Difference between revisions of "Talk:Group 7 Project - Monoclonal Antibodies"

From CellBiology
Line 1: Line 1:
--[[User:Z3251370|Ozgur Tuna]] 05:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Good work guys! Your page is well organized and very informative about monoclonal antibodies. It is obvious how much research you have made. Page has a very good use of images. Good overall work!
My suggestions:
* The way you showed References must be fixed. You have a long References section but there is no link between the articles and where they belong throughout the page.
* Glossary can be a bit longer with more definitions of terms.
* Use of video is a good idea.
* History section is too much detailed and long.
--[[User:Z3162393|Mari Fushimi]] 04:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
--[[User:Z3162393|Mari Fushimi]] 04:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi team 7-here is my feedback
Hi team 7-here is my feedback

Revision as of 15:09, 12 May 2010

--Ozgur Tuna 05:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Good work guys! Your page is well organized and very informative about monoclonal antibodies. It is obvious how much research you have made. Page has a very good use of images. Good overall work!

My suggestions:

  • The way you showed References must be fixed. You have a long References section but there is no link between the articles and where they belong throughout the page.
  • Glossary can be a bit longer with more definitions of terms.
  • Use of video is a good idea.
  • History section is too much detailed and long.

--Mari Fushimi 04:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Hi team 7-here is my feedback

  • Really great awesome job!
  • What was missing for me was: history-more concise as it looked intimidating to read at first glance; layout-between the introduction and the 'current applications' it was very wordy, the layout needs to break up all the text as there is so much of it; hand drawn diagram-very clear
  • References-in text referencing the way the other groups have done so you get quick access to reference list would have decreased the amount of words in the text.

--Shoahaib Karimi 04:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Great topic and great summarisation of it all, great use of references and glossary, can you include more images in the introduction and history.

--Jin Lee 04:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Hello group7, firstly, Well done guys!This page was easy to comprehend and very concise. The student drawn diagram was excellent! However I think the History section was bit long. Other than that I don't really have any critical comment. Well done!

--Mark Hill 04:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Lab 8 Assessment - 20 student reviews.

--z3252833 04:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Firstly, wow. This is really in depth. You’ve obviously done a lot of research and a lot of work on this page, and well done for that! I can in no way fault your research or effort here. The only really critical comment I have about this is that because you’ve researched so much, you want to convey it all to your reader, and what you’ve done to do that is use a lot of dense text. It’s really interesting stuff, but can be a little hard to read at times just because of the sheer volume! If I may, I suggest trying to condense one or two of your sections into tables or dot points, just to make it less imposing for the reader. For example, the history is really in-depth and takes up several paragraphs – could this be done in a dot-point timeline, or even a diagrammatical one? You even have a diagrammatical timeline there, so is it really necessary to have so much other text under ‘History’? Your student diagram is really good; clear, informative, and well-cited. All your other pictures are well cited too, so good on you for that! I wonder, though, if you are going to have so much text, perhaps you should try to fit in more pictures and diagrams, if not to summarise some of the information you have in the test just to give the eye something else to look at other than black text on a white page. Also, maybe try to mix up the pictures a bit by having some pictures on the left and some on the right, to break up the text some more. Other than that, all I can say is just some formatting stuff – perhaps instead of a reference list you could try the in-text referencing, so when you click on a number you’re brought to that reference in the list. Overall, well done to you – you’ve put in a lot of effort here!

--Jessie Tomkins 04:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Hey guys, awesome job! Here a a few things to think about:

  • Use one type of referencing and perhaps have numbering throughout the text.
  • The timeline was a bit lengthy and indepth. Perhaps cutting down some of this would be beneficial.

--Erika Unsworth 03:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Great work guys! Here's a few thoughts:

  • Great structure and content- looks like a lot of effort has been put into this!
  • Make sure to fix up the referencing- some seem to be missing.
  • Thorough research- looks like plenty of resources were used
  • Content is easy to comprehend
  • Great use of formatting- makes ur work easy on the eye!

--Samantha Cabrera 02:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Great page guys! Reference list was good - shows thorough research. I guess all I have to say is - more images would be good!

--Joanne Raffel 01:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Nice work on a well represented page. The interesting facts section seemed very small, I would suggest making it a subheading with the introduction instead. I especially enjoyed the timeline section with the subheadings but maybe you should add a picture to break it up a bit. You background paragraph in the methodology section should be added to the introduction and the image needs to be bigger. You references section also needs to be refined to use one type of method rather than splitting it into two.

