Talk:Exoenzyme

Suggestions to Edit This Article

Initial outline for Exoenzyme article:

1. General definition
2. History of discovery
3. Structure/Function in multi organisms - human, fungi, bacteria
4. Examples of HUMAN exoenzymes including amylase, ACE, lipase, digestive enzymes.
5. Ecological impacts of exoenzymes
6. Biotechnological uses of exoenzymes

Possible references for Exoenzyme article:

• Exoenzymes
• Amylase
• This book section has good references to reviews of each exoenzyme type and their ecological impacts and biotechnology uses
• Review of Hyaluronidases
• Image Sources:
  • via PLOS ONE

Pdholak1 (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Apoptosis81 (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Adimart1

I think your article is looking good so far, especially since it is kind of a big topic to cover. Your sources are good, the abstracts seem to point toward specific and relevant information. Your writing is clear and concise, though slightly more colloquial than I would use. I like that you used multiple sources for your definition of the word and went so far as to find the first use of the word. I think if your other sections are as carefully done as what you have so far, it will be an excellent article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adimart1 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! We have started to fill in the other sections of the article, so hopefully by the next time you review the article it will be looking more complete. Apoptosis81 (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! Like James said, hopefully we will get more content up soon! 108.34.34.44 (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jirwin1097

Hey guys, so I reviewed your first contribution to the article. Good start so far. I will be using the rubric to critique in this peer review:

Content coverage

So far you guys have three main topics: introduction (lead), history, and examples.

Introduction is very well done. It provides a solid definition and briefly gets into function of exoenzymes and where they are found without too much specifics. It is a great summary, which is the exact purpose of the lead paragraph. I see on the talk page that you plan on making a structure/function section; this is where you can get specific. I don’t see any problem content wise about the introduction.

So there is very limited information on the history of exoenzymes. However, it is believed that the first two enoenzymes discovered were pepsin and trypsin. Have you specifically tried searching for the discovery of these two enzymes. Or maybe you could try googling the scientists Briike and Kiihne. If both of these attempts are unsuccessful, I still think it may be worthwhile and relevant to briefly talk these two enzymes.

The examples section is fine the way it is in terms of content coverage.

Wikilinking

I added some wikilinks to your article. I want to make sure you agree, so here is a list of what I added: biological processes, cell membrane, digestive system, digestive enzymes, lipoprotein lipase.

References

The only place (that I can see) where references may have been omitted is in the beginning of the introduction section. There isn’t a reference until the fifth sentence. This may not be incorrect, I just wanted to bring it to your attention.

Writing/spelling/grammar/typos

I wasn’t able to find any spelling, grammar, or typographical errors.

Writing organization

Article flows nicely so far. All information is coherent and relevant. The lead paragraph is great. It serves a great overview; concise, but not too specific.

Writing Organization

I took a look at your outline/progress report on the talk page. So far you guy have been following your outline. The only thing you haven’t been doing is updating the status on completed sections/ sections that need more work.

Illustrations

Article has no illustrations, these are definitely needed!

Thank you for your very thoughtful and thorough review of our article. We are attempting to incorporate many of your comments in our next edits including updates to the history section, wikilinks and adding images. Apoptosis81 (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! I will definitely look into the history more since I am trying to expand that part! I will also be sure to mention trypsin and pepsin in the example section! 108.34.34.44 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Aconch

Hi all, I wanted to provide some feedback for your article. You’re doing a wonderful job! Your article thus far is very well written (no misspellings or grammar issues), organized, neutral, and on-topic. Furthermore, the sources that you’ve used are neutral and reflect the article's content appropriately. The preliminary outline gave me a good idea of the progression of the article. I appreciate how the topic of exoenzymes will be introduced very generally but eventually will become quite detailed; having how exoenzymes are used in experimental techniques in your final section is a very elegant touch! Below are some minor changes/suggestions that might improve the article:

