Talk:Adhesion G protein-coupled receptor

This article has a peer review here and was moved during the peer review (16 May 2013). Hopefully a bot will fix the template. This article was part of an assignment from Saint Louis University in Spring 2013 (see the course page for more details).

March 2013 edits

I will be adding a large amount information to this article and will be improving it constantly over the next few months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.207.157 (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Assignment 5 Peer Review

This first part will be in regards to the entire article as a whole, and then what you have edited. I didn't want to change anything without your thinking it over first, so most of the major things, I will tell you about. The minor ones I went to go in and fix.

• The first thing I noticed was the structure of the article didn't seem to be the best. There is a template about cell signaling pathways that begins with the history/discovery, then the mechanism, then the role, then the human diseases, associated with that structure or pathway, and then the research that is currently being performed on the structure and mechanism. Hopefully this will be a good place to begin. It worked very well for my topic.

• Also that list of human adhesion proteins seems like it is sort of in the way and doesn't provide much to the overall article. Maybe putting it towards the end of the article would be good, as a source where people can go and check on one of the many adhesion proteins.

• There were many places that I felt citations should be made. I was originally going to go through sentence by sentence where I felt there should be citations, but I feel like you know where they should be made. The entire section regarding cleavage had only a couple citations that I felt were not necessary. I completely redid that paragraph as will become apparent later.

• I also moved some citations from the beginning of paragraphs to the end of them, as the one citation was referring to the entire paragraph and not just the first sentence.

• For the first paragraph under signaling, you indicate a technique used for the identification of molecules interacting with the GPCR. However, I feel like citing this technique with a paper that used the technique would be beneficial for people to see how it was done.

• I added citations towards the ends of the paragraphs about the two adhesion proteins listed in the third and fourth paragraphs. I also have an idea that would dramatically change the structure that I will talk about a little bit further on.

• The cleavage section needed a whole overhaul of the language that was used. I felt it was much to confusing and complex for many reasons. I have tried to make it so that a causal viewer can come upon the page and read it with good understanding. If a more advanced person wants knowledge, I feel that that is when they should go to the citations. Also, there were only three citations in this entire section and they all referred to other organisms where the GAIN domain is found. I thought this sentence to be pretty useless and have taken it out, among many other words that I felt were unnecessary. If you don't like the change, feel free and put it back the way it was. I feel that this is more of the style that Wikipedia is going after, however. I didn't want to go in and change everything about the article, but I wanted to provide this as an example for how it should be done I feel. The page is yours, however, so feel free to make the changes you feel should be made. I am just providing that as an example.

• The section on the immune system I found to be very hard to read. As someone with some background knowledge regarding biology at this level, I still found it very difficult to read through.

• The sentence regarding the BAI1 adhesion protein, I redid as well. I thought that by stating what the protein was thought to be involved in and then stating what it actually is involved in was too similar to the review article this came from. It also, at least for me, adds nothing to my knowledge and current understanding about the protein if it is listed about what the protein was thought to have been involved in.

• I liked the way the GPCR adhesion protein GPR126 was described in the Neuronal Development section. I liked that it had multiple citations, and the way the information on this page was written was not anywhere similar to the way that it was presented in the articles that cited it. I thought that was very well done.

• I didn't like the way that GPR56 was addressed in the entire article. Little pieces of it are found everywhere. A paragraph is devoted to it in the ligand section. There is a sentence about it in the immune system section, a sentence about it in the bone marrow section, and a sentence about it in the bilateral frontoparietal polymicrogyria section. This brings me to a main point that I had regarding the article as a whole. I feel that a much better structure for this article were to describe each GPCR adhesion protein as if it were its own perhaps mini article, where the ligands, signaling, functional roles, and roles in disease were all put into one section that was all under the heading of the GPR56. Perhaps a better method would be to even put most of this information in the GPR56 page of wikipedia. I also noticed with the GPR12 protein, there was more information on the GPCR adhesion protein in this article than there was on the actual GPR12 article itself. It might be hard to figure out where the information should go, especially if you are trying to fix the main article, regarding ahesion GPCRs. I went searching on Pubmed for general review articles about adhesion GPCRs and found several that seemed to be very good places to begin, as a sort of overview of the GPCR adhesion proteins in general. It seemed like many of the articles that you have cited are primary articles, that could be very dense and hard to get through, while coming to a conclusion that yields the same knowledge that one sentence of a review article could provide. Those primary articles also seem to focus in on one mechanism or structure of one GPCR adhesion protein without addressing what you want to be addressing, which is the overall view of GPCR adhesion proteins.

