesome job so far and the major things I noticed was just final editing and maybe adding a few images!

Group 4

This page is well detailed and informative on the whole and well structured, providing readers with a good understanding of natural killer cells. However, the history section appears to require more information, as there are not enough dates on the timeline outlining the history of the cell. The specific subtopics are quite informative and well structured, although a few additional images would help to supplement the text. Additionally, while the images are a good visual aid and help to supplement the information on the page (especially images such as the effector function diagram), a few of them are not properly structured, as some are missing the image descriptions and others do not have copyright statements. The abnormalities in disease section is well done, with good descriptions of specific diseases. The table at the start of the section is a good addition, as it provides a nice overview of the role of natural killer cells in disease. However, this section requires more references, as in many cases there is only one article being referenced for each paragraph or section (such as in sections like rheumatoid arthritis and cancer). Additionally, on the whole, this page requires a few more references, and I believe this can be achieved by added more of these into the abnormalities in disease section. The current research and glossary sections are a good addition to the page, however the glossary needs to be completed.

Overall, this group page provides a lot of well detailed information regarding natural killer cells and is very informative on this topic. While this information is presented in a concise manner, the page could be further improved with the addition of more images and visual aids, and a more detailed explanation of these images. The references of this page also needs to be added to and improved upon. However, on the whole this is an informative and well done page.

Topics to cover

Please add suggestions for topics

Images

Please add links to relevant images

Article Links

Please post relevant articles here

History

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6375859 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00048565)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1086218

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/810282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7430655 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022175980901337)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/806545 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910150409/abstract)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/299761

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1080480 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910160205/abstract)

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JIBTVA20120300001_96104545.pdf

http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v27/n45/full/onc2008267a.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7895426

Structure

Z3376502 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2016 (AEST)

Ex-vivo expanded human NK cells express activating receptors that mediate cytotoxicity of allogeneic and autologous cancer cell lines by direct recognition and antibody directed cellular cytotoxicity [1]

The article is about whether it is a viable possibility to use self-transplanted (autologous) natural killer (NK) cells in fighting solid tumours. The article highlights four issues including the basic limit on the number of NK cells in blood, the requirement to activate the NK cells in order to fight the tumour, issues with commercial or large scale production of compliant cells as well as issues faced by autologous implantation. The article has several remedies for these issues. In relation to structure (my subsection) the article outlines specifically how the structure of the NK cells is relevant to the ability to be able to fight solid tumours such as the overcoming of inhibitory signals from the cell which are used to prevent cytotoxicity. This is done by downgrading inhibitory receptors such as DNAM-1 and enhancing activating receptors in the cell such as KLDR1.[1]

Identification, activation, and selective in vivo ablation of mouse NK cells via NKp46[2]

The article questions the phenotypic definition of what is a natural killer cell. Previously various cell surface expressions were used to define and stain NK cells in mice such as NK1.1 and C49b, however this was problematic due to not being specific to natural killer cells (some B and T cells also contain these surface expressions) as well as not being expressed by all strains of NK cells. this lead to the study of NKp46 which was found to be received by NK cells exclusively as well as by all strains of NK cells, early conclusions also show that this is true for all mammalian species suggesting that NKp46 is phenotypic of all mammalian NK cells. This is important in regards to my section as it explains definitely what it is that defines an NK cell and what separates them from the very similar NK T-cells.[2]

Association of Killer Cell Immunoglobulin- Like Receptor Genes in Iranian Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis[3]

This article is about the effects on NK cells on the pathenogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. It questions the effect on various haplotypes of NK cells and their receptors and questions what role these receptors play on RA. The article is largely about the various types of NK cells splitting into two functionally different groups; activating and inhibitory. The other way to split NK cells is to split on a structural difference with there being a immunoglobin superfamily (including the pathologically important killer cell ig-like receptors) and killer cell lectin like recptors. For the purpose of this article there is a larger focus on Killer cell Ig-like recptors (KIR) with the authors finding that haplotypes of these receptors having a large impact on the etiology of rheumatoid arthritis.[3]

Can Selective MHC Downregulation Explain the Specificity and Genetic Diversity of NK cell Receptors[4] This articles highlights the evolutionary pathways behind NK cells specifically the effect viruses have played on diverse inhibitory natural killer receptor genes. To do this the authors looked at viruses which decrease expression of MHC-1 to escape responses from the host. It was found that downregulation of non-overlapping MHC-1 subsets does indeed drive the evolution of specific inhibitory natural killer receptor genes. This is important in relation to structure as I feel understanding the evolution of the cell helps understand the structures behind the cell.[4]

Abnormalities in Disease

Lab 3 Assessment : Summaries of Articles Regarding NK Cells Absnormalities in Diseases

1. Abnormalities of quantities and functions of natural killer cells in severe aplastic anemia

Severe aplastic anaemia (SAA) is a rare autoimmune disease caused by bone marrow failure, where it is unable to produce sufficient blood cells for the body. Natural Killer (NK) cells are lymphocytes that play an important role in the pathogenesis of autoimmune disease, which host defence against malignancies, viruses and allogenic cells. They either kill target cells directly or encourage production of cytokines and chemokines. This study aims to investigate the quantitative and functional changes of NK cell subsets in peripheral blood of SAA patients before and after immunosuppressive therapy (IST). Results showed that the percentage of NK cells and its subsets in peripheral blood lymphocytes was decreased in SAA patients, but increased dramatically after IST. However, the ratio of NK cells increased and restored to normal levels in patients after intensive immunosuppressive therapy. This study also found that the median expression of NKp46 on NK cells of newly diagnosed SAA patients was higher than that of healthy individuals. Similar, the expression of perforin in newly diagnosed SAA patients was also higher than of controls. The expression of CD158b and the median expression of granzyme B in NK cells however, had no statistical difference between two groups. The highly expressed of NKp46 and perforin on the NK cells from these patients might be the cause of hematopoiesis failure in SAA.


