Difference between revisions of "Talk:Group 3 Project- Immunohistochemistry"

From CellBiology
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
 +
--[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 04:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Lab 8 Assessment - 24 student reviews.
 +
 
--[[User:Z3162393|Mari Fushimi]] 03:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 
--[[User:Z3162393|Mari Fushimi]] 03:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 
Hi group 3-here is my feedback:
 
Hi group 3-here is my feedback:

Revision as of 15:21, 12 May 2010

--Mark Hill 04:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Lab 8 Assessment - 24 student reviews.

--Mari Fushimi 03:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Hi group 3-here is my feedback:

  • Overall I loved it!
  • The key points relating to the topic that your group was allocated show they clearly described because:the layout is fantastic as it is well balanced with the positioning of the tables (which also made it really easy to read and understand) and diagrams; the content is concise and gramatically correct; I loved the rawness of the hand drawn diagrams it was a great touch and very appropriate as we are students
  • Great amount of references just double check your references and I agree with the comment below on moving the history further up the page.

--Samantha Cabrera 01:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Ensure that images are referenced and copyright info written. I liked all your tables of comparing advantages and disadvantages. Great reference list - shows thorough research!

--Joanne Raffel 01:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Nice wiki page. I think you should reword the phrse that you use for descirbing your pictures, otherwise I really liked your pictures. The comparison within the methods section was excellently presented and a good idea. I thought your history was a bit short, especially with the subheadings, as well as the glossary. Otherwise congratulations.

--Paula Ordonez 23:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Hi group 3, Each well selected subheading is followed by well organised text as many of them are organised into steps or tables, making it easy to follow and comprehend. Furthermore, the the self-drawn diagram adds substantially to my understanding, and the other numerous other photos keeps the page interesting. Just check your references and you'll have an excellent page.


--Erika Unsworth 23:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Great work group 3! Here are a few thoughts I have:

  • Good amount of content
  • Easy to understand
  • Student-drawn diagrams are very helpful
  • Great use of tables and formatting
  • Check over your referencing- the first image isnt referenced and some references aren't cited properly in the final reference list e.g. websites.

--Darren Dizon 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Very good page about immunohistochemistry! All the titles were well thought out and the content was neither too over the top or dumbed down. I enjoyed the drawn pictures and found them very helpful in the explanation of concepts. In terms of glossary i think you might just wanna chuck in the Acronyms used throughout the text though! Peace Out

--Thomas Fox 21:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Heys guys, great job with the page, i now understand what immunohistochemisrty is all about. few things:

  • Glossary could be added to
  • Very well thought out advantages and disadvantages layout

--z3254509 21:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice job, the pictures were really helpful for explaining the text, and the advantages and disadvantages part for each technique was well set out. Points for improvement:

  • Glossary could be a little longer
  • Consider moving the history higher up the page, then you can put the general processes and the methods together.

Really good job, I am very impressed.

--z3269335 10:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Hey gusy,

You guys have done a good job. Your project has an organized layout with some tables and diagrams helping in explaining the complex mechanism of immunohistochemistry. However, please kindly noted that the correct citation of the content and images is one of the marking criteria. It would be nice if your group includes a correct reference for the diagram. Additionally, some of the references provided are not correctly cited. For some of them, only the title of the article is given or only the website is given.

If the references have been improved, then I am sure your group would do good in the final assessment. Good luck :)

--Dougall Norris 01:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, this was an awesome page, really well set out, great pictures that went perfectly with the text, a lot of info and a heap of references. The only real problems i could find, were that the pictures under the headings "Avidin-Biotin Complex Method (ABC Method)" and "sensitivity" werent referenced, which was a shame because they were great, and maybe you could add another heading like limitations or applications. All good though, well done.


--Jae Choi 13:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, Great project page you have made. Here's some of my points for this page.

  • Impressive methods part. With the simplified drawings and Advantages & Disadvantages, each method is clearly described.
  • Incomplete Glossary part.
  • I think you forgot to add references for the process part.

Cheers.

