Difference between revisions of "Talk:Group 10 Project - Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer"

From CellBiology
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
--[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 00:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC) The Project Page now locked, the discussion page is still available for additions and edits.
 +
 +
 +
'''Peer Comment Summary'''
 +
 +
Most found the introduction and methods too long and detailed. Some raised questions about our coverage of the particular cloning events being not comprehensive enough, for example, we did not cover the dog and the sea urchin. Others suggested we cover the uses of SCNT other than veterinary and human medicine. There were a few issues with referencing (both images and in-text citations) and the general layout, for example, the links to research labs section should have been placed before the reference list. Grammatical errors were also noted. Elaboration in the ethics section was encouraged, in particular to the viewpoints of each religion in order to "just give some people an understanding of what stopping its massive possible uses in society today." The validity of our blastocyst diagram was also questioned.
 +
 +
 +
'''Peer Comment Summary Reply'''
 +
 +
The introduction and methods were reduced in detail to provide a more understandable overview, and not give an extremely detailed manual. We covered some historical events and cloning events other than humans, but we did not provide a comprehensive list of them such as the sea urchin. We thought that our project focus was and is still humans. However where we did cover the cloning of Dolly the Sheep as it was the first of its kind and its applicability to SCNT - we were not attempting to shadow reproductive cloning in our SCNT project.
 +
 +
Grammatical errors were changed, in-text citations were found and referenced. Our blastocyst diagram was redrawn to be anatomically correct. Our ethics part is being extended as well, however we have decided only the major religions such as Christianity and Islam will be covered for brevity.
 +
 +
 +
----
 +
 +
 +
Hi Oz & Juliana,
 +
 +
Mark has just told us that he will lock the projects by next week's lab (bringing the deadline ahead by one week), so any more changes have to done this week.
 +
 +
Also he gave us a handout for the Stem Cell Labs, but you have to get it from him directly.
 +
 +
Just to let you know!
 +
 +
----
 +
 +
Hi!
 +
 +
With Dr. Hwang's image, that was put there by Juliana, so I assumed she was going to find a link for it or was she waiting for the people to reply to her if she could use that image or not(???) (Or are you Juliana? Ha ha sorry :))
 +
 +
The image that I put in as Step 3 originally from Nature Journal - I've removed because the newer one (Figure 6) is open access (so Mark can easily see it's free to use, instead of me reproducing the whole license stuff that I got on the page for him) and it shows it as a process like a slideshow.
 +
 +
The video link in Step 3 is meant to be there - Mark only said that I needed to find the correct original link to the HHMI people who created for it to be acceptable, and not just use a Youtube link. I'm keeping it since I think it still shows the reader the whole process nicely.
 +
 +
The reference for Torben Greve (which has moved to #37) seems fine to me - The link is available, it's properly citated - it doesn't have a PMID but that's fine too.
 +
 +
Ooohhh thank you for the reminder - I've changed the blastocyst picture so it looks more correct (but please check it)
 +
 +
I'll try to come tomorrow but I might not be able to - sorry about that :) Is the project due already?
 +
 +
Anyway have a good night.
 +
 +
A.
 +
 +
 +
 +
----
 +
 +
 
Hello~
 
Hello~
 
I'v editted History Section referencing part and moved 'research links' part to below the ethic section.
 
I'v editted History Section referencing part and moved 'research links' part to below the ethic section.
 
And Andrew, if you have permission from Nature Journal, Can you find another Dr.Hwang's image? I don't wanna get in trouble for that image. Thanks.
 
And Andrew, if you have permission from Nature Journal, Can you find another Dr.Hwang's image? I don't wanna get in trouble for that image. Thanks.
  
I found video link was still in step3 methology part.
+
*I found video link was still in step3 methology part.
 +
*check reference no.35, Torben Greve. Xenotransplantation: Biotechnological Aspects and Current Attitudes. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 2004, 45(Suppl 1):S13-S17 PMID not available
 +
 
 +
 
 +
and if it's okay Can we meet may be an hour early(so 2pm) before cell bio lecture? so we can finalise the assignment.
 +
I will be at Medical Science Tutorial Room (just next to lecture theatre) so any one who is free, come!
  
  
Line 17: Line 73:
  
 
==Things to work on noted by peers==
 
==Things to work on noted by peers==
*****Peer comments are in normal text, while Project revisions/changes are in '''Bold''' text*****
+
*****Peer comments are in normal text, while our group comments & revisions/changes are in '''Bold''' text*****
  
 
'''Introduction'''
 
'''Introduction'''
Line 25: Line 81:
 
*I don’t know what the image Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) Video is showing. I think it is inessential. The student-drawn image is sufficient enough.
 
*I don’t know what the image Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) Video is showing. I think it is inessential. The student-drawn image is sufficient enough.
  
'''The image has been removed, the link was actually incorrect and not referenced properly anyway. The student-image will be rectified shortly on advice from Dr. Hill.'''
+
'''The image has been removed, the link was actually incorrect and not referenced properly anyway. The student-image has been corrected on advice from Dr. Hill.'''
 
*The video under intro was helpful although this could go under methodology.  
 
*The video under intro was helpful although this could go under methodology.  
  
 
'''The intro video was incorrectly linked and will be changed.'''
 
'''The intro video was incorrectly linked and will be changed.'''
 
* introduction-too long so decrease '''yes done'''
 
* introduction-too long so decrease '''yes done'''
* I feel like the intro could be two sections, like a section for obtaining stem cells, or maybe some of the info could be put into other headings. '''yes agreed - former intro has been summarised to be more concise, and also been divided into proper intro and stem cells in general sections'''
+
* I feel like the intro could be two sections, like a section for obtaining stem cells, or maybe some of the info could be put into other headings.  
 +
'''yes agreed - former intro has been summarised to be more concise, and also been divided into proper intro and stem cells in general sections'''
 
*The introduction describes the main component of the nuclear transfer technique, which is the the blastocyst. In addition, it shows the controversies involved in SCNT. But I guess, could this information be classified under technique? Because it seems too overwhelming for the introduction, where too much information is presented.  
 
