Talk:Group 1 Project - Fluorescent-PCR

From CellBiology
Revision as of 14:44, 7 May 2010 by Z3219308 (talk | contribs)

--Katiana Shaw 04:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Group 1 - Here are my thoughts on your project:

  • The introduction and history are very comprehensive. Well done!
  • I am not familiar with Fluorescent PCR and found some of the text a bit too detailed and complex for me to gain a good understanding of this technique.
  • I like that you include a comparison with conventional PCR but you could maybe format this information in a table so that it is easier to understand.
  • Great analysis of applications of this technique overall - perhaps you could include some links to journal papers in this section so those who are interested can follow up on this technique.
  • Your diagrams are excellent - just need to reference them as your own diagrams!

Overall a great project! Well done!

--David Williamson 06:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • The outline of headings and subheadings is very clear and logical.
  • The many pictures are helpful in understanding. The pictures you guys did yourselves are very impressive!
  • The level of depth is good and appropriate for the page.
  • The meaning of the first sentence wasn’t immediately clear to me, maybe this could be reworded? Does it mean Genetic expression has become the basis of clinical diagnosis? Or that our ability to measure genetic expression has become the basis of clinical diagnosis?
  • The tense is a bit mixed in some sections making it a little hard to read—eg: “Gene amplification accounts for the high sensitivity of PCR (present tense) where single copies of genes could be analysed” (future tense). If “can” was used instead of “could” this would read more smoothly (in my opinion). Or “Basic PCR, invented in 1984, generated large quantities of DNA sequence (past tense) if the DNA sequences of the primer molecules are known” (present tense). This sentence could use “were known” instead of “are known” to make the whole sentence past tense, or “generates” instead of “generated” to make the whole sentence present tense.
  • A glossary could be helpful

--Begum Sonmez 11:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Hey Group 1, here are my views on your project:

  • I liked the introduction. It was general to begin with, and the author introduced the technique of PCR without disturbing the flow of the paragraph. Although, I felt that the accompanying photo made no relation to the intro.
  • Development of PCR:
    • Too much of the information is in paragraph format. I understand some of this info is better kept as it is in paragraphs, but some of it (those with dates) can be put under the ‘Basic PCR Timeline’. Nice work on the timeline.
    • There is also a bit of grammatical erros, like: ‘As it proceed to mid 1990s, PCR was used as a diagnostic and screening tool for genetic diseases.’ This is just one of a few mistakes I picked up on, but just read over the section again.
  • PLEASE NOTE: The referencing and description of most of the images on the page is not complete or present at all, though I’m sure this will be fixed. Images that are composed by a student, like the ‘Inverse PCR’ image, must be referenced and must include the student number or name of the author.
  • Principles of Fluorescent-PCR Procedures:
    • The ‘Polymerase Chain Reaction’ image was a great reference for me whilst reading the related text.
    • I liked the use of sub-headings under ‘Fluorescent Analysis’, thought is all that information necessary under ‘Gel Electrophoresis’? Great use of pictures though! Try disposing of unnecessary words, and sentences,
  • I think Comparison against Conventional PCR was one of my favorites because of its clear structure.
  • There is too much text under Identification of Retroviruses. Try to limit the amount of text in this section to 1 paragraph per application.

Overall, I felt that this page was informative and understandable.

--z3256682 10:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, Your project reads well and flows logically. I especially liked the clear diagrams of what is actually happening in the PCR/F-PCR process as well as your text explanation. I didn't feel there were many problems - mainly small ones such as the caption for your picture reading 'Tap DNA Polymerase' while your text refers to it as 'Taq DNA Polymerase' (not sure if that was just a mistake or is a different polymerase altogether?), and also under Myotonic dystrophy section, your first sentence has an error: ' is also and autosomal dominant disease' (just a very little mistake that's all). Apart from that, I agree with the previous posts about image referencing - that if you illustrated them yourself, you should label them in the Comments section as such, because I think they are quite impressive. Also, I would encourage you to put a Glossary - I understood your project perfectly fine, but there will be students whose science backgrounds vary so they mightn't understand all the terms. Otherwise, very good!

Overall, the project is well organised and structured. I felt like some of it was a bit repepitive (PCR process was explained twice and some images were basically the same). The section on the fluorescent PCR was well done and the applications section was interesting. I would like to have seen a bit more research, with relevant referencing, as at times it felt a bit basic. All in all, it's looking good :) --z3329502 07:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

--z3252340 07:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Your site is very interesting. I learnt alot about PCR which i had not known from previous courses. Referencing of images could be improved. If the image is your own work, copyright them (to protect them so no one can steal them) and state from what image they are based upon. A description of what the image is about would also help - I would click on the image but not know what they were refering to.