--Jin Lee 12:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Hello Group3~ Firstly, Well done! This project was very informative and helpful to understand about immunohistochemistry. With Methods section, using table forms and the student drawn diagrams were visually very appealing. Also I liked the way you represent "adv and disadvantage" for each method.

Here is some of my suggestions for your page:

  • all the images should be copyright free. check the copyright information.
  • complete the Glossary section. it will be helpful for people who are not expert.
  • with the Process section, adding some images will be good for keeping this page visualizing .

Overall, very well prepared piece of work. Well done!


--z3178608 10:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Hello Group 3

This project provides an in-depth and comprehensive elaboration on the immunohistochemistry technique. Certain points about your web-page:

  • Introduction has given the reader a brief idea of immune response as elicited by the antibodies. This sets the basis of understanding the technique.
  • Simple timeline for the development process.
  • Detailed processes of the technique.
  • The principles of the method are clearly explained that enhance my understanding; and appropriate use of tables for the advantages and disadvantages.
  • Clear illustration of the mechanism through the use of diagrams.

Overall, this project is informative and generate my interest in immunohistochemistry. Awesome work!


--Joseph Chuk 06:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Your project is intersting and I have leanrt a lot about immunhistochemistry. The images and tables are all very helpful to understand the process. Good job! I think it seems better the history comes before the process and try to reference the images because it is part of the marking criteria. Overall well done!

--Angama Yaquobi 05:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Hi guys, a very interesting project with lots of beautiful and helpful diagrams. I enjoyed reading the webpage but the only thing which can make the webpage look even more complete is to add the reference for diagrams and also add some more terms in glossary. The project is very clear especially with the use of advantages and disadvantages headings and the amount of info under each section is also precise and clear. So fantastic work guys!!


Good Job group 3. The project looks well thought out, here are some points I thought might be useful: --Vishnnu Shanmugam 04:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

  • All images should contain a web link to the source and also copyright information. Some very appealing images in your project, well done.
  • Review of the references as entire paragraphs should have more than 1 reference.
  • Increase the glossary for words like “polymeric conjugates” and “avidin biotin enzyme complex”.
  • Student drawn diagram summarizing methods (Direct, indirect and PAP) needs more explanation under the picture.
  • Excellent time line, gets straight to the point, succinct!
  • Like the how you have tabled advantages and disadvantages for comparison
  • Try to add a few pictures summarizing the Process.


Overall, a concise, clear and well structured approach. I like the use of the tables for the advantages/disadvantages (apart from one being a lot wider than the other two- in my opinion it would look better if they were all the same dimensions!) and the hand-drawn diagrams are good but perhaps a little small. While being easy to understand, I feel that the project is based on a very small set of references and may be a little basic because of this. I'd really like to see more references to recent research and papers so it's not just a lesson in the foundational methods. With a few small additions and changes you'll have a great project! --Louisa Frew 13:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


--z3252833 07:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Hi guys!

A lot has already been said, but here are my thoughts. Overall, I really liked your use of simple language to describe the technique; it was easy to read and didn’t have me looking for the definition of scientific terms every four words (that said, there are quite a few acronyms and words in the text that aren’t in the glossary, and some words in the glossary don’t have descriptions yet, which could be worth having a look at). There are one or two spelling and punctuation typos you might want to fix (e.g. “The process called blocking, is used to reduce or limit the amount...” – there probably shouldn’t be a comma there; also, the word "Labelled" has been spelt "Labeled" in one of your headings). The student diagrams are eye-catching, simple and informative (though need to be labelled as student-drawn and a copyright statement should be written). The pictures used are relevant and well cited (however the “Labeled StreptAvidin Biotin (LSAB) Method” and “Polymeric Methods” pictures could perhaps do with a description under the pictures, and the former might benefit from some cropping – there’s a lot of white space). Other than that, I don’t have much to say – I think it’s pretty good; informative but not overloading for the reader, with comprehensive language and good use of summary tables at regular intervals. The only other thing I might suggest is mixing up the layout a bit, for example, breaking the page up by having some pictures on the left and tables on the right if that formatting is possible, but that’s just an idea and not so much a criticism. Well done!