• Per the OA, the introduction is a general overview for the details that will be cited later in the body. Therefore, unless it is a direct quote, citations are not necessary in this section.
• I hope that you don’t mind, but I restructured one of the sentences in your lead section, splitting it into two sentences. It now reads as follows: “For humans and other complex organisms, this process is best characterized by the digestive system which breaks down solid food [1] via exoenzymes. The small molecules, generated by the breakdown, enter into cells and are utilized for various cellular functions.”
• Under the “History” heading, you may want to consider taking out the phrase “based on the book” since the sentence is already cited. This introductory clause might be redundant.
• Overall, you did a fantastic job wikilinking! However, I did have one suggestion. Instead of wikilinking the subheadings “amylase,” “LPL” , “pectinases”, and “pepsin,” consider moving those wikilinks to the text below the subheading. I only mention this because it wasn’t intuitive for me to look for the wikilink on the heading itself.
• Lastly, for future consideration, perhaps you can add an image depicting some of the mechanisms of action that you mention (e.g. the α amylase mechanism). On a similar note, consider including where in the body some of the exoenzymes are found. For example, you mentioned the specific organs/tissues where LPL and pepsin are located; however, you did not include this information for amylase and pectinase. For example, you could include that amylase is found in saliva.

As I mentioned, these are all minor things. Overall, the article looks really great. Keep up the good work! Aconch (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aconch, thank you so much for your comments! I really appreciate you taking the time to read the article so thoroughly. Thanks for fixing the sentence, I think that's fine! I will definitely look into changing the wikilinking and James and I will work on adding specifics to the examples. Please feel free to give us any more feedback as the semester progresses! Thanks! Pdholak1 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank Aconch for your feedback on our article thus far. We will look to incorporate many of your suggestions and hope that you check back on our progress as the next few weeks progress. Apoptosis81 (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, Pdholak1 and Apoptosis81. I'm glad that I could help. I also wanted to provide you with a link that may possibly help you develop the section on digestive enzymes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK54127/ Under the heading "Digestive enzymes and their functions, "there's some great material on amylase that you can use. Good luck! Aconch (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aconch I just wanted to let you know that they reference was very helpful and I ended up adding it into the page. We've made a number of other additions in the last couple weeks, so would appreciate any feedback you may have. Apoptosis81 (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Apoptosis, it's great to hear that the source helped. I just read your article over, and I must commend you and your partner on a job well done! Your contributions have greatly improved the original stub article. The paragraphs, particularly the examples, have been expanded appropriately and are very easy to read. Additionally, I found the new "Biotechnological and industrial applications" section to be very informative. Lastly, I do have a quick suggestion. I recently learned, per the OA, that headings and subheadings follow the structure of a sentence; therefore, for headings and subheadings with more than one word, only the first word is capitalized. For example, "Examples of Exoenzymes" should read "Examples of exoenzymes." This should be a quick and easy fix. Good luck and once again, great job! Aconch (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again Aconch. I will change the headers now. I am planning to add one more section on bioremediation by the end of this weekend so will appreciate any comments you may have when that is added. Apoptosis81 (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from WillPugarth

Hey everybody! I am just stopping by to give you all some feedback on your article. So far, it looks really, really good! I like the image you picked for the intro section, and I really like the images/diagrams you have thus far. Furthermore, I have to say, having been working on the Transferase article, that the topic of Exoenzymes has got to be tough to find information for. I like the sections you have included thus far, with brief introductions to each category, with some explanation and analysis. Also, your citations look good, most appear to be strongly academic. Here's what I can think of doing off hand:

1. I feel that continuing with your current method is working well. Obviously, continuing by adding more examples of exoenzymes is a great idea!

2. I feel like there could be quite a bit more Wikilinking. Numerous topics that possess Wikipedia pages could be linked to, and are currently not. If you don't mind, I might just go through and add some of them.

3. For the article I'm working on, we added a section linking the types of enzyme to biotech and medicine. This might be a viable pursuit in the case of exoenzymes.

4. I think your explanations of each exoenzyme is fantastic. If you have time, you could add a table defining the different exoenzymes and their function (as a kind of summary). It might make readers able to quickly sort through the different exoenzymes. This one is based on the one we used (it will need to be expanded):

Classification of some common exoenzymes:

Name	Purpose	Examples
Amylase	TBA	TBA
Lipase	TBA	lipoprotein lipase
Pectinase	TBA	TBA

5. You could also maybe add some formulas for how some of the reactions occur (or something like it, got this formula from Jim892):

