Talk:Paraptosis

Outline

Preliminary outline for the article:
Lead: Paraptosis is a form of programmed cell death, distinct from apoptosis and necrosis.

Lead should have a general description of paraptosis.

History/discovery of paraptosis: first recorded use of the word 'paraptosis', by who/what were they doing.

Might not be essential, but could be interesting background.

Specific description of paraptosis pathway: more in-depth than the lead, contrast with apoptosis and other forms of cell death. Regulation of paraptosis.
Examples of paraptosis: some of the examples of paraptosis pathways.
Potential applications: cancer drugs/research, neurodegenerative disease/neural development. Basically, why is knowing about paraptosis important?
Myself and Jhayes21 will be creating this article, hoping to provide a sufficient explanation of paraptosis. This is just a rough outline to go off of. Any feedback or additional points are welcome and appreciated. Lisawisa (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Neelix

It looks like you've made a good start to this article! Here are some recommendations for further improvement:

If you link to the article from several other relevant articles, then you can remove the orphan tag.
Sections should contain more than one sentence each.
Categories are very important for articles; add as many as are relevant.
No sections should be empty; they should be populated or removed.
Cytoplasmic cell death redirects to Autophagy, but this article suggests that "cytoplasmic cell death" and "paraptosis" are synonyms. If they are synonyms, Cytoplasmic cell death should redirect here and should appear in bold as an alternative title after the main title in the lead.
Very short sections, such as the "Cancers" subsections, are probably better to merge into the main section until such point as enough information is present to justify a full section; article sections normally consist of multiple paragraphs, each containing multiple sentences.
It would be worth adding WikiProject notices to this talk page so that people in the relevant WikiProjects know about this article.

You're making good headway with this article. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you'd like to ask any questions. Neelix (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insightful suggestions. #2 and #4 I have worked on and will continued to, while my classmate has tackled #6. I completely agree with your suggestions #1, #5 and #7 and will look into how to do this. Jhayes21 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I didn't even think about linking from other articles, it'd be a waste if no one could actually find the article! I'll make sure to add links from programmed cell death and apoptosis at the very least. The empty sections are relics from our outline, they'll be removed or populated as we continue to write. I agree about combining really short sections, I've already combined the cancer sections. About #5, from the articles I've read there seems to be a bit ambiguity about whether these are synonymous or not, I'll have to look into it more to decide what to do. Lisawisa (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lxu27

The article has a very good start and please see some of my comments regarding the development of this article.

I think overall content the article is cohesive and consistent with the headings. And the structure is well established for additional inputs later on.
Cited sources are mainly primary research papers, you guys have good reference list for initial input.
Lead section should be a concise overview, so I think it is best to write in a simple term and provide a general outline in this part. You can summarize some important points, and include some things that are not covered in the main article.
As a article that explains complicated idea, it may be helpful to explain concepts in a simpler term. For example, paratosis is different from apoptosis, in terms of its cell morphology and biochemical pathways as well as its kenetics.
In my opinion, a "overall difference" title can be the title for the big section and then include morphological differences and cellular differences. I think morphology should be first to give a overall structural introduction and then going into pathway section next. The molecular and biochemical mechanism can make more sense for readers to relate to the morphological changes.Luyao Kevin Xu (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully my classmates changes to the lead were what you were thinking in your suggestion #3, if not, please let us know :) I think your #4 suggest was a great one, honestly one I hadn't thought of, but it does make sense. I will certainly keep it in mind for the final article. Jhayes21 (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the lead, hopefully it's now more of a concise overview. I tried to hit the main points without going into too much detail, leaving that for the body of the article. Switching the order of the morphology and pathway sections is a good idea, I'll definitely consider that. Lisawisa (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section is pretty good, but I would suggest you guys to talk more about the characteristics of Paraptosis before going into the differences. This is the way your first sentence was structured and your subsequent explanation should also follow that order. Very good improvement overall since last review. Keep up the good work guys!Luyao Kevin Xu (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crandel5425

Great start! Looks like you guys have a solid base. I have some notes to point out, do as you see fit.

