Talk:Vasoactive intestinal peptide

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alice0iris, WithersM, AverageMarquettekid, 3604weberk.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Effects on Intestines, Stomach

The wording of the article seems unclear in terms of how VIP affects intestinal absorption. Is intestinal absorption inhibited?

I added the info re vaginal lubrication, it is from the following study "Vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP) provokes vaginal lubrication in normal women" --Valerophenone (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

VIP has a half-life (t½) in the blood of about two minutes.

Can we get the source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.15.23 (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

signaling mechanisms

Some of these effects, like relaxation of smooth muscle, are known to be mediated through NO. Many/Most of the glucagon family hormone receptors act through raising cAMP. IMHO, this article could be improved with more info on signaling mechanisms.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.177.173 (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Class assignment

Hello! A few of my classmates and I have chosen this article to edit for a neurobiology class (if you follow the link above, you can read more about it). Although VIP has many functions, we will be planning to add information that pertains to the central nervous system as it pertains to our class. We wish we could expand more on all the other functions also, but it goes beyond the scope of our class. We will be planning to edit this page until April 2017 and are open to comments and thoughts. We just wanted to let anyone interested in this topic know!

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverageMarquettekid (talk • contribs) 16:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary review

Over all the article looks good. However, in the Function section I would consider rewording the second bullet point. Instead of saying "It also has the function of stimulating..." I would consider changing it to "It also functions to stimulate...". Also, under the Social Behavior section I believe the work "in" was left out in the "sentence have an effect on social behaviors and reactions many species of vertebrates".

Other than those minor changes, good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hondaporsh24 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 23 February 2017‎ (UTC) Hondaporsh24 (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary review

Hi guys. Overall, the article page looks good. My only suggestion is change up your sentence structure, especially for the introduction paragraph. Everything in the intro paragraph starts with "VIP". In addition, maybe link the words "cAMP" and "PKA" to their respective Wikipedia sites under the "Mechanisms" section. People who are familiar in the science field will recognize those terms, but others who are glancing at the page may not recognize them or know their functions. Good job with the addition of functions and mechanisms related to the CNS in terms of "signaling pathways," etc. Verdagj (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Student primary review

In all, your group did a great job synthesizing the necessary information to make the presentation of information easy to understand for someone who is unfamiliar with such a topic. Your organization has a great flow and the images included are all relevant and correlate well with what you are discussing. I reviewed source 9, which dealt mostly with VIPs role in SCN and circadian rhythm, and the information presented is well incorporated and appropriately paraphrased. This source does qualify as a secondary source, and I think you included the most important pieces of this article. Also, you guys did a good job remaining neutral throughout the article. In regards to my suggestions, there is an interesting section at the end of article 9 that discusses the parallels between vertebrate and invertebrate VIP and PDF in insects. Including a small mention of these parallels may strengthen your article. Also, I think there is a mistake with the first two references, for they are not properly cited, and when I click on the pages it only directs me to the PubMeb website. Additionally, I would try to include a few hyperlinks in the "social behavior" subsection. Hyperlinking the amygdala and hypothalamus. At your discretion, it may also be useful to add a picture of the brain to highlight where the amygdala and hypothalamus are anatomically located. Ehartmann01 (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ehartmann01, we did not include the parallels between VIP and PDF because it seems out of scope for what we focused on. For the references, the first two websites are used to search for more information on VIP. It is a common practice to link to these kinds of searches. Thank you for reviewing the page. Alice0iris (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary review

A couple changes could really improve the professionalism of your article. First, be sure to proofread thoroughly and check to make sure all of your sentences are complete. Along with that, some of the bullet points are essentially paragraphs. Pulling all of the bullet points together into a well written paragraph, complete with transitions and proper citations can make the page become more of an article rather than a list. Adding additional links to other Wikipedia pages could also help readers better understand some of the science heavy aspects of the article. Also, I think a few additional images could be beneficial to your page. You could add a x-ray crystallography image of the protein structure or find some images that mirror some of the pathology effects you discussed. Good work! MRoidt3 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

The organizational flow is great! It was very easy to follow along. In the beginning of your article you guys did a great job linking words so that if someone was unsure of what the word meant they could easily click the link and read more about it. However, under signaling pathway and social behavior there were no links, so I would add some for those categories just to make it easier on the reader. Under the category function you have two subcategories, in the body and in the brain. You used bullet points for these, but I think it would be better if you guys kept the information in paragraph form just to be consistent with your entire article. Overall, great job!