$polypeptide+H_{2}O{\xrightarrow[{pepsin}]{}}polypeptidefragments$

Otherwise, I think your article is really good and am excited to see how the rest of it progresses! --WillPugarth (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Will, thank you so much for your positive feedback! Im glad to see our article is being perceived well. I really like your suggestion to add tables and equations, I noticed them in your article as well and see that they are effective for getting info at a quick glance. James and I will be sure to look into it! Please feel free to keep checking in on our article and providing feedback! Thank you! Pdholak1 (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Will, I also wanted to thank you for your feedback. The idea of tables of formulas is definitely something we should be looking to work into the article. Also your suggestion of relating exoenzymes to biotech/medicine is something we are planning for our last section. It will most likely be a section with how exoenzymes are used in biotech and in commercial products/manufacturing. As we finish the article in the next few works your continued feedback will be appreciated. Apoptosis81 (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Will, I just wanted to update you that I did work a formula into the wikipage and think it definitely adds alot. We also added a number of other additions in the last couple weeks and would be interested in any feedback that you have. Apoptosis81 (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from hnagy2

As others have said, this is a huge improvement on the original stub. The introduction is informative but streamlined. The history section is a good idea and not one that would be obvious to include. The concept of an exoenzyme appears to be older than I would have assumed so it's great to highlight. The examples section has a broad selection and covers just the right amount for each exoenzyme. It is not an easy topic to cover since exoenzymes are not a class apart according to the enzyme commission classification scheme (though they are all hydrolases/EC 3 if I understand correctly). It's difficult to structure since there are no sub-categories to detail so presenting common examples is a good way to go. A lot of the enzyme articles include EC numbers - maybe add those to the given examples for unique identifiers? I don't think it is necessary but it came to mind.

The applications section is very well-written. You did a fantastic job for such a broad topic. One thing I would love to see is an elaboration on the uses of exoenzymes in terrestrial and marine bioremediation. It was mentioned in the introduction but I didn't see any mention of it in the applications section. I like that the article introduces these different uses in the beginning and then goes into detail in the applications section. Including uses in bioremediation would make for a really interesting addition if you are so inclined. I love the images, especially the one for the generic biodiesel reaction. I do not think any more images are really necessary, though I personally would find reaction schemes for any of the other technical applications (dyes, food extractions) very interesting. It's a great section as it is. The only other thing I can think of that would be neat to see is assays for the presence of exoenzymes in cells (as found here http://academic.pgcc.edu/~kroberts/web/exoenzymes/exoenzymes.htm). Again I think the article is great with the present content, I'm just trying to add something new in the review. The structure and wording works well and you've done a good job wikilinking technical terms.Hnagy2 (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi hnagy, thank you for the thoughtful review! I agree with all of your points that you presented. I have debated adding the EC numbers as others have done in their articles, but I'm not sure it would fit right for the reasons you highlighted as well. I am actually in the process of writing the Bioremediation section and hope you have it up by this weekend. I hope you check back in and offer any critiques once it goes up. I will see if I can find any pictures of other technical applications...I am definitely planning to have a picture or two up in the forthcoming Bioremediation section. I will check out the link you provided as I am sure there will be some helpful information there as well. Thanks again! Apoptosis81 (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The bioremediation section looks great! I don't really think the EC numbers are necessary or suitable either. The article flows so well now.50.27.76.206 (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the feedback. Apoptosis81 (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi hnagy, Thank you for your review from me as well! The bioremediation section was a great add! I am sorry I have been behind in adding my contribution but I will be adding a section for exoenzymes in different organisms and will try to add the assay you mentioned. I would appreciate any feedback you may have after I post! Thank you! Pdholak1 (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from klortho

Hi. This article is looking really good. I've been reading it, and looking for some suggestions to give, but for the most part, can't think of any. One thing I noticed is that some sections have a bit too much wikilinking. For example, "paper" and other common words shouldn't be linked. You should also take care not to link the same word too many times in the article. Usually once is enough, unless it's a rare or technical word and it has been a long time since it was first linked, then you could link it again. Great job! Klortho (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Klortho, Thank you for your comments! I am in the process of adding a couple more sections, please feel free to check in again and provide your feedback. Thank you! Pdholak1 (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Juanquina Thomas

Hi Exoenzyme group! I read your article and found it to be very good! I don't actually have any new suggestions for you all. Here are my critiques:

• The lead section seemed to follow the Style Guidelines
• The content accurately represents the cited source
• The content of each section fits perfectly in it's section
• There does not seem to be any gap in content
• The structure content is written very well
• The wikilinking is good. There are several wikilinks in the lead section. I'm not sure if all of those are needed.
• The photographs are great

Overall, I think you guys did a great job on this article! It is very well structured and very pleasing to the eye. Juanquina Thomas (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Juanquina! We appreciate all of your critiques! I am in the process of adding some more content, please feel free to let me know what you think! Thanks!! Pdholak1 (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)