*The introduction describes the main component of the nuclear transfer technique, which is the the blastocyst. In addition, it shows the controversies involved in SCNT. But I guess, could this information be classified under technique? Because it seems too overwhelming for the introduction, where too much information is presented.  
 
'''as per comments above'''
 
'''as per comments above'''
  
'''History'''
+
'''History & methology'''
 
* The ‘Brief History’ section was not relective of its title. I like the information given, I’d say just change the title.  
 
* The ‘Brief History’ section was not relective of its title. I like the information given, I’d say just change the title.  
* The image 'Stem cells from IVF’ is, to me, irrelevant at its present location.  
+
* The image 'Stem cells from IVF’ is, to me, irrelevant at its present location. '''image removed'''
*It felt like there was too much information under Methodology, especially under Step 2 and 6. For example, under Step 6, the author wrote: ‘Due to ethical issues, the transplantation of human blastocysts in reproductive cloning has not occurred to date.’ This could be put under the Ethics section. Little changes like this could really make a difference. '''the methods part is being corrected to be more concise and accomodating to readers'''  
+
*It felt like there was too much information under Methodology, especially under Step 2 and 6. For example, under Step 6, the author wrote: ‘Due to ethical issues, the transplantation of human blastocysts in reproductive cloning has not occurred to date.’ This could be put under the Ethics section. Little changes like this could really make a difference.  
* condensing the descriptions of scientists in the history a bit '''this has been done'''
+
'''the methods part has been shortened/corrected to provide an understanding and not a manual to SCNT'''  
 +
* condensing the descriptions of scientists in the history a bit '''this has been done by integrating the previous key figures into the timeline'''
 
* maybe adding the cloning of the sea urchin
 
* maybe adding the cloning of the sea urchin
* moving the picture under ‘Step 3’ so that the word ‘physical’ isn’t overlying it so much '''this section is being edited, however it may depend on window size and not actual formatting - will check though'''
+
* moving the picture under ‘Step 3’ so that the word ‘physical’ isn’t overlying it so much  
 +
'''this section is being edited, however it may depend on window size and not actual formatting - will check though'''
 
* few more important landmarks in the timeline
 
* few more important landmarks in the timeline
* Your timeline/ history needs to be condensed rather than separated. '''the 2 sections have been integrated'''
+
* Your timeline/ history needs to be condensed rather than separated.  
 +
'''the 2 sections have been integrated'''
 
* you should have included the cloning of the cloning of the urchin, cat, dog then the sheep, but this may be way too much so just probably add sea urchin.  
 
* you should have included the cloning of the cloning of the urchin, cat, dog then the sheep, but this may be way too much so just probably add sea urchin.  
 
* Try to expand the timeline to include more major historical SCNT landmarks.  
 
* Try to expand the timeline to include more major historical SCNT landmarks.  
 +
'''fixed'''
  
 
'''Application'''
 
'''Application'''
*Is the application of SCNT restricted to Veterinary and Human Med. If it isn’t a brief mention of other applications would be nice. '''as per Dr. Hill's comment about this subject being taught in the Medical Faculty - our primary interest remains human applications though we have/will provide acknowledgement of applications in other fields where possible.
+
*Is the application of SCNT restricted to Veterinary and Human Med. If it isn’t a brief mention of other applications would be nice.  
* There is no in-text citations under ‘Cell Therapy using dedifferentiated stem cells’ (Applications). Just make sure that you include where you got the information from.  
+
'''as per Dr. Hill's comment about this subject being taught in the Medical Faculty - our primary interest remains human applications though we have/will provide acknowledgement of applications in other fields where possible.
 +
* There is no in-text citations under ‘Cell Therapy using dedifferentiated stem cells’ (Applications). Just make sure that you include where you got the information from. '''Citation(s) have been found'''
  
 
'''Advantages and disadvantages'''
 
'''Advantages and disadvantages'''
Line 113: Line 175:
  
 
Cheers!
 
Cheers!
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
== Constructive Criticism of Peers ==
 
== Constructive Criticism of Peers ==

Latest revision as of 11:44, 27 May 2010

--Mark Hill 00:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC) The Project Page now locked, the discussion page is still available for additions and edits.


Peer Comment Summary

Most found the introduction and methods too long and detailed. Some raised questions about our coverage of the particular cloning events being not comprehensive enough, for example, we did not cover the dog and the sea urchin. Others suggested we cover the uses of SCNT other than veterinary and human medicine. There were a few issues with referencing (both images and in-text citations) and the general layout, for example, the links to research labs section should have been placed before the reference list. Grammatical errors were also noted. Elaboration in the ethics section was encouraged, in particular to the viewpoints of each religion in order to "just give some people an understanding of what stopping its massive possible uses in society today." The validity of our blastocyst diagram was also questioned.


Peer Comment Summary Reply

The introduction and methods were reduced in detail to provide a more understandable overview, and not give an extremely detailed manual. We covered some historical events and cloning events other than humans, but we did not provide a comprehensive list of them such as the sea urchin. We thought that our project focus was and is still humans. However where we did cover the cloning of Dolly the Sheep as it was the first of its kind and its applicability to SCNT - we were not attempting to shadow reproductive cloning in our SCNT project.

Grammatical errors were changed, in-text citations were found and referenced. Our blastocyst diagram was redrawn to be anatomically correct. Our ethics part is being extended as well, however we have decided only the major religions such as Christianity and Islam will be covered for brevity.




