Talk:Genotoxicity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Genetics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine / Toxicology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Mutagen category[edit]

I don't think this article should be in that category, it is Mutagenity which should be in a category on Genotixicity, because all mutagens are genotoxic by origin but genotoxic substances are not necessarly mutagenic. -Induction heating


Ekern529 (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Claritycr (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Itelewoda (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Our group is beginning the research for this topic and this is a preliminary list of sources we are using. It will be modified over time once we get better grip on the subject.Ekern529 (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


We added a lot of content to the main page article recently. We are currently editing (adding in-text citations, pictures, and fixing grammatical errors) the page, so stay tuned for a completed article! Claritycr (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Ekern529 (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Itelewoda (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Mutagenicity vs Genotoxicity[edit]

You should have a sentence or two contrasting mutagenicity and genotoxicity. Genotoxicity is the broader term.Smallman12q (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Made the edit! Thanks Smallman12q Claritycr (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)



Genotoxicity Peer Review

Overall, I think this was an extremely well written article with lots of exciting information. You guys did an awesome job by incorporating numerous topics that are currently relevant to our society such as cancer, carcinogenetic substances and genotoxic chemotherapy. I am positive that your article will attract many readers in the future, as the risk of exposure to genotoxic substance is continuously elevating nowadays. I have made several suggestions below (mainly on sentence structures and logical sequence) for each section. I recommend placing the mechanism section prior to the testing technique section, as this will give a broader overview of what kind of impacts genotoxic substances have on cells. Jumping right into the testing without giving any mechanism makes the testing section harder to comprehend.

Introduction:

Introduction should be altered in a way to provide clearer overview of the article. For instance, genotoxicity test techniques should be listed in a sequence presented in the article to facilitate the readers in finding the information. My suggestion is to say, “Many sophisticated techniques including Bacterial reverse mutation assay (Ames assay), in vitro testing (cytogenetic assay, lymphoma TK+/- assay, SOS/umu assay test), in vivo testing (micronucleus test) and Comet assays.

Test Technique:

More information on Ames Assay should be added since I feel like 2 sentences aren’t enough to sufficiently describe the assay. I know there is a separate Wikipedia article focusing on Ames assay but it might be a good idea to add few more sentences to give a better overview (perhaps some information regarding the general procedure and limitations of the Ames assay).

Third sentence explaining the types of aberrations in “In vitro testing” is a bit too long and difficult to grasp. General readers are most likely to be unfamiliar with these scientific terms and might feel overwhelmed while reading this extended list with 13 types of aberrations. I suggest cutting the aberration types into 5-6 with a bit of explanatory information in parenthesis or even breaking the sentence to ease the general reader population.

Paragraph on Comet assays is my favorite. It is easy to read, understand and also illustrates some of the limitations. I think it will make your article even more exciting if you add limitations for each of the testing above. Overall this section on test technique was very intriguing and I love the incorporated images!

Mechanisms:

I think it would be better if you take out ‘Sugden et al’ and refer to them as researchers within the article while keeping the reference at the end of the sentence. Also the usage of the quote in the first paragraph seems awkward and needs a better leading sentence. Perhaps say, High-valent chromium is seen to act as a carcinogen as researchers stated "the mechanism of damage and base oxidation products for the interaction between high-valent chromium and DNA... are relevant to in vivo formation of DNA damage leading to cancer in chromate-exposed human populations”.

In the second paragraph, usage of the two quotes also needs a better leading sentence. It’s a bit weird to just have the quote by itself without having a sentence that introduces the quote. Also, state the abbreviation prior to its usage. It was confusing when I first saw the word ‘PA’ and I had to explore through the paragraph again to find that it was an abbreviation for pyttolizidine alkaloids. Therefore state the abbreviation in parenthesis beside the actual world.

Cancer

I think the transition from the positive correlation of pesticides and genotoxic damage into the varying ability of genotoxic detoxification among individuals seems a bit abrupt. Try to connect these two sentences to give a better flow or even break these two topics into two separate paragraphs.

It is hard to see how the production of reactive oxygen species relates to cancer. This paragraph needs 2-3 more sentences explaining how ROS leads into cancer. Also, as said before, make sure to state the abbreviation ROS prior to its usage.

“Region of the chromosome where oncogenes are present which could lead to carcinogenic effects” sentence is a bit awkward in reading. Try to reword the sentence to perhaps “Region of the chromosome containing oncogenes could lead to carcinogenic effect”.

“By utilizing the destructive properties of genotoxins treatments aims to induce DNA damage into cancer cells” seems grammatically incorrect. Perhaps change this sentence into “Destructive properties of genotoxins treatments aims to induce DNA damage in the cancer cells”.

I think the section on genotoxic chemotherapy needs more information, as this is could be a popular topic in modern society. I suggest adding more information to the risks associated with genotoxic drugs and therapy. Give more specific examples of the drugs-risks and explain how cytotoxity includes necrosis, cell lysis and apoptosis (describe how the effects of the drugs are not limited to just DNA damage). Also, it might be a good idea to add 2-3 introductory sentences above the treatment table.

This was a great/exciting article with abundant details. I think you guys did an awesome job in making this topic more approachable to the public. Hope my comments helped! Also work on giving more links to other Wikipedia pages! GREAT JOB AGAIN! Haned6011 (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Haned6011

Peer Review

I think that the article is well done and has a good amount of information. I added some wikilinks to the introduction and in parts of the article. I added see also links to the Ames test and Comet assay because there was not sufficient information in these sections of the article. Adding a see also within the article is great for redirecting viewers to an article that explains a part of your article in more detail. Also, i cleaned up the references within the edit page by utilizing the ref names. After employing a ref name to reference, [1] is sufficient for a reference. This is for the sake of making editing easy without large amounts of reference text. The Genotoxic Chemotherapy section is lacking in information, and also needs references. Finally, Having references throughout the article is better than having them only at the end of paragraphs. Overall, it flows well, it has a large amount of information, and great diagrams. Certain parts need more information and the article itself needs more references within the paragraphs. Great job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clucaj (talkcontribs) 02:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


Peer Review

Great expansion so far of a really interesting topic. What i like best about this article is that all of your subheadings do a good job of capturing all the major aspects of genotoxicity. The introduction does a good job of telling the reader what the rest of the contents in the page will be about, but also gives a solid, concise version of what genotoxicity really is. Some things that I would personally change may be switching the Cancer part of the article with the testing part. I feel that before going into the mechanism and testing part of the article, it would be helpful for the reader to have a little more detailed explanation of this type of cancer to give the lesser scientifically informed a little more perspective. I also think that the testing part of the article would be a good way to rap up your page. Again, this is only my idea for organization purposes so I still think its a very detailed and strongly developed article regardless. Other than that and a few grammar/wording changes, I feel that this was a very solid analysis of the topic. Also, the fact that its an interesting topic adds to quality of the article. Great work guys!Tyler7810 (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for the edits! You all made a lot of good suggestions. We will be making changes soon. Claritycr (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference name was invoked but never defined (see the help page).