Cjungers (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)CJungers

Secondary Student Review

Hey guys, overall I think you did a good job editing this article. I think you do a pretty good job explaining the overall mechanisms that VIP is involved in, and specifically the involvement of the SCN. There are some small grammatical things that could be touched up by proofreading the article again, but overall it is well put together. Another thing I think your group could address would be the expansion of the signaling pathway section. I think you could add more detail to this section to give the reader a better understanding of how it works. Finally, it may be helpful to add some more links to the more complicated science terms that may not be well understood by someone who has not studied the topics. These are all relatively minor edits that should be made, and your group does a good job of expanding on the topics we have touched on in class involving the central nervous system. Jkrumholz13 (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Student Review

The organization of this is great! A lot of term were highlighted, which is great, but I suggest you highlight some more scientific words in the Mechanism paragraph. Also, just a grammar mistake that stood out to me is in the lead paragraph. You guys say "causes vasodilation" and to make more sense, i would suggest rewriting it to "which causes vasodilation, an increase in glycogenolysis..." Overall, it was good and easy to follow. I like how you guys added a "See also" section. Achem10 (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

primary review

Introduction: grammar needs improvement. There are words that can be added or omitted to make intro flow better, such as the word "the." The last sentence is random about the half-life. It can be elaborated to have better flow or just be omitted. There are way too many hyperlinks in this sections that are unnecessary, such as brain, gut, and gall bladder. To improve this, remove hyperlinks for words that seem common/self-explanatory and maintain words that need explanation for the reader, or words they would not understand.

Function: overall grammar needs improvement and unnecessary words omitted. For first paragraph, the first sentence can be more concise; it is wordy and awkwardly phrased. I would include hyperlinks for "circadian rhythm" and "VPACR2." For the body subcategory, there are way too many unnecessary hyperlinks that can be omitted. The structure can be improved as well. The type of tissues can be subcategorized for better flow. I would suggest bullet point format for lists, not complete sentences and/or paragraph. I would either merge the information into a coherent paragraph or use subcategories for better flow and structure. If possible, bullet points 2 and 4 can be elaborated on. For the brain subcategory, there are unnecessary hyperlinks (brain, domestic turkey). The first bullet point needs elaboration so it connects to function topic. What is the significant of the function in SCN? Why is it relevant?

Mechanism: overall, sentence structure needs improvement. There are awkwardly phrases sentences that need to be fixed. For first paragraph, "When VIP binds to VPAC2 receptors, which triggers G-alpha-mediated signaling cascade" is an incomplete sentence. I suggest adding hyperlinks for adenyl cyclase, cAMP, PKA, CREB, CRE, mper1promoter, and GABAergic. The reader needs explanation for this, so hyperlink would be helpful. For SCN subcategory, there are awkward phrases that need rephrasing or words need omission: "Previous pharmacological research has established that VIP is need for normal light induced synchronization of the circadian systems," and "the ability of the population to remain synchronized as well as the ability to of single cells to generate oscillations." I would suggest adding hyperlinks for "ventrolateral," "optic chiasm," "retinohypothalamic tract" and omit self-explanatory hyperlinks. For signaling subcategory, I would suggest hyperlinks for “SPZ, DMH (dorsomedial nucleus of hypothalamus), MPOA (medial preoptic area) and PVN (paraventricular nucleus of hypothalamus).”

Social behavior: overall, good explanation and easy to ready. There is an awkward phrase that needs rephrasing: "social behaviors and reactions many species of vertebrates." I would suggest adding hyperlinks for ventral segmental area.

Pathology: This sentence needs to be completed: "Can be associated with Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1 (Pituitary, parathyroid and pancreatic tumors)." If possible, I would suggest finding diseases that can be caused/correlated by mutations or dysregulation of VIP. What happens if not in balance or over or under expression?

Overall, the coverage of the topic categories is well thought out and it is neutral. It is very informative for the reader. I would add another image illustrating other parts of the brain or systems referred to in the article for visual understanding for the reader. They might not know where specific regions/circuit are located. There are too many hyperlinks that are self-explanatory while there are others missing that need hyperlinks for the reader. The structure and grammar needs improvement. I checked reference 13 and it is cited correctly and properly; however, there is a lot of useful information that can be used to elaborate on in the article for pepsinogen and chief cells instead of just one sentence. i would suggest either to omit the info along with reference or elaborate on the topic. --DKS7623 (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello DKS7623, thank you for your in-depth review. We corrected the grammatical mistakes and the hyperlinks per your suggestion. We also added another image but we were not able to add the protein structure to the infobox. We did not break down the information to reduce cluttering. We thought the half-life sentence was important information and didn't fit anywhere else. Ideally this information would be in the infobox but we were not able to add it in. Alice0iris (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary Review

In your opening paragraph, I don't know if the half-life in blood is appropriate for a broad overview of your topic. The paragraph before that point seemed to sum up your topic well-enough for a broad overview. I think it might be better to insert that point into the main article and expand on the relevance of it if you can. I also think it is a little awkward to have a further readings section separate from your references section. Otherwise, I thought the flow of your article was nice and there were no other major issues I found. Nice job guys. Mges24 (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

This was an easy article to read and understand. The part I really appreciated most was the organization and flow. It was easy to follow and you give the reader the information in a way that makes sense and maximizes understanding I felt. The links included are very helpful to someone who may not be as familiar with these concepts but does not lower the quality of your writing or make the article too long by "over explaining". 9923matlous (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Article was enjoyable to read overall. Plenty of information is present in the article, in the first paragraph in particular. In order to make that first paragraph less dense maybe add some information to other sections such as the VIP function. For example information following "VIP stimulates contractility in the heart..." In terms of the effects that VIP has in the body, those bullet points could be condensed into a paragraph instead. Otherwise, great article. LettuceEdit (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2017