Hi Oz & Juliana,

Mark has just told us that he will lock the projects by next week's lab (bringing the deadline ahead by one week), so any more changes have to done this week.

Also he gave us a handout for the Stem Cell Labs, but you have to get it from him directly.

Just to let you know!


Hi!

With Dr. Hwang's image, that was put there by Juliana, so I assumed she was going to find a link for it or was she waiting for the people to reply to her if she could use that image or not(???) (Or are you Juliana? Ha ha sorry :))

The image that I put in as Step 3 originally from Nature Journal - I've removed because the newer one (Figure 6) is open access (so Mark can easily see it's free to use, instead of me reproducing the whole license stuff that I got on the page for him) and it shows it as a process like a slideshow.

The video link in Step 3 is meant to be there - Mark only said that I needed to find the correct original link to the HHMI people who created for it to be acceptable, and not just use a Youtube link. I'm keeping it since I think it still shows the reader the whole process nicely.

The reference for Torben Greve (which has moved to #37) seems fine to me - The link is available, it's properly citated - it doesn't have a PMID but that's fine too.

Ooohhh thank you for the reminder - I've changed the blastocyst picture so it looks more correct (but please check it)

I'll try to come tomorrow but I might not be able to - sorry about that :) Is the project due already?

Anyway have a good night.

A.




Hello~ I'v editted History Section referencing part and moved 'research links' part to below the ethic section. And Andrew, if you have permission from Nature Journal, Can you find another Dr.Hwang's image? I don't wanna get in trouble for that image. Thanks.

  • I found video link was still in step3 methology part.
  • check reference no.35, Torben Greve. Xenotransplantation: Biotechnological Aspects and Current Attitudes. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 2004, 45(Suppl 1):S13-S17 PMID not available


and if it's okay Can we meet may be an hour early(so 2pm) before cell bio lecture? so we can finalise the assignment. I will be at Medical Science Tutorial Room (just next to lecture theatre) so any one who is free, come!



Hi Guys,

I've edited the methods and intro bits, and I've also drastically changed the rest of the project (sorry hope it is ok...) I've added in the changes in bold under the peer comments as well.

Have a good weekend!

A.

Things to work on noted by peers

          • Peer comments are in normal text, while our group comments & revisions/changes are in Bold text*****

Introduction

  • Introduction is too long. If you still want to keep the information, put the information on the developing embryo under its own heading.

Yes agreed, and has been changed.

  • I don’t know what the image Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) Video is showing. I think it is inessential. The student-drawn image is sufficient enough.

The image has been removed, the link was actually incorrect and not referenced properly anyway. The student-image has been corrected on advice from Dr. Hill.

  • The video under intro was helpful although this could go under methodology.

The intro video was incorrectly linked and will be changed.

  • introduction-too long so decrease yes done
  • I feel like the intro could be two sections, like a section for obtaining stem cells, or maybe some of the info could be put into other headings.

yes agreed - former intro has been summarised to be more concise, and also been divided into proper intro and stem cells in general sections

  • The introduction describes the main component of the nuclear transfer technique, which is the the blastocyst. In addition, it shows the controversies involved in SCNT. But I guess, could this information be classified under technique? Because it seems too overwhelming for the introduction, where too much information is presented.

as per comments above

History & methology

  • The ‘Brief History’ section was not relective of its title. I like the information given, I’d say just change the title.
  • The image 'Stem cells from IVF’ is, to me, irrelevant at its present location. image removed
  • It felt like there was too much information under Methodology, especially under Step 2 and 6. For example, under Step 6, the author wrote: ‘Due to ethical issues, the transplantation of human blastocysts in reproductive cloning has not occurred to date.’ This could be put under the Ethics section. Little changes like this could really make a difference.

the methods part has been shortened/corrected to provide an understanding and not a manual to SCNT

  • condensing the descriptions of scientists in the history a bit this has been done by integrating the previous key figures into the timeline
  • maybe adding the cloning of the sea urchin
  • moving the picture under ‘Step 3’ so that the word ‘physical’ isn’t overlying it so much

this section is being edited, however it may depend on window size and not actual formatting - will check though

  • few more important landmarks in the timeline
  • Your timeline/ history needs to be condensed rather than separated.

the 2 sections have been integrated

  • you should have included the cloning of the cloning of the urchin, cat, dog then the sheep, but this may be way too much so just probably add sea urchin.
  • Try to expand the timeline to include more major historical SCNT landmarks.

fixed

Application

  • Is the application of SCNT restricted to Veterinary and Human Med. If it isn’t a brief mention of other applications would be nice.

as per Dr. Hill's comment about this subject being taught in the Medical Faculty - our primary interest remains human applications though we have/will provide acknowledgement of applications in other fields where possible.

  • There is no in-text citations under ‘Cell Therapy using dedifferentiated stem cells’ (Applications). Just make sure that you include where you got the information from. Citation(s) have been found

Advantages and disadvantages

  • I would like to comment on the “Advantages and Disadvantages” part. Compared to other parts, it is too short and less likely explained and no references are provided for the last two points of “Advantage” part.

Future Direction

  • I think some of the dot points in the ‘Future Directions’ section need to be elaborated on if they are to be included? For instance what are ‘serial transfer’ and ‘activation procedure’, and how do they relate to the future of SCNT? I also don’t quite understand the first sentence in the ‘Future directions’ section… I think this may need rewording?

Ethics Section

  • referencing on some of the picture on ethics
  • If the ‘ethics’ section drew on any ideas other than your own you may need a few citations in there?
  • The “SCNT Research in Australia” section is a great idea but I think you need a bit more specific information about what they are researching? And could this section possibly be integrated to the links to research labs and researchers section?
  • , the layout of the diagrams could be improved or unified, as I find it may be a bit disorganized.
  • can you include a bit of what each religion thinks about it just a quick summary for eg. islam says at 40 days neonate is human, jewish..., catholic..., just give some people an understanding of what stopping its massive possible uses in society today.