--Julianna Lam 01:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC) hi guys ! the page looks terrific !!! it definitely shows how much work and thought you put into it. the content in the methodology, limitations and history section is really good int eh way that it is informative and easy to understand. the flow of the page is great. the page looks interesting, makes me want to read it. for improvement, i think the history section may be a little bit too long. the self drawn picture is great. glossary section could also be longer ! good job !

--Darren Dizon 23:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC) I think the first picture you see in your page sums up the whole article well. Simple yet informative. all the content and pictures complemented each other to express the ideas adequately to me. Only complaint is that the references are incomplete. peace out --z3254509 21:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The page is really well structured and flows really well. It is really informative. Points for improvement:

  • There is a weird inconsistency in the reference list.

Really, apart from that, really good job.

--z3269335 14:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Dear Group 7,

Your group seems to have done a detailed research on monoclonal antibodies. Well done.

It is noted that diagram Monoclonal antibody development.jpg has not been correctly referenced. If it is a self- drawn diagram, it would be nice if it is clearly stated in the comment.

Additionally, it may be a good idea to unify the way of referencing, so that your project would look more professional.

Overall, you have done a good job. Keep it up.

--Dougall Norris 06:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, i think this was an awesome page, ill be succinct:

  • Firstly, references have to be sorted out, it pained me to see that there were inconsistencies in referencing because the information was so good. I think you guys should try and reference with the hyperlink and this can easily be fixed
  • I think the person below thought that the mAbs image was yours, but i noticed that the first one was. Maybe an additional one would be cool as well.
  • I think it would be good to put Chimeric Antibodies in the glossary, and maybe a few other terms throughout the piece
  • put the "The year 1975 marked a very significant..." part which is in the intro into history, just because i think the intro should be more of a brief overview for which you can get a really quick idea of what monoclonal antibodies are. I get why you did it, because that quote pretty much sums it up, but still i think the stuff in the intro is more history.

I think the structure and content is exceptional, so much is covered, just fix those references. Cheers

Good stuff group 7. The project looks great, here are some points I thought might be useful: --Vishnnu Shanmugam 04:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

  • The images are very well referenced with both the source (link form) and copyright information. Good job!
  • The project is well referenced however, there are two different reference styles used between the History section and the rest of the assignment. Better to use one style for visual continuity of the assignment.
  • Glossary needs to be expanded for words like phagocytosis, cytotoxicity, heterocaryons.
  • Excellent images you created yourself. Particularly the “Preparation of mAbs” image. Nice one!
  • The limitations section could go with another section termed “advantages in producing Hybridoma Cell Lines and Human Monoclonal Antibodies”
  • Excellent time line, gets straight to the point, succinct!
  • Unify the references section, these should be numbered.

--z3178608 22:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Hello Group 7

The project page is comprehensive in its contents and will be useful for anyone who is interested in learning more about monoclonal antibodies.

These are my certain thoughts when I was reading through your web-page:

  • Introduction gives me a brief idea of the antibodies and its preference over antisera; it will be ideal to give a outline on the mechanism of its application.
  • The history might be too lengthy and in-depth. So probably, you could make it more concise.
  • Excellent coverage of production of monoclonal antibodies and its underlying mechanism. It would be better if more diagram illustrations are included.
  • Adequate information for the current applications with relevant pictures.

Overall, I think this project is informative and interesting to read. Well done.

--Jae Choi 12:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, Great project you have made. But I think the History part is too much in detail and it would be better if u provide more for the Glossary part. Also, using wiki referencing system would be helpful to link the original pages. Overall, you guys have done a great job. Cheers.

--Joseph Chuk 07:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Your project is intersting and I have leanrt a lot about monoclonal antibodies. I like the images in your application part and the limitation part is very clear. Good job! The history is too detailed, which should be more precise. The methodology part should use better subheadings because I was a bit confused about the content but overall well done!

--Angama Yaquobi 07:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Hi guys, I must say your webpage shows the amount of hard work you have put in your research, so well done!! Here are my thoughts about your project; The history section is too long if you eradicate some of the less significant points would make the section look attractive and easy to read. Adding few pictures of scientists would make the page look interesting. Use of headings and subheadings under methodology section was a great idea but I would suggest putting some images or diagrams. The section CURRENT IMPLICATION and LIMITATION is very impressive, use of dot points makes it very easy to read and grasp important info and also the images used are wonderful and corresponds with the text. So well done guys!

