Talk:DISC1

Comments

First of all, excellent job in expanding this article! Your contributions are greatly appreciated.

Concerning the "Molecular location and structure" heading, I am very confused as to what this is supposed to mean. Does the "molecular location" refer to the chromosomal location of the gene or the tissue distribution of the expressed protein? The "structure" part of the heading I assume refers to the protein structure although it could also refer to the promoter/intron/exon structure of the gene. Furthermore current section heading does not capture all aspects of the gene and protein that are discussed. The gene and protein encoded by the gene are two distinct topics and therefore can easily be split into two separate sections. I do not see the need to subordinate these two sections to a "Molecular location and structure" section. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. To answer your questions, the intention behind the original section title was one that encompassed all of the information included there (both chromosomal location of the gene and protein distribution and structure) and I did not think that just "gene" and "protein" on their own as titles made clear what information was covered there. I think that the change you made to "gene location and transcription" and "protein structure and subcellular distribution" solves the issue very well. Thanks again. Kamilaosypiuk (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Corrections

Your article looks great so far! I have too very minor corrections. In the introductory paragraph, I noticed that you used the phrase: "mitochondria fission:fusion and transport." I am not sure if this is what you wanted to say, but various articles on PubMed used "fission/fusion" or "fission-fusion" rather than "fission:fusion." Also, one citation in the clinical implications section was located in the middle of the sentence, when it should be placed at the end. Phil J. (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback and comments; we appreciate your time! After doing some research myself on PubMed, it seems that mitochondrial fusion and/or fission may be affected by DISC1, and I have made that change. Thanks for catching that. I went through the "Clinical implications" section a couple of times and could not find the citation in the middle of a sentence. Perhaps one of my colleagues already fixed it, but if you happen to come back and notice it, please let me know in more detail where it is! Thanks again. KelleyAmbrose (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BI481 Peer Review

Hey guys, great job on the article so far. The amount of detail was impressive and the number of sources shows it was very well researched. Most of my comments have to do with stylistic issues, rather than the overall content since it seems like the article is already pretty comprehensive. For one thing, I would be careful with how many protein/gene names that you place in the middle of paragraphs. While it's definitely important to reference the relevant ones, sometimes it can be a little difficult to read and understand, especially for readers without any background in genetics or neuroscience. Another thing that is very minor is how you listed the model organisms being used to study DISC1 in the "Gene location and transcription" section. Instead of writing the common name and then linking the scientific name of the species in parenthesis, you should setup your links so that the common name is the link. This only requires a slight modification to how you normally link to other Wikipedia articles, but it will definitely allow the paragraph to flow better. In the "Protein Interactions" section you listed a bunch of the proteins on a list, but then discussed some of them individually right after. I would recommend removing the individually discussed ones from the list, and then place remaining list at the bottom of the section. This is because Wikipedia likes to avoid lists of things if possible, and it seems a little redundant to list and then explain some of them. (ATF4/ATF5 is one example of this). One last thing to consider is for the "Protein structure" section. I don't know if you have looked for any images of the structure (or if one even exists yet), but it may be worth to try and find an illustration of the structure. This is definitely a lower priority though, especially since any images are likely to have restricted use rights. Other than that though, everything seems very well done and should only require minor modifications from here on out. Pathyland (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody, this is a very thorough article and I only have a few minor suggestions. Firstly, although you did well linking to other Wikipedia pages there are still some valuable links that you missed such as dentate gyrus and olfactory bulb. I only suggest this because as I was reading the article I was curious about these two topics and it would have been helpful if I could have navigated to those pages directly from your article so I would know what I was reading about. Also, I recommend just proofreading the article again because I found a few of the sentences somewhat awkward. For instance, you may want to change the opening sentence to read "Disrupted in schizophrenia 1 is a protein encoded by the DISC1 gene in humans". I hope it does not seem like I'm being too picky I just noticed that some of the phrasing could be more direct and concise. Finally I agree with the above suggestion to be careful with protein/gene references as they do disrupt the flow of the article at times. Overall, this is a very good article and you really don't seem to have much left to do. Weitzm (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I found this article to be extremely thorough, well-written, well-structured and organized. I commend you because a lot of the recommendations I made to other people on the format or the content of the pages you had already taken care of. I only have a few minor recommendations to improve your article. The following statement: After studying this large Scottish family for four generations, in 2000, this gene was given the name "DISC1"." doesn't have a citation following it. You may want to consider adding a citation to the original work, or the source you got this from. Also, a minor change in the first sentence from "Disrupted in schizophrenia 1 is a protein that in humans is encoded by the DISC1 gene" to "Disrupted in schizophrenia 1 is a proteins that is encoded by the DISC1 gene in humans" can help. I also noticed that in the Clinical Implications section you mentioned Asperger's Syndrome few times, without the link to the Asperger's Syndrome Wikipedia page. If there is no specific reason for excluding this link, I think it would be beneficial to add this to your page. Other than that, I think your page is excellent and very well-done. Good luck with the rest of your editing! Cynthia Cepeda(talk) 10:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys! This was a very informative, understandable, and well researched article. The introduction is a very good summary of the material, which is helpful in understanding the specifics of DISC1. I found the clinical implications to be particularly interesting. The information covered is very extensive and you guys did a great job researching the topic. There are some spots in the article where some links could be added to extend the understanding. Some examples include LOD in the Importance of genetic studies and isoform in “Gene location and transcription.” I did catch a few grammatical errors, so it might be a good idea to reread the article for errors. Overall, you guys did a great job and your article was very complete and informative! ethingte (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]