Wikipedia talk:USEP/Courses/JHU MolBio Ogg 2012/Section 81/Group 81E

Intro

Hey there, Rachael & Shivani!

I thought I'd just say hello as we start our journey on this Wiki project! I'm a bit nervous for it haha! Just wondering, have y'all looked through the topics yet? Do you have preferences? Rashaalam (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rasha & Shivani! Sorry I haven't been on here in a few days! Where did we find out our groups? Do you know if there is a specific list of topics? I noticed earlier when reading about Topoisomerases the Topoisomerase page looks like it could use dome work. Some citations are needed and "Discovery" section consists of: "Discovery: The first topoisomerase, E. coli topo I, was discovered by James C. Wang.[2]" Hope this helps Rmeskowitz22 (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Rachael! It's all on our main course page, where we have our assignments listed for each Unit. If you keep scrolling down past the Units, there's a list of our groups and group members, and there is also a list of topics we can choose from below that. And I've seen the Topo article too haha! I don't remember if that's in the list, but if you want to add on, sometime, you can :) Rashaalam (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a peek at the this Topoisomerase is not on there. Bummer :-( Rmeskowitz22 (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Bacteriophage T12 topic? It is a very short article and I would love to learn more about its mechanisms. We deal with bacteriophage at work a lot :-) Rmeskowitz22 (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you find an article you want to work on, and it's not on the list, you could suggest it to Dr. Ogg. Here's what she wrote on the course page: "However, if you locate an article that you feel needs improvement, you can propose to work on this article. An article that is not on the list below, must be approved by myself and the OA." Klortho (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks for that, Chris! I missed that. So we CAN do one of the many topoisomerase articles, if we decide on that. I was also looking at the Helicase topic. And I just looked at Bacteriophage T12 as well, and that's definitely up for changing too. I guess the good thing is that at least now we have a smaller range of topics to decide on :) Rashaalam (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rasha and Rachael! Sorry for joining in late. I looked at the articles that you guys are talking about. I would like to work on them though I saw some more articles that don't have much in them such as dnaI, dnaE, dnaS and transversion. Don't want to add up on your shortlist but just trying to suggest some more topics.Shivani (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about being late OR adding to the list, Shivani! =) I'll just start a new section to reorganize and list out the topics we've all mentioned now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashaalam (talk • contribs) 19:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Topics Discussion

I thought we'd discuss the topics in a new section with a fresh look/mind. I am a little bit OCD about things looking neat too ;) Shivani, I'll say it again, don't worry about adding topics, we should all go through topics we like/want to work on and we can discuss it to narrow down on one for the project. I'm listing the topics we've mentioned below, and you guys can both add on if you find another article that interests you & needs work :)

Personally (and this is just an opinion/option I'm mentioning to put it out there), I think it might be better to work on an article that has LESS information on it, because then we can write it ourselves and the references and everything will be from scratch, so we'll be more sure of our own work. Rashaalam (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely easier to get started on an article that is less developed. Klortho (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rasha for the neat list and I'm also in favor of choosing a topic with less information so that we can have a lot to add to it. I'll look through these topics and get back to you soon.Shivani (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys! First off - thanks, Shivani, it's no problem at all! :) I also wanted to say that - as much as I don't want to rush - we should get our article decided soon, because we'll be choosing them on a first-come, first-serve basis and we also have to write about a page to say why we've chosen that particular topic article. It would be a lot better for all of us if we could at least choose a topic in the next day or two and lock it down for ourselves :) Rashaalam (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Guys! Sorry I've come into this conversation late! I agree, it would be much easier to work from an article with less on it. I'd say that knocks out Topoisomerase, Helicase is taken. The rest of the articles are stubs. It's not a big deal what we choose other than that. Although I am partial to the Bacteriophage haha. Wanna try to shoot for a topic by the end of today so we can get the assignments cranking. Rmeskowitz22 (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End of day today sounds great! Although y'all might hear from very late because of the time difference, so sorry if I DO get very late! I saw helicase was taken, that's what prompted my message hahaha! The more I think about it, the more I'm with you on Phage T12, Rachael. That article has practically nothing on it, and since we'll be talking about a phage, rather that something more specific, we can get all sorts of information and build the article. DnaI/E/S are very specific and we might really have to go through a lot of papers to get information on them. As far as Transversion goes, I'm not sure. We'll have to include how it happens, why it happens, and what effects it has... which, actually, makes it a good topic too. HAHA can you guys see I'm typing as I think? So I would say that for me, the topic choice is between transversion and T12. Rachael can you lay out what kinds of sections we might have for T12? That would help. THANKS :) Rashaalam (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I will! No worries about being late. I will be at work till about Midnight Eastern time so I will be checking here in between sampling. Science never stops haha! That's how I feel on the Bacteriophage. Maybe....