Hi Group 7! First of all, you've put together what I think is a solid and coherent project, so well done! I won't bother reiterating what others have already said about fixing your referencing etc- i'm sure you already plan to do this before proper submission. Overall, the order and break-up of each section is logical and effective, particularly in the methodology section. The "interesting facts" section is a great idea, but doesn't really have full effect given it's quite limited- a few additions would make it more worthwhile. The History section is obviously well researched, but could use a bit with a bit of reformatting to make it easier to follow and look better. I'm not sure I would split it into decades, particularly when there seems to be a few key papers which its centred around, but that's just my take on it. The inclusion of the timeline is a good idea, but would be even better if it was somehow linked directly to a section of text which perhaps explicitly names/dates some of the mAbs instead of just accompanying a general discussion. The pictures you've provided so far are relevant and a couple more in the methods and history sections would work well. With a few small adjustments you'll have a great project! --Louisa Frew 11:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Peer Evaluation

--z3252005 10:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Hey Group 7. I can tell you guys have put in a lot of research into this technique. Your project is well organised and explains this technique very well. Some improvements which I could suggest are:

  • You should have a unified referencing system. I suggest having a look at the project referencing page to see how Mark would prefer us to reference our projects.
  • "...mAbs used in serotyping bacteria (ref’s)." I think you guys may have forgot to put up a reference for this section. Also there were a few places that "(coming soon)" was placed, so make sure you guys don't forget to remove these for your final copy.
  • This is purely a preference, but I think that interesting facts can be put at the end before the glossary section.
  • Your history section is fairly detailed and I think it can be cut down to try to eliminate some of the less important points.
  • You may like to use more images as is a lot of text and images can be used to break them up.

Overall I think you guys have done a great job. I have improved my understanding of monoclonal antibodies. Well done.

--z3256682 06:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Hi,

First off, you've utilised very good images to illustrate your applications (many which I wasn't aware of!), and without a doubt, you've put a lot of research/work into this. However, reading through it, there are many significant points of change, which I have listed below, that could be considered in the improvement of your project. Please note, these are just my opinions, and they may differ to what you have in mind for your final submission so please don't take offence :).

- you may wish to integrate interesting facts into the rest of the sections, since it looks more like you found the info but didn't really know where to place it (though they are interesting and your approach is different), ie. point 1 could be placed in current applications, while point 2 could be placed in future directions, possibly.

- your referencing really needs improvement - you could use Mark Hill's method since the direct pubmed links allows the interested reader to explore the topic/research more. Your current method of (2), (8) etc.. can be confusing especially in large slabs of text where the reader cannot be sure it's referencing or you're actually numbering something.

- in your producing human monoclonal antibodies bit, you need to fix this: '...mAbs used in serotyping bacteria (ref’s)'

- i would recommend you try to summarise the history section more, especially since you're talking about the historical methods so some of it seems repetitive with your actual methodology section.

- in current applications, you need to be mindful that some readers don't study immunology so they mightn't recognise the significance of the purpose of IgE/IgG or the role of conventional eosinophils. So you might want to add IgE to the glossary or give a short sentence in the relevant sections what they do, and then present the data.

- furthermore you have stated IgE Fc receptors on mast cells, but you don't explain what these are - it may be good to indicate on your drawn diagram where/what Fc actually is. This applies to antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity etc., IL-5, constant regions...

- in mAbs and asthma, your factual paper on omalizumab could be linked to the drug's name in the first sentence instead - having an orphan sentence like you've done in that part is a bit ambiguous to your intentions for the reader.

- proper citations to your 'others' in current applications is needed - you need some sort of backup to your statements for them to have any validity.

- you need to vary your sources instead of relying on one study: in your limitations part, you use Hansel et al 2010 quite heavily - you should read further/widely in the course of your research so you can provide us with a more informed view since other researchers will have encountered different problems as well.

- about your applications, you have listed only cell biology, human and microbiology uses - to my knowledge, there are definitely applications for agriculture, horticulture and other biotech uses as well, considering plant pathology and crop improvement is quite an active field of study (this ISN't a problem, but I'm suggesting you may want to expand your coverage even if that coverage may be briefer than your human focus.)