<pubmed>24661133</pubmed>[6]


2. Analysis of Natural Killer Cells in Patients with Aplastic Anemia

In humans, NK cells have been identified as large granular lymphocytes, and they bear the cell surface antigen markers Leu 7 and Leu 11. This study analysed NK cells in 43 patients with severe aplastic anemia using cytoxicity assays and microfluorometry with monoclonal antibodies, prior to and after treatment with antithymocyte globulin (ATG). Similar to the previous findings, the result also showed that the NK cells in the peripheral blood of patients with aplastic anemia is reduced compared to normal patients. NK cells in acute aplastic anemia patients was however not statically different to from chronic patients. Other than that, Nk cells in the bone marrow was also being measured in order to test the possibility of NK cells in mediating hematopoietic suppression in aplastic anemia. It is found that NK cells in aplastic bone marrow was decreased as compared with normal and to approximately the same degree as was observed in blood. These results indicated that high NK cells was not concentrated in the target organ of aplastic anemia. LGLs in aplastic anemia had defective NK cells. It is discussed that defective NK function is a consequences of the underlying bone marrow failure and therefore do not support the suggestion that hematopoietic suppression in aplastic anemia is mediated by NK cells.


<pubmed>3083891</pubmed>[7]


3. NKG2A expression and impaired function of NK cells in patients with new onset of Graves' disease.

Graves’s disease (GD)is an organ-specific autoimmune disease. It was said that the role that NK cells play in the pathogenesis of Graves’s disease (GD) is still remain unclear. This study explored the presence of activated and inhibitory receptors if NK and NKT cells in the peripheral blood of patients with new GD onset. The result of this study showed the significant decrease of NK cells in the peripheral blood of untreated GD patients. It is concluded that a lower number of activated NK cells may participate in the pathogenesis of GD but whether impaired function of NK cells leads to the onset of GD or the onset of GD leads to impaired function of NK cells still remains unclear.


<pubmed>25281394</pubmed>[8]


4. The characteristics of NK cells in Schistosoma japonicum-infected mouse spleens

Schistosomiasis japonica is an parasitic disease, where during infection the deposition of its eggs can lead to immunopathological reactions, such as granuloma and fibrosis formation, which are the main contributors to the host lesions. By using mice that are infected with Schistosoma japonicum , this study aim to study the charactheristics of NK cells in affected mice. The result showed no significant different in NK cell percentages between the normal and infected groups but NK cell numbers significantly increased after infection. It is found that NK cells from C57BL/6 mouse spleens were activated and produced more specific cytokines like IL-2, IL-4, IL-10 and IL-17 and less IFN- γ during the host defense process against S.japonicum infection.


<pubmed> 26319521</pubmed>[9]

Discussion

Z5021149 (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2016 (AEDT)Hey guys, totally not sure if this is where we are supposed to discuss! Does anyone have an idea of what they would like to do for a topic? I was thinking just the red blood cell as there is probably lots of research and info about it out there. Its about structure and function and RBCs have such a recognizable shape that facilitates their function. What do you guys think?

Z5020356 (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2016 (AEDT) Hi guys! I'm up for doing any of the topics really, but I do agree RBCs will probably be the most straightforward. Looking forward to seeing you all in lab on Thursday!

Z3376502 (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2016 (AEDT)Yeah I'm happy with RBC Also any of the lymphocytes would have a lot of literature from pathology and the like. So if we can't do RBC (That may already be taken) I'd be happy to do lymphocytes.

Z5021149 (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2016 (AEDT) Looks like another group chose RBC :( how does everyone feel about NK cells?

Z5021149 (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2016 (AEDT) Im going to put up NK cells as our topic as we were supposed to choose one before the lab. We can change it later.

Z5020356 (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2016 (AEDT) A pretty interesting article we can use for current research: Killer Cell Immunoglobulin-Like Receptor Alleles Alter HIV Disease in Children

Z3423497 (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2016 (AEDT) I've added a few headers on the project page, some of the topics that we should target. We should decide on what sections we would like to do. Also add the relevant links to articles and images on the discussion pages, so we can collectively review some of the stuff before we upload it on the page.

Z5020356 (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2016 (AEDT) Yep, sounds good!

Z5020356 (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2016 (AEDT) Happy to take Current Research

Z3423497 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2016 (AEDT) I will be doing the history

Z3376502 (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2016 (AEDT) Hey guys, just going over all the literature now and most of the articles relating to the structure of the NK cells are review articles not research articles... I think i'm going to have to go pretty far back to get many research articles on structure.

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 <pubmed>20937115</pubmed>
  2. 2.0 2.1 <pubmed>17360655</pubmed>
  3. 3.0 3.1 <pubmed>26658904</pubmed>
  4. 4.0 4.1 <pubmed>26136746</pubmed>
  5. <pubmed>25688241</pubmed>
  6. <pubmed>24661133</pubmed>
  7. <pubmed>3083891</pubmed>
  8. <pubmed>25281394</pubmed>
  9. <pubmed>26319521</pubmed>