--z3252005 06:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Hey Group 3. Your project explains this technique very well. However, as mentioned before I believe it would be better if you put the the process section after the history section and before the methods section. Just some other points to improve your project are:

  • Make sure to reference both your student diagrams and the images you have used. You can see what to include for referencing in the editing basics section of the website.
  • I think you may need some in-text references for the process section similar to your other sections
  • Also I was wondering why you guys left out an advantage and disadvantage table from the Labeled StreptAvidin Biotin (LSAB) Method and just wrote up a paragraph for it instead?? I think that those tables are quite effective and you should use it for this method as well.

I really liked the way the tables were used. This page effectively explains this complex technique and all its variations. Overall this was project very good.


Hey guys. kinda hard to say something original here as everything seems to have been said below. The layout is quality. I agree with david and possibly leaving out he details on immune system in the intro. If you guys could link your glossary to the instances they are used, it would solve that problem. This would also enable you to extend the glossary for other terms and abbreviations which would make your project some kind of monster that consumes the marks of other projects.--z3253199 06:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


--David Williamson 04:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Only an opinion- but I wonder if the introduction could do without the details about the immune system, and leave the focus on immunohistochemistry?
  • The student drawn diagrams are helpful. I’m not sure if he might penalise you for not making it more obvious that they’re your own work though?
  • I really like the way the page is written- it’s clear and simple to understand even for people that aren’t experts.
  • I think the structure could be changed a little- to me it makes more sense to put history, then the generalised method, then the specific methods, then the notes about controls and blocking.
  • The glossary is handy but I think it could do with some extra terms like all the abbreviations (PAP, ABC,LSAB etc). I know these are spelled out the first time they’re mentioned which is good- but if someone skips ahead to a different section they might not know what they are.
  • I think your reference list might need a little consolidation- like some of the same articles are given a few times, and I’m not sure if more detail is needed for the website references?

--z3256682 06:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, Overall I'm very impressed with how your group has condensed many complicated methods into understandable concepts. The advantages tables are well constructed, however others may say that some of the advantage/disadvantage points you bring up aren't backuped by citations, however that didn't detract from your project for me. As per the previous posts, definitely look at proper referencing of your images. In terms of possible additions, you could consider adding future developments to tell us how this large field is progressing and its latest additions, if any (again, not a big issue). Apart from that, really quite excellent!


--Begum Sonmez 01:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Hey Group 3, here are my views on your project:

  • Very well constructed Introduction. I liked the accompanying photo, though it needs to be properly refernced.
  • The The Process section is simple and clear, which I liked. Though I would have liked to see the Process section above the Method section (not the history section).
  • Good amount of Information, and consistent structure under History.
  • My favourite part is the Methods section because of its consistency in structure and it’s related accompanying pictures (which aided my understanding of the text). Although images must be referenced. Good use of colour. ALSO: The way the application has been integrated into the different Methods was an excellent idea. I have to say, 5STARS to this section.

Great Work Group 3.


Hey group 3!! Your project is pretty good. I really like the use of tables highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of the methods. The page is a good length and it also has a lot of information, showing that you have done a lot of work on it. The only thing I feel you need to work on is the referencing of your images and also giving a description of what the images are about. --Emily Wong 10:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)



Hey!

I was thinking about the project and I think to make it easier we should break it up into sections and divide it amongst ourselves. I briefly looked up our topic and apart from the stuff like history and what it is used for, there seems to be a huge number of techniques which fall under this umbrella. One website listed all these techniques like direct method, indirect method, PAP method, ABC method, etc. Maybe should discuss tomorrow how much detail we want to go into without making this epic. Also, thought I should let you know, there has been a death in my family and I will be up north near the Gold Coast from Thursday till Sunday without internet access. If you need to contact me for anything email my zmail cause it gets forwarded to my phone so at least I can stay in contact if need be.

Thanks!

--Katiana Shaw 12:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


This is what was we have decided to do for our project, though I should put it into writing on this site.