Introduction on bacteriophage

Mechanism

How or where from it can be contracted

How it effects organisms and which organisms it is most prevelent in

Testing and assays

How to kill/ deactivate

Maybe even, but we'd have to look more into it but how it could effect industry as well. I know the bacteriophage that effects E. coli is very important in fermentation of recombinate E. coli. Rmeskowitz22 (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys! So now three groups have already chosen their topic. That puts some pressure on us.I was searching for some information on bacteriophage T12 and came across some information.T12 is a temperate bacteriophage of S.pyogenes, the bacteria responsible for a number of diseases in humans. We can look through some more articles and see how this phage affects the pathogenicity of S.pyogenes. We can include the physical map of the T12 genome. I came across this article:The gene for type A streptococcal exotoxin (erythrogenic toxin) is located in bacteriophage T12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6389348 which shows that the gene for the toxin is present on the bacteriophage.

Though I could not find any information on its industrial use such as in fermentation. But we can sure study more about its role in the production of the erythrogenic toxin A and in scarlet fever.Shivani (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Guys! I looked for some more information about T12 but I couldn't find much about it's role other than it's role in the pathogenicity of S.pyogenes. But I guess it's a nice topic and we can work on it. So, I'm in for T12. Let me know so we can start working on it.Shivani (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shivani! Athough I don't want to make the decision for the team it looks like Bacteriophate T12 will be our best bet! The industry thing was just a suggestion- since most places use E. coli for their recombinant proteins, but you never know haha! I'm going to put us on the map for Bacteriophage and we can take it down if either of you object. it looks like we are off to a good start though Rmeskowitz22 (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Yeah I'm fine with Bacteriophage =) Thanks, Rachael! I would honestly rather choose a topic and "reserve" it rather than lose the ones we were narrowing down on! Great, I'll start working on information too. Also, we do have to write a rationale on choosing this article. Let's discuss that - I'll start a new section - and we can hopefully have that done in a couple of days and have it on our project page earlier than the 16th :) Rashaalam (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting the Rationale Assignment

So here's our section to brainstorm and/or come up with a rough draft of our rationale. How do we start? I suppose we'll include the fact that it's an "orphaned" article with very very little information. Also, Rachael, I think it would be interesting to mention T12's usage in industry! Maybe not in a whole section, but at least mention it. It will all depend on the information we find. And actually that could be a reason too - it is an important phage with usage in industry. Rashaalam (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys! I started this. Please feel free to add on and change anything!

Bacteriophage T12 is considered a "stub" of an article, or as we like to call it "orphaned." The current article is only a few sentences long with very basic information. This is unfortunate because organisms like phage, in this even Bacteriophage T12 are very interesting and vital organisms to understand when studying microbiology and molecular biology. Bacteriophages are very unique and their mechanisms can cause much destruction with little effort.

Bacteriophate T12 has a hand in scarlet fever. In cases like this the virulence of the bacteriophage may have assisted in the development of a toxin, streptococcal pyrogenic exotoxin type A or SPE A. This toxin is a main player in the contraction of scarlet fever (1). In this article we could expand more on how this phage actually does this and how it has effected medical developments today such as vaccines.

(1) L P Johnson, M A Tomai and P., "Bacteriophage involvement in group A streptococcal pyrogenic exotoxin A production." J. Bacteriol. 1986, 166(2):623.

Rmeskowitz22 (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd actually suggest that you do your drafting, revising, and editing right on your group's wiki page. That's actually the whole point of a wiki! Plus, it will give you good practice. Klortho (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chrisl! Will do! I wasn't sure if that was just for the final drafts or what :) I'll copy and paste onto that page and we can continue from there. Rashaalam (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! Nice start. I will see you on the group wikipedia page with some more information on this topic.Shivani (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rachael, I just saw your edit. I'm planning to add to it later today. We have to have ~300-400 words, and it's going to be formal on the Group page, so I'm going to take off our little comments :) Just a warning so it's not a shock the next time you look at it :) And you and Shivani can both go ahead and edit the rationale freely as you find information/reasons. If you want, leave a note here, but you don't have to :) Rashaalam (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished up the editing. We are at just about 200 words. If we can add on to the rationale and get it to 300 words it'd be nice, but I honestly don't know what else to add! I'm looking around for more articles and papers but that'll be useful for the actual Wiki article, not the rationale. :/ Rashaalam (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rasha! I know what you mean. There is a lot of information but we don't want to use that as the rationale per say. 155.91.45.231 (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok folks! I added a little bit more to the last pargraph... that puts us at about 280 words. I know we should be going for content more than word count but that at least gives us an idea of where we are at. Rmeskowitz22 (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]