Editting Errors

  • A very minor point but I think the plural of embryo is embryos not embryoes? Apparently not - Oxford Dictionary states plural form is 'embryos'.
  • "Stem cells are progenitor cells that an undergo continual self-renewal whilst remaining undifferentiated in function" an should be can.
  • "The use of SCNT can also be helpful to even create the extinct species, if any tissues o cells are available." o should be or and also you should leave out even. I think you guys should just have a proof read to fix these small issues.
  • I think there is a slight grammatical problem with: ‘According to Fulka et al.[38],describes about questions not yet fully solved but must be solved for Nuclear Transfer technique in future.’ It should read something like ‘Fulka et al.[38] described aspects of SCNT (I’m guessing the ‘questions’ are about SCNT, it wasn’t mentioned in the original sentence) that is not yet solved. These problems must be addresses for the future use of the Nuclear Transfer Technique.’


Reference issues

  • The choice and number of references is really good, but some of the references appear a few times... I’m not sure if this is something to do with the wiki system because I’ve seen this a couple of times but it would be good if it could be consolidated.
  • "Ethics" and "History", but also sections of the "Applications", lack sufficient referencing to make them seem objective and not like broad sweeping statements.
  • I noticed that the reference to the paper for Fulka et al in the "Future Directions" section is from 1998- in my opinion this is way too old to still be completely relevant, particularly in this section! If you do want to use information taken from this paper you need to address the fact that a lot of it (presumably) would no longer be completely accurate- just my take on it though.
  • Some of the images used were from webpages. Replace images from journals Some images are awaiting copyright, while others have been removed/replaced.
  • reference in the Timeline
  • All images should contain a web link to the source and also copyright information. Some images such as Hwang.jpg cannot be used without permission. It clearly states this under the copyright information you pasted in. It allows individual use, but wiki is a server that anyone can access.

Others

  • In my opinion it would be better if you guys put Links to Research Laboratories and Researchers section before the references and glossary.
  • Before you start using abbreviations make sure you write out what it is the first time you use it. eg. PBS and EDTA. Some terms have been removed for the sake of simplicity, as noted by Dr Hill and other peers; other initial appearances of acronyms have been rectified, however.
  • putting future directions at the end of the project.
  • Variations of SCNT technique should go after the methodology. Variations has been removed as it was not directly relevant to SCNT as such.
  • I'd swap around order wise to make to flow a bite better (but only in my opinion obviously)- i think the Variations of the SCNT Technique section should go after the Methodology (so we know what you are varying first!), the "Brief History of Stem Cell Research" and "Historical Development of SCNT" could perhaps be merged or at least altered so that they follow on from each other better and/or use the same format (i.e. use dates or research groups but not a mix of both). As noted, Variations has been removed. The history section is awaiting integration.
  • The Variations of the SCNT Technique section could be placed after or before the Methodology. They seem separated and unrelated as it is. Variations has been removed as it was not directly relevant to SCNT as such.
  • It would be nice to have ‘Links to Research Lab…’ straight after ‘SCNT Research in Australia’.
  • there are terms which i am unfamiliar with (such as progenitor cells or pluripotent potential) and while some of these are explained later, it is difficult to follow the text without an immediate definition, if that makes sense. Since revision, some terms have either been removed for simplicity or have been added to the glossary.
  • moving the ethics diagram a fraction down so that the last line of the page isn’t randomly on the left by itself. We are attempting to change this, however it appears the wiki's presentation changes according to your screen resolution and window size.
  • Before using abbreviations be sure to write it out fully the first time you use it. eg. PBS and EDTA. Some terms have been removed for the sake of simplicity, as noted by Dr Hill and other peers; other initial appearances of acronyms have been rectified, however.





Good feebacks

  • I like this page the best
  • Wow this was nice!
  • eye-catching and interesting with the variation of diagrams and pictures; hand drawn diagram is excellent
  • section of 'ethics' was interesting
  • Well researched project
  • I really, really like this page; it’s possibly overall the best put together I’ve read
  • Definately one of the best pages
  • I agree with most of the posts and say that this page is amazing!
  • Excellent link to ethics as this is a major debate in the field of SCNT.


Cheers!

Constructive Criticism of Peers

--Samantha Cabrera 07:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I think I like this page the best. Good job! Well structured, informative, and well referenced. Pictures used are referenced appropriately and copyright info written. Some of the images used were from webpages. Because the sources are not from journals, if you can find a replacement maybe - one with a more reliable source would probably even improve your page.

--Mari Fushimi 05:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Hi group 10-here is my feedback:

  • Wow this was nice!
  • Layout-great especially for people who do not have a science backgroud, it is eye-catching and interesting with the variation of diagrams and pictures; hand drawn diagram is excellent; introduction-too long so decrease this; section of 'ethics' was interesting
  • References-extensive use of references

--Angama Yaquobi 04:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Great info and diagrams that corresponds to the text very well. Excellent glossary and great referencing revealing the hard work you guys have put in. The table for comparison of advantages and disadvantages was very easy to read and concise. So good job. Love the application part info- it’s always easy for me to read through if it’s got dot points and has heading so well done. Your project is very easy to follow, concise and informative with interesting diagrams. Well researched project. Well done group 10.