Basic outline - including umbrella definition and uses. Here is a basic definition. "Immunohistochemistry is the localization of antigens or proteins in tissue sections by the use of labeled antibodies as specific reagents through antigen-antibody interactions that are visualized by a marker such as fluorescent dye, enzyme, or colloidal gold." - http://www.ihcworld.com/introduction.htm

History/Timeline - we should include when each of the methods we intend to talk about came into use, etc.

There are heaps of methods used - Choose 9, take 3 each and research what they are (briefly), what they involve, advantages and disadvantages, what research/papers this method has been used in, etc. Methods include: "Blocking, Controls, Direct Method, Indirect Method, PAP Method, ABC Method, LSAB Method, Polymeric Method, CSA Method, Sensitivity Chart" - http://www.ihcworld.com/introduction.htm

Section on current advances/breakthroughs

Also, to compare the methods we need to find a way to compare them in an easily understandable way, ie. table with ticks and crosses.

Lets spend the rest of this week deciding who gets what methods and post any information we find up here.

--Katiana Shaw 06:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


Hey guys, found ths site that lists information about the different methods. http://www.novusbio.com/support/how-to/perform-immunohistochemistry.html I was thinking I'll just take the first three methods (direct, indirect and PAP) and you two can decide what you want to do. I've already got a fair bit of information and have started writing bits of it. Would be really good if you guys can post on here what you have done just so that we're all on the same page with where this is going. Thanks! --Katiana Shaw 02:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Found a basic timeline on the history; struggling to find more info on it.

http://anatomy.yonsei.ac.kr/slide/res/IHC99/tsld004.htm

This site is a google timeline. It has links to papers that have used immunohistochemisty in their research. Worth a look.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=history+of+immunohistochemistry&hl=en&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=uG_BS9v-L47o7APVxqDCCQ&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CC8Q5wIwCg

--z3219308 06:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a great page on immunhistochemisty. http://www.mesotheliomaweb.org/immunohistochemistry.htm Gives a great definition and goes into detail about the process.

http://www.ihcworld.com/_intro/ihc-methods.htm This page gives a brief overview of each of the methods. What methods are you two doing?

--z3219308 06:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello?? Ok so not sure what you guys are up to but you may notice I added some headings and have started writing the definition and all that. Finishing drafting my methods so will put those up in the next couple days and then we can keep adding to them and hopefully start adding the other methods and some pictures soon. --Katiana Shaw 10:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

hi guys, sorry for the extremely late response, been a bit caught up with things lately. ill take the ABC method, LSAB method and polymeric method. ill post up some work within the next week. --Julianna Lam 07:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


http://www.piercenet.com/Proteomics/browse.cfm?fldID=F95B91A9-3DC1-4B56-8E8D-59CA044A8BA7 this website has some information about ABC method and is also good because it lists the disadvantages and advantages of this method. --Julianna Lam 12:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


hi ive found this site based on the ABC method with 4 really good images explaining how it works. http://www.reactolab.ch/Vector/ABC%20Method.htm --Julianna Lam 09:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Julianna - This whole thing is due by week 8 which is next week. It is being peer-assessed by everyone else and then we can fix it up but it generally has to be completed. Just telling you this cause you weren't there last week and that's when he told us though he had told us earlier in the semester. I think we should aim at having everything done by this weekend so that we can spend monday and tuesday next week fixing it up a little and adding pictures and all that. ALSO we have to include a diagram that we have drawn. Im thinking it might be good to draw a diagram about how immunohistochemistry works in general because once everyone gets that concept it is easier to understand the different methods. Also, you guys might notice that I have included references after the entries that I have done - that is because Mark told us he would show us how to include references so that it automatically made a reference list and I have no idea how to do it. Will ask him tomorrow if he can possibly show us. Jess what methods are you doing? --Katiana Shaw 05:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


thanks for letting me know. im writing up the ABC method now. so that section should be done by tonight. the other two methods i will work on during the week. i have no idea on how to do the reference thing either so yeh its probably a good idea to ask him tomorrow. anyways see you in class.