- You may consider the inclusion of an advantages part. You have definitely provided some of the advantages in previous sections, but it may be helpful to give a separate summarising section. This allows the reader to easily identify them without having to wade through the previous parts repeatedly. at the moment, on face value, it looks like you haven't considered both sides of the story. Also if you did, putting it all in a table would definitely help the overall presentation.

- a few more images could help illustrate the methodology better - you have provided both a diagram and video of the preparation, but it might be good to see if you can find actual experimental images to show us what the real culture/hybridoma looks like (ie. allow the reader to see through the scientist's eyes). This will help with breaking up the text as commented by previous reviewers as well as further improving the approachability of your project.

Kind regards,

--Katiana Shaw 07:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC) This is an excellent project! Just a couple points:

  • The history section is great and very comprehensive. I like the way you broke it up by decades. My only problem with it was that it might be a little too detailed. Some of that information is not entirely necessary to outlining the history.
  • I really like the inclusion of a video. Good Idea!
  • I think there is maybe a bit too much text. You have obviously researched this very thoroughly which is great and shows in your work, but I agree with previous comments that the page looks a little bit daunting. Adding a few more pictures could break up the text a bit more as well.
  • There were a few terms such as Hybridoma Cells and Chimeric antibodies which could be included in the glossary just to offer a short definition to anyone who doesn't understand them entirely.
  • Also the referencing system confused me a little. Maybe try the wiki referencing system.

This really is a great project, it would only need very minor changes. Good work!

I really liked the interesting facts section - it was a nice idea and is something a bit different. I could see from the amount of information on the page that you have all done quite a lot of research into Monoclonal antibodies. I liked how the history section was done by decades - it was a different way of looking at the history. One thing you could improve on would be reducing the amount of text on the page - it is kind of daunting and make the page really long.--z3252340 10:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent project. The history is extremely comprehensive along with the rest of the page. The only things i can suggest is using the wiki referencing format as Mark suggested which would really boost your marks ;) and also maybe a couple more pictures if possible. apart from that, there's really nothing else to fault--z3253199 04:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Group Discussion

Hey guys,

My option is subcellular fractionation, which I read from one of the books online. Here is the link: [1]

Ill do some more research tomorrow morning and post the links if i find anything.

--Paula Ordonez 09:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


--Paula Ordonez 04:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


--Paula Ordonez 04:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys,

I've been having a look through the MBoC textbook and so far there's a few interesting looking topics that other groups haven't claimed:

-Producing monoclonal antibodies using hybridoma cell lines

-mass spectrometry to identify any molecule in a cell

-Gene knockout/knockin

-Reporter genes and in situ hybridisation- tracking gene expression.

Sorry I haven't been able to look at these topics properly but tomorrow or Wedesday morning at the latest I'll have a more in depth look at one or two and post some links.

--David Williamson 09:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Hello Group 7, just wanted to say sorry for the late reply/post. I had a quick read of the links provided for subcelullar fractionation and thought it would be interesting and would provide a good amount of information to write (type) about. The 3D cell and tissue patterning topic that I was telling you about, I think isn't the best choice. So that rules that topic out. I'd like to find out more about mass spectrometry though, identify any molecule in a cell? Cool! Talk tomorrow than.

--Begum Sonmez 10:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys,

More detail on some of the topics I mentioned:

Producing monoclonal antibodies (mAb's) using hybridoma cell lines

  • produce a single type of antibody from specially modified B-lymphoctytes
  • combine two cells so you end up with two nuclei (B-lymphocyte for ability to make antibodies, tumor cell for ability to live indefinitely in culture) in each cell. This can be done using inactivated viruses or chemicals, so membranes fuse. Fused cells are then selected for with special media.
  • applications include diagnosis and treatment of diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and cancer
  • can localise any protein, follow its movement, and purify that protein to study it further using the resulting mAb's.
  • looks like a pretty involved technique with wide ranging applications- so to me it looks like a challenging topic to do but one that gives us plenty to talk about.
  • Textbook info- mAb's and hybridoma cell lines

Mass Spec

  • as mentioned on 'bones' week after week!
  • uses the fact that charged particles have very precise dynamics in electrical/magnetic fields in vacuum
  • separates ions by mass:charge ratio
  • proteins cleaved into peptides, mixed with organic acid, dried, blasted with laser, forming ionized peptides. These fly towards a detector, how long it takes them to get there depends on their mass and charge.
  • the results are run through a database of known proteins to find what it is
  • can also be used to derive the aa sequence of proteins, similar to PCR for DNA.
  • can use to look at protein-protein interactions, post translational modification etc
  • this would be an option for a technique but it sounds like a bit too much physics in there for me!
  • textbook info- mass spec

I think we go with either subcellular fractionation of the hybridoma cell lines one. From having a quick look I get the sense that subcellular fractionation would be more straightforward but mAb's and hybridoma cell lines gives us the advantage of having a bit more to talk about- which could be a good thing as all three of us have to contribute... What do you guys reckon?

