Talk:Group 8 Project - Microarray
--Katiana Shaw 03:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Hey Group 8 - Here are my thoughts on your project:
- The information is very comprehensive and shows that you have done a lot of research. Well Done!
- I really like the setup where you have broken the project into the different types of microarray. It flows well and is easy to read. One suggestion is to put the glossary above the references (I actually missed them the first time I looked at your page).
- I really like the use of video but would also like to see a few more pictures throughout, just to break up the text a little.
A great project overall - well done!
--z3252005 12:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Hey Group 8. This project is very well constructed. The headings and sub-headings were appropriate. The sections were well put together. The introduction is good as it includes an outline of the page which is nice and the history section is clear and concise. Some improvements I could suggest are:
- I think you should keep consistency in the history section by writing the names of the researchers for all the developments which are mentioned and not for just a few.
- More images would be nice especially for the challenges section. Maybe you guys could include a picture of "Spot". This isn't a major issue but you guys should put the author for the student drawn diagram and also put up a copyright. To see what to include just have a look at the editing basics section of the webpage.
- The glossary section would be better if it was placed before the references as it maybe missed at times. Also you guys could include some more terms in the glossary as well.
Overall this project was well put together and explains effectively the microarray technique. Good work guys.
--z3256682 07:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Hi,
I was very impressed by this project - you have made it understandable and I haven't been overwhelmed by endless text. The intro that provided an outline of your project was appreciated. A few suggestions to improve include the following for your consideration:
- good idea to put protein microarray types into table, however you may like to add an extra 1st column containing something like 'What is it, What happens, What uses, How common is it' so the reader can find the question and quickly see the answer in your table. (not a problem - just my thoughts)
- in tissue microarray, you could, but not absolutely needed, add a picture of this MTA-1 tissue arrayer. A picture of SPOT and other equipment/kits is also possible.
- add more definitions to your glossary, eg. microtome.
Definately the best project I've seen so far, good work Group 8! The ordering and layout of the sections is really effective- not too many things that can be faulted! The addition of a table that allows the direct comparison between the 3 types of microarrays you've covered would be a useful addition, as would a few more terms in the Glossary (things like proto-oncogene, cDNA, FISH etc). Overall, the referencing is pretty good but a list of references to current research that uses microarray would be a valuable resource too. Nice work! --Louisa Frew 14:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
--Begum Sonmez 23:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello group 8. Your project page on Microarray looks appealing overall. Some specific things that I really liked were the intro, the brief history, the use of a table for Protein Microarray. Although, here are some changes that you all might like to consider:
- In the intro I liked the link: ‘Links: - Using DNA microarrays to monitor the expression of thousands of genes simultaneously’, but I think it belongs under ‘Definition and Use’.
- Some of the dates under history didn’t have their corresponding researchers mentioned, but others did. It would be more informative to have the names of the main researchers, or the name of the foundation/group.
- The beginning of the Video (under DNA Microarray) was helpful.
- The table under Types of Protein Microarrays was helpful, but I think it deserves an extra column added to the far left side to Identify what each row is mentioning/comparing. This is helpful for the reader.
- ‘Background signals can also be introduced due to non-specific binding of the labeled nucleic acids to the array substrate (COMMA) and its fluorescence and these backgrounds signals may vary in location.’ (Under ‘Accuracy’, which is under ‘Challenges’). Nothing major with this, though just add a comma as indicated.
- Under ‘Accuracy’, try and make use of bullets. A bullet for ‘deviations in the positions of subarray grids’, "dilution effect", and one for the ‘solution’ to this problem for example.
- The heading ‘Reproducibility’ under Challenges seems misleading to me. I thought it was the Reproducibility of the technique, not the results of the technique. That’s something to think about changing If you like, but If not, it’s really nothing major. It’s just something I found along the way.
- ‘Microarray-based studies may report findings that are not only difficult to reproduce, but not reproducible [Did you mean ‘not reliable’?]
- Put the Glossary before referencing mainly because the glossary is also referenced itself. It makes more sense to put it there.
Overall, I have no major comments. This page seems to me very well researched. The overall structure is logical. Thanks for teaching me about microarray (I never new what it was before!).
Hey Guys, your page is hard to fault. The references seem very comprehensive and well done. There are some good diagrams but i think a few more would be a good option. Also a glossary might be a good idea for your topic as there are a lot of acronyms and terms which would be less confusing in a glossary. That's really the only thing i can suggest as the page is flawless otherwise.--z3253199 04:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
--z3252340 11:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC) I found your page to be really well put together and well organised. it is obvious that you have done a lot of work on the page. There is alot of information on the page so one thing you could do to improve the page would be to reduce some of the information by including a couple of more tables or summarising some of the parts. Also include some more images if possible or use diagrams to illustrate some of the methods.
Actually, we should do the referencing properly by using something like:
<ref> Hornshøj H, Conley LN, Hedegaard J, Sørensen P, Panitz F, et al. (2007) Microarray Expression Profiles of 20.000 Genes across 23 Healthy Porcine Tissues. PLoS ONE 2(11): e1203. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001203 [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001203;jsessionid=DBF480686BE7D530C3063820824A92CD] </ref>
And it would automatically be added in the reference below.
Cheers, Rosita :)
how it works
include a diagram the group has drawn
Brown PO & Botstein D (1999). “Exploring the new world of the genome with DNA microarrays”. Nature Genetics Supplement 21: 33-37. doi:
Quackenbush J (2002). “Microarray data normalization and transformation”. Nature Genetics Supplement 32: 496-501. doi:10.1038/ng1032.
Lockhart DJ & Winzeler EA (2000). “Genomics, gene expression and DNA arrays”. Nature 405 (6788): 827-836. doi:10.1038/35015701.
Shalon D, Smith SJ & Brown PO (1996). “A DNA Microarray System for Analyzing Complex DNA Samples Using Two-color Fluorescent Probe Hybridization”. Genome Research 6 (7): 639-645. doi:10.1101/gr.6.7.639. PMID 8796352.
Simon R, Radmacher MD, Dobbin K & McShane LM (2003). "Pitfalls in the Use of DNA Microarray Data for Diagnostic and Prognostic Classification". Journal of the National Cancer Institute 95 (1): 14-18. doi:10.1093/jnci/95.1.14.
King, H.C. & Sinha, A.A. (2001). "Gene Expression Profile Analysis by DNA Microarrays". The Journal of the American Medical Association, 286(18):2280-2288. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/286/18/2280