--z3252833 04:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I really, really like this page; it’s possibly overall the best put together I’ve read. It’s logically and clearly structured, well formatted with (well-cited) pictures staggered left and right to break up the text, there are links for further reading, there are summary tables for the text, the glossary is great, there’re links to videos with screenshots to highlight the links… you even have ethics. It’s great. What else can I say? I don’t know what to suggest! Perhaps just little things, like condensing the descriptions of scientists in the history a bit and maybe adding the cloning of the sea urchin, moving the picture under ‘Step 3’ so that the word ‘physical’ isn’t overlying it so much and moving the ethics diagram a fraction down so that the last line of the page isn’t randomly on the left by itself, but really… a really big well done to you guys; this is impressive.


--Shoahaib Karimi 04:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Great topic and great explanation of it all but you should have included the cloning of the cloning of the urchin, cat, dog then the sheep, but this may be way too much so just probably add sea urchin. The way you use the advantages and disadvantage table is great. can you include a bit of what each religion thinks about it just a quick summary for eg. islam says at 40 days neonate is human, jewish..., catholic..., just give some people an understanding of what stopping its massive possible uses in society today.


--Jessie Tomkins 04:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC) WOW group 10 you've done a fantasstic job. Definately one of the best pages. I really liked the structure and content of your page. Obviously a lot of research and time has gone into this project. Well done.

--Mark Hill 04:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Lab 8 Assessment - 19 student reviews.


--Erika Unsworth 04:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Group 10, great work!

  • Structure is fantastic
  • Content is great and easy to understand
  • Plenty of pictures and videos to help
  • Lots of references- looks like lots of research has been done.
  • Definitely one of the best I've seen

--Paula Ordonez 03:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Hi group 10, What a fantastic page to end on! extremely easy to read and understand as you have made it flow nicely with excellent use of subheadings, pictures, bullet points and tables. Furthermore, the youtube videos were a very nice touch! keeping the page really interesting. The referencing is great, and with a few more importnat landmarks in the timeline, this should be a flawless page!

--Joanne Raffel 02:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I really enjoyed your wikipage. The images and videos were great but I dont think you need a link to the image as well as the image on the page, seems rather pointless to have both. Your timeline/ history needs to be condensed rather than separated. Your methodology was very well presented but I think your comparison and useful links sections should be further in the page rather than right at the end. Otherwise nice work.

--Julianna Lam 01:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC) the page is great ! it has a logical flow, great use of pictures, headings, tables, flow chart. content is great, the glossary provided is great.

--Darren Dizon 23:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC) I agree with most of the posts and say that this page is amazing! i believe the content was clear and concise, pictures were well chosen and the layout was impressive. also enjoyed the integration of youtube videos. Very professional! Only problem is your choice of hand drawn diagram. Maybe it could be something better than just a blastocyst. peace out

--z3254509 22:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Only thing that needs looking at is the referencing on some of the picture on ethics, if this is student drawn, indicate that it is. Apart from that, this is very well done.

--z3269335 14:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you guys have done a great job and extensive researches. Most of the diagrams are correctly referenced with some descriptions. Additionally, it is a good idea the use of table to demostrate the advantages and disadvantages of SCNT.

However, the layout of the diagrams could be improved or unified, as I find it may be a bit disorganized.

Despite from it, your group have done an excellent job. Keep it up.


--Dougall Norris 13:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Well done guys i feel like this is 1 of the best projects after seeing all the others, really well set out, so much info and great headings. I just compared it to the normal wiki page, and this should definitely be the new one. This is me actively trying to criticise your page:

  • I feel like the intro could be two sections, like a section for obtaining stem cells, or maybe some of the info could be put into other headings. (im just looking, i dont think this is much of an issue)
  • For a few of the pictures, you need to include permissions
  • I think you could elaborate a little on SCNT Research in Australia
  • A few references in the timeline would be good

Yeah, your page has got everything i could ask for. Awesome work guys


Classy group 10. The project looks sweet, here are some points I thought might be useful:--Vishnnu Shanmugam 05:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

  • All images should contain a web link to the source and also copyright information. Some images such as Hwang.jpg cannot be used without permission. It clearly states this under the copyright information you pasted in. It allows individual use, but wiki is a server that anyone can access.
  • References are very well done. Nice!
  • Excellent Glossary.
  • Excellent links to researchers.
  • Excellent link to ethics as this is a major debate in the field of SCNT.
  • Before using abbreviations be sure to write it out fully the first time you use it. eg. PBS and EDTA.
  • Try to expand the timeline to include more major historical SCNT landmarks.


--z3178608 05:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Hello Group 10

The project page looks professional and organization is excellent. My thoughts about this project page are:

  • The introduction describes the main component of the nuclear transfer technique, which is the the blastocyst. In addition, it shows the controversies involved in SCNT. But I guess, could this information be classified under technique? Because it seems too overwhelming for the introduction, where too much information is presented.
  • Impressive drawings for the illustration.
  • Excellent usage of graphics with accompanying text.
  • Very informative methodology that greatly enhance my understanding on SCNT.
  • Concise application section.
  • Appropriate usage of table for the comparison of advantages and disadvantages.
  • Reinforcement of the ethics issues arising from this technique.
  • Extensive referencing in the project.

Overall, this project is interesting and engaging. I have gained knowledge about the SCNT after reading your project page. Awesome work!

--David Williamson 02:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, really great project on the whole, with just a couple of things that could make it even better:

  • Great introduction- a good summary of what SCNT is and why it’s important.
  • Good use of pictures including the student drawn one.
  • A very minor point but I think the plural of embryo is embryos not embryoes?
  • The “SCNT Research in Australia” section is a great idea but I think you need a bit more specific information about what they are researching? And could this section possibly be integrated to the links to research labs and researchers section?
  • The choice and number of references is really good, but some of the references appear a few times... I’m not sure if this is something to do with the wiki system because I’ve seen this a couple of times but it would be good if it could be consolidated.
  • I think some of the dot points in the ‘Future Directions’ section need to be elaborated on if they are to be included? For instance what are ‘serial transfer’ and ‘activation procedure’, and how do they relate to the future of SCNT? I also don’t quite understand the first sentence in the ‘Future directions’ section… I think this may need rewording?
  • If the ‘ethics’ section drew on any ideas other than your own you may need a few citations in there?