A more descriptive lead instead of one sentence, try to expand on it as much as you can.
The format could be similar to other diseases like necrosis. Like "Classification", "Causes", and "Pathogenesis" could have their own heading (level 2) and ordered similarly to flow smoother.

Since its early, I know that there hasn't been much time to expand past one or two sentences, however those do need to be expanded on. Links you provided can help thicken each section to have more depth.

Wiki Linking or describing large or unusual words/terminology like "ischemic damage" will help understand the article better/faster.
Moving some of the history section into the lead will help describe the article
lots of expanding of ideas - which I'm guessing is a starting point for you till you read more of your citations to help explain the subheadings.

Good start, best of luck! Crandel5425 (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the lead, hopefully it now gives a more of an overview without going into too much detail. I didn't put anything from the history section in the lead though; I think the history section has background information that's interesting, but not essential enough to be in the lead. I'm pretty open to changing the layout, I've already been looking at apoptosis to get ideas for the final structure. Once we have the sections more fleshed out, I'll definitely think about changing the structure and moving the info around to get the best flow possible. Lisawisa (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rmiller587

Great article! I had never heard this term before. Here are some things I can think of that might help.

Intro - I'm fairly sure you do not need to cite anything in the intro paragraph. It's meant to be a summary of main points and easy to understand. There's a typo in this paragraph; independence should be independent.
I can't find anything in the article that mentions why this process would be beneficial to a cell or organism. Am I just missing it?
The IGF-1R wikilink is broken. I think it's because the 1 is an I.
I'm having trouble understanding the Pathways section of the article. How does paraptosis use IGF at the receptor level? Is this supposed to mean that IGF signaling can trigger paraptosis through downstream MAPK and JNK signaling? Are MAPK and JNK the kinases that need to be inhibited to prevent cell death? I think could probably benefit from a cell signaling picture to show the pathways you're referring to. I also don't understand the AIP1/Alix part. If this molecule contributes to vacuole formation and paraptosis is characterized by vacuoles, how is it an inhibitor of paraptosis?
What apoptosis inhibitors don't stop paraptosis? What are some reasons for these signaling pathways to be kept separate?
I think it might be helpful if you could find a picture that describes the morphology better. The picture at the top is cool but probably not useful for someone who isn't familiar with looking at cells under high magnification. Maybe something more cartoon like? This is probably hard to find but maybe it's out there somewhere.
Is the metabolic proteins section supposed to be there still?
Good job with the medical significance paragraph. There's a lot of useful info in there.

Again, great job! You've definitely improved the article a ton! Rmiller587 (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Just fixed the minor independent edit - thanks, can never have too much help in editing. In the research I have seen thus far there are lots of "proposed" reasons for the importance of this signaling pathway but nothing certain. It clearly is involved in a lot, and has a lot of potential applications. I agree with that the article should have a more summarizing "big picture" to provide clarity for the reader. A such, I will hopefully be able to summarize the pathway section better as we wrap up reading, understanding, and trying to connect the research. At least in my experience, thus far, this seems to be such an " all over topic" that we don't understand why this is connected to this or why the cell does this instead of that, but even so, I will try and summarize this better for the reader so they are able to understand, why researchers don't quite have the bigger picture just yet. Jhayes21 (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Catwell99

Really nice job! Although still being developed, this article is well-written and easy to understand. I also really like the picture at the top showing paraptosis.
As I understand it, you don't need to cite sources in the lead section. This is a summary of what you will cover in the rest of the article.
Perhaps you could combine the medical significance and potential applications sections? Unless there are other applications beyond medical.
I know that you are still working on the "Differences from other pathways section; however, perhaps you could include Type 3 cell death here as well? It shows up in the next section after you've described Type 1 and Type 2 cell death. Perhaps this could be made into a table comparing the various types of cell death?
I'm curious to hear more about paraptosis and neurodegenerative cell death. Perhaps you'll tell us more about this as you further develop the article?
Wikilinking and references were good. You used open sources which is always helpful when reviewing. Can you create a link to the online dictionary reference?
Overall, I think it is well-organized and well-written. It just needs a bit more content in some of the sections such as "Differences from other pathways", but I know that we have a few more contribution sessions ahead of us.

--Catwell99 (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]