--David Williamson 01:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Hey, I love the topics I have to say! David, I agree with you, Mass Spec. screams out 'electromagnetic rays'! even though all these topics are interesting, we can only choose one. So we'll leave out the Mass Spec. technique. I'm liking the mAb's one. We'll finalise our topic tomorrow than.

--Begum Sonmez 08:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Just had a read about the application of Subcell.Fract. and I would prefer to do this assignment on the mAb's. mAb's is an important tool in biochem., mol.bio. and med! I think there would be alot of info out there, as you said David, because of it's wide application.

--Begum Sonmez 08:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys,

mAB's sounds good to me :). looks really interesting!

As per discussion today, for the next week the plan is to have a look at:

  • History & Early Experiments- Paula
  • Methodology-David
  • Applications + Future Direction (Clinical, and Cell Biology Research)-Begum

--David Williamson 06:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Found this online book through the library website, called 'Making and Using Antibodies : A Practical Handbook'. Thought it would be useful. Click here.

--Begum Sonmez 11:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I like this video. Have a look, maybe we can use it on our page.


--Begum Sonmez 06:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I thought we could have our sub-headings up on our page, like Mark said today. These are my suggestions:

  • Intro (definition of monoclonal antibodies, general applications outlined...may include a brief summary of the technique?). I read a part of an article today and it mentioned the technique researchers used before Monoclonal antibodies were discovered, which was 'Polyclonal Antisera'. We could introduce our topic by mentioning how ineffective that was compared to monoclonal antibodies. Or it could go under History?
  • Brief History+Some Early experiments (History of the development of the method and the history of the use of the method?)
  • Methodology
  • Limitations of using mAb's (I found info on this!)
  • Present Applications+Future directions/use
  • Glossary
  • References

What do you both think about the order? Any other ideas on the sub-headings? Any other sub-headings?

--Begum Sonmez 10:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to ask if we could each have our own reference list at the bottom of the page just for the convenience of it. We could merge it all together later. I also noticed from Embryo that we mark the end of a sentence with a number/symbol (that matches the number/symbol in the refencing list) to remind ourselves to reference. Could each of us use a different method. One of us can use numbers, letters...I think it just avoids confusion. Let me know If I'm getting overboard :)

And we also have to choose a style of referencing as well to stick with. Any ideas? Or we could ask Mark and see what he wants. I'll email him now. Have fun and enjoy your break! --Begum Sonmez 08:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Hope your break has been fun! Just wanted to let you both know that I'll have the 'mAb's' library book, that I mentioned last week, soon. I think it will be very useful for our project. --Begum Sonmez 09:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

heyy yeh i went to the library the other day and there were actually heaps of good books in terms of methodology and clinical applications so definitely alot of information. hope you guys are going well, ive made notes from different books (still have some articles to read) but i havent had time to organise them into a coherent 'history' section. --Paula Ordonez 23:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Great work guys. Begum, those subheadings and what you've put up so far look great. I'm sure as we go we'll find the need to add and change headings but that looks like a very strong set to start with.

I think Mark mentioned Pubmed format is his reference format of choice. He uses this in the lectures- it uses Pubmed IDs (PMID) as the in text citation, then has a specific format for writing the full reference out at the end. I'm not sure how this works for books/ other non-journal resources though... Certainly in the mean time it'll be fine to include our reference lists separately at the bottom of the page (so long as all the info's there) as Begum suggested and clean them up into a common format and order later as Begum suggested. As far as I understand, "Pubmed central" is the public access database, while "Pubmed" is the one that needs to be subscribed to- so it will have additional full text articles. To access pubmed go to the library>sirius>find resource>the letter p> sign in, then you'll get pubmed references from your search (I think...).

I've put some applications I've come across in the applications section under "other"- which we may or may not end up using (there will be endless applicaions so there's no way we can go into detail about all of them).