--z3269335 07:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Hey guys,

I think you guys have done a great job. Actually I have learnt about Fluorescent-PCR before, however your project let me to know more about Fluorescent-PCR and it is interesting in knowing its applications on current researches. Well done. It is also a nice idea that your group has included sufficient diagrams and some self-drawn diagrams, which help explaining a complex idea. Moreover, it is great to see that most of the diagram include appropriate references. However, maybe you just missed to reference one of them PCR.png. Additionally, if a glossary is included, that may help someone whom haven' t learnt about Fluorescent-PCR, as they may not understand some of the scientific terms.

Overall, you have done a great job. Keep it up :)

--Joseph Chuk 07:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC) The comparison and application parts are very good and clear. Images are relevant but seems better putting them all on the right side. The principle and procedures are too detailed that is a bit confusing.

--Samantha Cabrera 07:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)hjhkjhkhkhui

Hello boys!

Sorry for late reply, I could not get access to this website so doing applications before lab, hopefully will have lots done by then.

See you in lab! --Mari Fushimi 01:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tom and Mari

Nice work, Tom. But, I will still need two more applications for the PCR to make it three applications in total. Please get most of the assigned tasks completed by tonight. Subsequently, we should improve on the layout and the reference links of the wikipage. Hopefully, we will get a good grading for our page.

Cheers, Clyde --z3178608 22:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Boys!

Clyde awesome set up of timeline and structure, I am in the process of recapping a brief definiton of F-PCR and conventional PCR (C-PCR) to put before the comparisons. Also I am about to read a whole lot of other articles in bed to get my head around it a bit more, its being a while since biochem days! I'm sorry for replying so late guys, nursing assignments have been hectic but I'm going to solidly work on this for the next couple of days! Over and out.


--Mari Fushimi 13:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tom The magnesium is in the buffer and the buffer could be Tris solution. It is added to facilitate the enzymatic activity of the polymerase therefore acting as a cofactor.

Clyde --z3178608 00:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, i've decided to do the timeline for PCR. Also Clyde, is magnesium in the buffer or is it THE buffer? Just wondering, cause you may have the wording wrong. Tom--Thomas Fox 23:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tom

I think Dr Hill did mention about the deadline during the lab. It is on week 8. And the other groups will be evaluating our wikipage and giving advice for improvement. We have to amend the wikipage accordingly and submit as our final project to be graded.


--z3178608 02:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great Clyde! I agree that the workload should be managed equally, so it's a team effort, as it should be. btw, when is the project due? Tom--z3187043 02:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tom and Mari

I was wondering if you are agreeable with the project plan? If everything's fine, we should probably proceed with the contents for each section of the web page. I understand that everyone has their own commitments, so I'm suggesting that we could probably delegate the workload equivalently among us? I'm currently working on the principles of F-PCR in terms of its underlying mechanism. Perhaps, both of you could decide on either the development of PCR or the section on comparison against conventional PCR. For the last section, I think each of us could work on one current application of F-PCR, which makes it three applications in total. Can you let me know your thoughts about this arrangement? I'm truly sorry if I sounded too pressurizing because the deadline is approaching. I am confident that our teamwork would make this project a success with pleasant teamwork experience.

Hope to hear from you soon!

Best regards,Clyde --z3178608 09:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Clyde, the layout and plan for our project looks good, it was along the lines of what i was thinking, which is a good thing. What do you think Bonnie? Don't forget we need to include our student designed figure somewhere, i'm suggesting the fluorescent pcr procedure section, but we should decide as a group. Sorry about the slow reply, bt i was away for most of the break, and recovering from an incident i will tell you about. Also, we could think about splitting up the workload of the project into smaller more easily handled sections ie. the sections below?--z3187043 11:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tom and Mari

How are you? For this project, I am thinking of including the history, procedures of fluorescent PCR, comparison of conventional PCR with fluorescent PCR, application of F-PCR in molecular biology analysis followed by the conclusion. The procedures would cover the underlying mechanism in the DNA amplification, fluorescence tagging and analysis. The history provides a brief description that begins with the development of conventional PCR, which eventually improvise into F-PCR. In addition, I have applied for article reuse for one of the journal article before we could utilize the material. If there is any suggestions, we could discuss through the discussion board or arrange a meet-up.


Best regards, Clyde

--z3178608 08:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)