--z3252005 12:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Hey Group 10. This is a very good project. Your page is structured well and the use of headings and sub-headings were appropriate. The method is very clear and concise. Some improvements I can suggest are:

  • "Stem cells are progenitor cells that an undergo continual self-renewal whilst remaining undifferentiated in function" an should be can.
  • You should put a copyright on the student drawn diagram. Have a look at editing basics on the website.
  • Before you start using abbreviations make sure you write out what it is the first time you use it. eg. PBS and EDTA.
  • "The use of SCNT can also be helpful to even create the extinct species, if any tissues o cells are available." o should be or and also you should leave out even. I think you guys should just have a proof read to fix these small issues.
  • I believe your Ethics & SCNT.JPG image is a student drawn diagram but it does not have a reference and copyright. Don't forget to add this.
  • In my opinion it would be better if you guys put Links to Research Laboratories and Researchers section before the references and glossary. This is just my opinion.

Overall you guys have put together a great page. It is understandable and well structured. Great job.


--Joseph Chuk 08:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Your project is intersting and I have leanrt a lot about somatic cell nuclear transfer. The methodology part is clearly described step by step and using a table to compare the advantages and disadvantages is very good. I also like the ethic parts making the project unique to others. Just one thing it might be better putting future directions at the end of the project. Overall well done!

--Katiana Shaw 03:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Hi Group 10 - I think you have done really well and have produced a really great project. There is very little to fault. Here are a couple thoughts:

  • The intro may be a bit too long (some of that information may be able to fall into other sections) and I think the Variations of SCNT technique should go after the methodology.
  • The student diagram is really good and I think you have used pictures and the table well.
  • I like how you have looked at the individual people who have historically contributed to this technique as well as giving a brief overview of the history.
  • The steps are very clearly outlined which makes it easy to understand and I particularly like the inclusion of the ethics and links to Australia sections.

This project is very well researched and presents the information in a way that is interesting and is easy to understand. Only really needs a change or two to the structure and then a final edit for spelling and grammar. Well done!


Hey Group 10, I really liked your project page. I found it very informative and learnt quite a lot about somatic cell nuclear transfer. It is clear that you have all put in a lot of effort and it has been reflected in the quality of your work.

  • I liked the student drawn diagram - it was very simple but brought across the point effectively. however you may want to copyright your drawing.
  • Perhaps try to reduce the length of the introduction.
  • the history section is the right length - i felt it gave me just the right amount of information on the history of SCNT without going to overboard and overloading my brain with unnecessary information.
  • The Method is quite long but it is evident that there must be quite a lot of detail in the method so you have done well to summarise that into a smaller amount writing.
  • I especially like the Ethics section - I felt it was an excellent idea seeing as the topic is so new and an alternative to stem cell research.

--Emily Wong 23:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)



Hi Group 10! First of all, great choice of topic and good work on the project so far. Your project is easy to follow, informative and interesting- you've obviously put in quite a bit of work. There are a few things I'd swap around order wise to make to flow a bite better (but only in my opinion obviously)- i think the Variations of the SCNT Technique section should go after the Methodology (so we know what you are varying first!), the "Brief History of Stem Cell Research" and "Historical Development of SCNT" could perhaps be merged or at least altered so that they follow on from each other better and/or use the same format (i.e. use dates or research groups but not a mix of both). A few of the sections, particularly the "Ethics" and "History", but also sections of the "Applications", lack sufficient referencing to make them seem objective and not like broad sweeping statements. Also, I noticed that the reference to the paper for Fulka et al in the "Future Directions" section is from 1998- in my opinion this is way too old to still be completely relevant, particularly in this section! If you do want to use information taken from this paper you need to address the fact that a lot of it (presumably) would no longer be completely accurate- just my take on it though. There are a few sentences which probably need restructuring, but nothing a proof read won't fix. With a little bit of tweaking you'll have a great piece of work- well done! --Louisa Frew 11:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


--Begum Sonmez 10:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Hello Group 10

  • Introduction is too long. If you still want to keep the information, put the information on the developing embryo under its own heading.
  • ‘Stem cells are progenitor cells that can undergo continual self-renewal whilst remaining undifferentiated in function’
  • I don’t know what the image Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) Video is showing. I think it is inessential. The student-drawn image is sufficient enough.
  • The video under intro was helpful although this could go under methodology.
  • The Variations of the SCNT Technique section could be placed after or before the Methodology. They seem separated and unrelated as it is.
  • The ‘Brief History’ section was not relective of its title. I like the information given, I’d say just change the title.
  • The image 'Stem cells from IVF’ is, to me, irrelevant at its present location.
  • It felt like there was too much information under Methodology, especially under Step 2 and 6. For example, under Step 6, the author wrote: ‘Due to ethical issues, the transplantation of human blastocysts in reproductive cloning has not occurred to date.’ This could be put under the Ethics section. Little changes like this could really make a difference.
  • Is the application of SCNT restricted to Veterinary and Human Med. If it isn’t a brief mention of other applications would be nice.
  • There is no in-text citations under ‘Cell Therapy using dedifferentiated stem cells’ (Applications). Just make sure that you include where you got the information from.
  • I always love tables (good use of a table was made for Adv. And Diadv.).
  • I think there is a slight grammatical problem with: ‘According to Fulka et al.[38],describes about questions not yet fully solved but must be solved for Nuclear Transfer technique in future.’ It should read something like ‘Fulka et al.[38] described aspects of SCNT (I’m guessing the ‘questions’ are about SCNT, it wasn’t mentioned in the original sentence) that is not yet solved. These problems must be addresses for the future use of the Nuclear Transfer Technique.’
  • I think the SCNT Research in Australia part was a great way to end the page.
  • It would be nice to have ‘Links to Research Lab…’ straight after ‘SCNT Research in Australia’.