I'm also thinking the older methods like polyclonal antibody production by injecting a protein into a live animal should maybe go in the history section rather than methodology? so I renamed methodology to something that's more specific in just the methodology used now to produce mAbs for now... Of course feel free to make alternate suggestions or disagree with any of this! I started the method section but haven't gotten far... --David Williamson 14:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I loved the Intro to Methodology, very interesting. Nice work David. Hopefully I'll have some more applications up soon. --Begum Sonmez 13:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Paula, here is some history material I came across that might be useful to you:

  • 1975: Kohler and MilsteinIn published their seminal manuscript on hybridoma technology enabling the production of mouse monoclonal antibodies (You might have already come across this already). I have an article with me in hard-copy that summarises what they did in like a paragraph. If you like I can bring it for you?
  • mAbs have been used to define distinct subpopulations of intrathymic lymphocytes at different stages of maturation and their alteration in disease (Reinherz EL, Kung PC, Goldstein G, et al:Discrete stages of human intrathymic differentiation: Analysis of normal thymocytes on leukemia lymphoblasts of T-cell lineage. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1980;77:1588-1592)
  • use in organ transplantation. Acute kidney graft rejection has been reversed by in vivo administration of a murine monoclonal antibody that binds to a surface antigen found on the majority of mature cells (Cosimi AB, Colvin RB, Burton RC, et al: Use of monoclonal antibodies to T-cell subsets for immunologic monitoring and treatment in recipients of renal allografts. N Engl J Med 1981;305:308-314.
  • used to preventgraft-v-host disease complicating allogeneic bone marrow transplantation.
  • Monoclonal antibodies have been used to detect tumorassociated antigens on human melanoma, colorectal, neuroblastoma,lung, breast, pancreatic, teratoma,glial, leukemia, and lymphoma neoplastic cells(Mitchell MS, Oettgen HF: Hybridomas in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, in Mitchell MS, Oettgen HF (eds): Progress in Cancer Research and Therapy. New York, Raven Press, 1982, vol 21, pp 1-264).

All of these are from this one review article. I'll have it with me this Tuesday. --Begum Sonmez 08:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

We need pictures!!! It's hard when so much of the great photos out there are copyrighted... --Begum Sonmez 22:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey David, I added 'The Monoclonal Antibodies South Australia (MAbSA) facility at the University of Adelaide is an example of a facility that develops hybridoma cell lines and purifies mAbs. ' AND a link to a video to your section. I thought it would be best to have it in your section. Feel free to take it out. Here is the link to an alternative photo to the one in your section showing hybridoma method: [4]. You can choose between the two.

And, please, if there's something that's not nice that I've done or If I have too much/too little information, please let me know. Thanks!

--Begum Sonmez 04:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, looks good I think it's coming along nicely. Are we still all happy with the topic allocations? I thought my section would be a bit limited but have found there's actually a lot more depth I can go in to, particularly regarding the different forms of mAbs (humanised etc) as you both pointed out to me. I'm aiming to have my section fairly well covered, and at least one self-made picture up by Wednesday's lab. If we are able to evaluate each others' sections before wednesday that would be good but I know I'm not yet that happy with mine yet, how about you guys? --David Williamson 03:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys,

Im currently editing mine to try and make it more student-friendly i.e. not a big chunk of writing. And i am still organising the succession of events with the development of monoclonal antibody production and types. I will also add to the glossary with a few terms that students may not understand and any interesting facts I come across. Also, did you want me to do the merging of the references, i dont mind. I should have all of this up by tonight. Give me any suggestions on how you think I could improve it. Love the pictures btw!

--Paula Ordonez 06:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, hope you both get this message. I was going to combine our references together...can I? And Paula, I love the image of history you uploaded, but I think it would look better at the beginning, or else we'll keep having the problem with it overlapping with the methodology section. --Begum Sonmez 02:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think methodology is close now... main things I still want to add are some details of how mAbs can be modified (combined to be fluorescent etc), and a little more detail on how you screen for and isolate a specific antibody. References Definitely need consolidating at some stage- it's just a matter of whether we do it now or at the very end? and I haven't actually found Pubmed IDs for my journals- but I'm more than happy to go through and do this later on. --David Williamson 03:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Begum, by all means you can do the referencing...but yeh definitely at the end when we have finished putting everything that we want in our sections. I will work on the glossary after this peer-review week, as i really like the idea of linking the words in the glossary to the words in the text.

--Paula Ordonez 07:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)