--Julianna Lam 06:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey can you both read the process that I wrote up and read a couple of the sites that I had put on this page earlier and see if I have done that right. I'm still not entirely confident I understand the process properly, espcially with all the different methods. Thanks!!! --Katiana Shaw 06:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Julianna - Have you got all your stuff ready to add??? This is getting peer-reviewed tomorrow! --Katiana Shaw 10:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

hey, yeh ive got all the information ready in a book that i borrowed. tomorrow i have three- four hours free before lab class and im going to write everything up. has jess got her stuff ready yet?--Julianna Lam 15:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

hey i've pretty much finished the intro, the process (though read over it), the history and my three methods. I went ahead and formatted it and I already formatted your advantages and disadvantages Julianna. I hope you dont mind. Basically just copy what I have done for the table and you should be able to copy it ok..took my a while to get the table looking normal and not all over the page. Of course fix any mistakes that you find in mine and i hope its all ok. See you soon! --Katiana Shaw 18:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

im having trouble adding pictures in, so ill paste the link onto the discussion page and we'll do it while we're in class, sorry for the late notice !!!--Julianna Lam 02:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ihcworld.com/_intro/ihc-methods.htm http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC500802/pdf/jclinpath00268-0018.pdf --Julianna Lam 04:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

reference - diagnostic immunohistochemistry, david dabbs second edition


hi jess, can you please add in your work by next week's due date. either research on other methods used in immunohistochemistry or give some examples of it's applications or current research. thanks. --Julianna Lam 04:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey jess, I'm getting a bit concerned that your part hasn't been uploaded yet. Would be really good if you could have it up before Wed so that Julianna and I can at least have a look and we are content as a group with what is being handed in to be peer reviewed. Also Julianna, do you reckon we should add more about uses of our methods? --Katiana Shaw 03:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

i think under each method we should give one example of how the method has been used? i'll try do that tonight or if not tomorrow. --Julianna Lam 03:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

i hope you're aware that i will be letting mark know that you havent contributed at all to this assignment if nothing is up by wednesday. --Julianna Lam 10:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok Julianna, I will look into some examples. Will try to add them tonight, just to add a bit more. I'm worried that Jess wont add stuff... Do we have to do her part if she doesnt? I forgot to ask Mark what to do in this case...I'm trying to get into Masters, I cant get a bad mark for this otherwise my average will come down! --Katiana Shaw 08:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

girls, i will have the stuff up by tomorrow morning. I'm really sorry that I have yet to do it but last week I damaged my knee at hockey and its suspected that I'm going to need surgery. The last few days have been filled with doctors appointments and scans and such. I'm on cructhes and in a hell of a lot of pain. I will have my stuff done. It will be fine. I am really sorry it hasn't been put up yet, but it will be. --Jessie Tomkins 08:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

i think the length of our assignment is pretty much similiar to the rest of the groups so it should be fine. it would be good to add some examples, ill try find some information today before lab class. we still have a week or two after the peer assessment to fix everything up.--Julianna Lam 01:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


http://vet.sagepub.com/content/44/2/137.full --Julianna Lam 02:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.asianaoms.org/toc/v19n2p89.pdf--Julianna Lam 03:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

i added a section on sensitivity with a diagram i made. give it a read and tell me what you think? i'm not going to be at the lab today because of the whole crutches/swollen knee thing. can't drive or public transport it so makes getting there a bit hard! --Jessie Tomkins 06:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Jess we have started peer assessment of each others projects. This is due next week. Basically you have to write your assessment of each group on their discussion page. Put your signature and follow it with your comment. NO changes can be made to our page from 5pm TODAY!!!! Anything you want to change or add has to wait until next week AFTER everyone has assessed our page. --Katiana Shaw 07:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know Katiana! i think i may have put a small amount of stuff up but i'm sure Mark will understand. I also have found a great picture for the CSA sectin, but how do I know if i can use it or not? let me know p.s what did i miss in the lab?--Jessie Tomkins 08:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)