Sorry, didn't mean to write so much. Overall, this seemed to me a very well researched technique. It seems that all the major facts and problems were covered. Most of the images and the first video aided my learning process. Just some changes and some little ones could do the trick! Well done.


Hey guys. You're project looks very solid. It has many different sections which really gives you a comprehensive look at stem cells. It looks well referenced but I would look at some of the images' copyrights as some of them look like you have just sourced where you have gotten them from without any copyright disclosures. The other area which may need looking at is the explanation of terms. The glossary is a good method of doing this, but linking it with the text or including more would be a good option. When you read the page, there are terms which i am unfamiliar with (such as progenitor cells or pluripotent potential) and while some of these are explained later, it is difficult to follow the text without an immediate definition, if that makes sense. However, it's a small thing and the rest of the page is excellent. --z3253199 04:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


--Jae Choi 11:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, Juliana and Ozgur

You guys have done really well for the project.

Well organised structure, clearly described, lots of interesting pictures including a links to video (this is a really good idea!). You got a good introduction with a clear idea of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer technique and nicely organised history part with the major issues. The method of SCNT is well explained step by step.

Honestly, it is really hard for me to point out the mistakes or the things that I would like to comment on. However, if I have to pick up something, I would like to comment on the “Advantages and Disadvantages” part. Compared to other parts, it is too short and less likely explained and no references are provided for the last two points of “Advantage” part.

Overall, you guys have done a great job. Cheers.



Hi Andrew

I have added picture next to your video file link, but not sure about copyright issue here...but if you think it will be a problem just get rid of it. and thanks for fixing "technique"part. I was gonna reference it yesterday but I was half asleep and half awake all day. I have added few more words in glossary part and gonna finish it this weekend (hopefully!) or anyone can volunteer!haha. With Ian Wilmut's image copyright, I haven't heard anything yet, so I might look for aother image T.T Everyone have a good weekend and Our page look owesome! :)

Jules


Hey Juliana,

Hope you get well soon! no worries about the project though - apparently Dr Hill has decided to extend the peer review start date to next week and so it won't be this week. yay time to iron out stuff!

i might edit the roslin/hononolu bit cos that is meant to be in our own words, and if we just use it without paraphrasing, we might get the plagiarism thing ahhh, but we're still editing so it's not a big problem yet.

A.


Hi guys, I'm so sorry I've uploaded so late...Forgive me if you guys were worried about project. I was fever last night, just coundln't sit down on the desk... and plus I uploaded and there was webpage conflict!(took me more time to do it all again) I won't be able to attend the lab class today (I don't wanna spread germs to you guys! )



Hi Andrew~ that was quick~!!!kk I like your drawing!! Jules

and Ozgar, this is for you [[1]] it will link you to last year's embryology project. if you look at section8. current research part, it might be helpful

I can't save picture in the lib computer;;;;;;;;;; I gotta do it at home dr. Hwang's image: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5252449 dR.thompson: http://www.biotechlearn.org.nz/themes/biotech_therapies/images/stem_cells_from_ivf


Hi Everyone,

I've added some pictures to make it less boring - yeah the text was getting a bit overwhelming i agree.

To Jules, sorry I don't think I was clear before - I liked the future directions/cytoplast age bit cos I could kinda elaborate on it, but you deleted it (^-^ he he) so I added it back in, but the extra bit I added was for karyoplast age instead. But it's been fixed now so yeah - so sorry for any misunderstanding cos it's very related and helpful.

Yeah a lot of my previous post was done before my computer froze so I didn't do some of the stuff i said i would.

i've removed the current results section and integrated it into the methods bit - mainly cos i seemed to be repeating myself in methods and current results so yeah.

the adv/disadv has been correctly formatted (removed the blaa bits).

a note about cystic fibrosis has been added to the applications bit - just to elaborate on it a bit clearer - no problems there!

with glossary, i've placed links next to words in the methods bit that link to wikipedia pages. i've gone through methods and intro and added words/definitions to the glossary. Some words i haven't added cos i've explained their usage in their same sentence so don't want to repeat again.

apart from that, i think everything is good so far. yay have a good night and see you tomorrow!


Hi guys, hope you all enjoyed long weekend~! ^^* Well, I think the web page looks nice and if we can upload some more pictures, it will be even better.Because it looks bit boring... and Andrew I deleted what you mentioned. 'What are Cloning Techniques?' bit 'SCNT' yeah, I also found it's repeative. with Future directions section, I kind da helping Ozgar, but you guys can delete it if it's unrelated. I've checked methods section and it looks totally fine! may be some images?? to visualise? and with Current results part, Can you put some more current research/journals?

and please start to put some glossary and reference as well..... C you all tomorrow then~! ^^

Jules



Hi Everybody again,

I've pretty much finished the methods bit now - please read and check.

I've revised the intro a bit ie. make it sound simpler and easier to read (i think? ^-^) A link to the Stem Cell Controversy wikipedia page has been placed here as well.

With the 'What are Cloning Techniques?' bit - I've renamed that to 'Variations of the SCNT Technique'. Also in that same section, I'm not sure whether we should keep the Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer section cos I've kinda mentioned it already in the intro (???help). The diagram is definitely a keeper though! yay.

I've also kinda intruded a bit in the future directions section especially the note for 'cytoplast age' - sorry to whoever did that bit.

In regards to the comment in future directions that reads "may be we can also mention about what are the good and bad things can occur from advanced clononing techniques" - i've mentioned the premature deaths of cloned offspring, abnormalities, obese offspring etc.. in the disadvantages of SCNT section. Also, I've mentioned the c-Myc factor can lead to fatal cancers in the future directions as well. Apart from that i'm not so sure...

In terms of advantages and disadvantages of SCNT, what you see is all I could kinda come up with. sorry.

Apart from that, at the moment, i'm still double checking the methods just to be sure, but I think that's it.

A.



Hi Everybody,

I'm going to do the methods bit now. I've added in Current Results section as to indicate where current researchers are at.

Juliana, I haven't checked the 'cloning by SCNT' article yet, but I will do so after the methods is up (so at least I have something up for you guys to check).

Thanks ^-^ A.


Guys~ I have done the application and some of future direction part, hopefully it was helpful :) and you guys can add any historic event in History section. of course I don't mind! :) Jules~


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9819572 Cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Fulka J Jr, First NL, Loi P, Moor RM. Bioessays 1999 Sep;21(9):804. PMID: 9819572 This is good resource i guess. -Juliana-

Have a good long weekend~~


Hey Andrew, What have u found for methods ...etc? I have searched for the applciations and found a few articles about the uses of SCNT. We also should think about future directions. Anyways we can chat more in the lab. Cheers... --Ozgur Tuna 05:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

--- Hey Juliana & Oz,

Don't worry about yesterday ^-^ Yeah, best way to contact me is my zmail (z3256682@...) cos I cancelled my mobile a few weeks ago so yeah (sorry!)

I've done a bit of the intro, but there's bits we might need to add later..

I'm happy to do the methodology and something else as well - I'll wait to see what Oz wants to do (not in rush cos lots of methods to keep me busy!!!!)

About the reference bit, I agree. Also I kinda vaguely remember Mark saying how he would show the class how to reference or something like that in the later labs.

Have fun!


with reference part, how about we number them and when we reference it, just write down the number from reference list.

for example,

SCNT (Somatic cell nuclear transfer), also known as therapeutic cloning, is the transplanting of a patient's DNA into an unfertilized egg in order to grow stem cells that could cure devastating diseases. (3)

reference 1.E.Patrick Essential Biology 2.Tim, Cell Biology 3.The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research

Let me know~



Hi Andrew, This is Juliana, so sorry about yesterday. I tried to call you but you won't answer the phone (I got number from Jay,Korean guy) I actually planed sub topics as well which is very similar to what you wrote down. I guess it's better to dicide whose going to do what sub topics. I'm happy to do Timeline of SCNT and also History part. I will do some research during Easter and hopefully comes up with something when we see next time. If anyone wants to discuss about the project during easter holiday, I'm leaving my contact details in case 0433 039 707 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              0433 039 707      end_of_the_skype_highlighting or belebele85@msn.com

Cheers,


Hi Everyone,

Just added a basic plan of our project to our page so we have something to look at, and can work with. Have comments under the sections.

Happy Easter!

z3256682 (31st March 2010)


What exactly is SCNT?

SCNT (Somatic cell nuclear transfer), also known as therapeutic cloning, is the transplanting of a patient's DNA into an unfertilized egg in order to grow stem cells that could cure devastating diseases. The promise of SCNT is that the patient's body would accept these cells after transplantation.

How can therapeutic cloning, or SCNT, help cure disease?

Many of the most debilitating diseases and conditions are caused by damage to cells and tissue. When combined with stem cell research, SCNT could be used to develop new and innovative treatments — such as replacement cells and tissue — that allow organs to function again and restore hope to millions of families. SCNT is also integral to improving scientists' understanding of how stem cells develop. This new knowledge could speed the search for new treatments —and possibly cures — for some of the most complex diseases that plague our society. In particular, SCNT could allow researchers to move stem cell research to a new level, developing stem cell therapies that are specifically tailored to an individual's medical condition. Moreover, SCNT could help scientists develop stem cells that will not be attacked and destroyed by the body's immune system. This holds particular promise for patients who suffer from diabetes, heart disease, and spinal cord injuries.

From the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR)

Juliana Lee


A few links from pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19934592 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19812298 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20305985 --Ozgur Tuna 06:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)



Hi Everyone,

About the overall structure, i think we should have the Brief Ideas bit, which explores Stem cell therapy generally, and then have a following section specific to Somatic cell nuclear transfer. So the stem cell therapy overview should be fairly brief (not sure exactly how brief), and then we should concentrate on SCNT...

Anyway...Early days still.. --z3256682 06:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


Guyz we can dig in a bit in http://www.stemcellchannel.com.au/ to get ideas/information.

I had a look at it. Gives information about how the stemcell research ahs started, what is stemcel...etc.

--Ozgur Tuna 06:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


how to upload picture!

(

)

and don't forget to include PMID!


Researches in new uses of stem cells, stems cells in future. --Ozgur Tuna 06:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


Brief Ideas,,,just my thinking

INTRODUCTION

1. what is stem cells?

  • stem cell
  • somatic stem cell

2.How do you make stem cells? where is it derived from?

3. use of stem cell (in broad term) --Jin Lee 06:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


project guidelines (Mark Hill's speech)

timeline

changes with technique

review articles and cite

research articles using technique and application to cell bio

images of cells (requires original captions, citation and PMID)

min 1 diagram that group has drawn itself (as ppt file) to show how technique is carried out or something out.

reference list for all (bibliography) not JUST wikipedia! --z3256682 06:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia Link for SCNT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_nuclear_transfer --z3256682 06:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


http://cellbiology.med.unsw.edu.au/cellbiology/index.php?title=2009_Lecture_21 --z3251370 06:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/s/somatic_cell_nuclear_transfer.htm

--z3251370 06:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)