• This leads me to another very important point, which is that the way you cited the articles, one on Wikipedia is not simply able to follow the link to a website such as Pubmed. I have included where you can use citations for the Pubmed journal articles Wikipedia template filling tool. I will do a couple for you. When doing this, you need to make sure you press the "Add ref tag" button below. I think it is very important to make them so you are able to follow the link to the article online. I feel that this is very important for someone who is doing some research of their own and have gone to Wikipedia as a starting place. In the past, I have gone to a Wikipedia page to mainly look for articles that were cited at the bottom of the page and not pay heed to the information that was presented at the top.

• Here are a few more things about the citations, upon which I clicked on and delved into the article a bit. In the second paragraph of signaling, regarding the GPR133 protein, the wording you used and the wording that was used in the research article is very similar, except where you use "via" they use the word "through."

• For the the citation regarding the Lat-1 protein, I felt that the sentence summed up the article very well without directly copying any of their specific word usage. I thought that this was very well done. I thought that the paragraph was a little wordy as well. I feel like you could simply state that the GPS domain and the 7 transmembrane domain are required for the Lat-1 signaling. In addition, I was not convinced after going into the article that the GPS site was necessary as part of an endogenous ligand. But you have probably read it more clearly than I have. In addition, when you link to the GPS, it gives you the Global Positioning System page, and not the GPS you are talking about.

• For the citation and the overall entry about the bone marrow GPCR adhesion protein, I felt that taking one sentence from the primary literature on one GPCR adhesion protein and using that as part of a section on the Wikipedia entry of all of the GPCR adhesion proteins may not be the best way to style the article. I also made the sentence more concise.

Flemingrjf (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Gpruett2

Here are my comments and suggestions for your article by section:

Introduction

• Open the article by talking about Adhesion GPCRs, not general GPCRs, since that is the subject of this article.

Classification

• This sentence is confusing and needs to be edited: "As the vertebrate superfamily can be phylogenetic grouped into five main families the GRAFS classification system has been proposed Glutamate, Rhodopsin, Adhesion-GPCRs, Frizzled/Taste2, Secretin has been proposed".
• I would suggest taking the information about the 33 human adhesion proteins and making a table for it.
• You might consider adding information about adhesion GPCRs found in other species.

Evolution

• I would not open with "Adhesion-GPCRs are found in Fungi". The main reason for this suggestion is that it isn't a very good introductory sentence about the evolution of adhesion GPCRs. I believe that this sentence from source [12] would be a better starting point: "while Adhesion (7tm_2) and Frizzled family members were found in the phylum Amoebozoa (Dictyostelium discoideum), which is a basal group to both Fungi and Metazoa". Make sure to reword it of course :)
• The overall structure of this section is confusing. Perhaps structuring to portray the evolutionary timeframe would be better. Thus, start with how and where adhesion-GPCRs first evolved and then progress from there.

Signaling

• The sentence "In a study where the N-terminus was removed up to N342, the start of the GPS, the receptor became constitutively active and an up regulation of Gα12/13 was seen" needs a citation.
• The citing seems to need some work. It seems like the citation is put at the beginning of the paragraph and this creates confusion because it makes it seem that the information following the first sentence has no citation. This is also an issue in the Ligands and Evolution sections.

Cleavage

• This whole section needs a citation.

Domains

• This sentence is misleading: "In deed, many ligands have been discovered for adhesion-GPCRs (see ligands section)". The reason for this is that it makes it seem that a lot of ligands are known for adhesion-GPCRs. This contradicts your statement in the ligands section that very few ligands have been identified for adhesion-GPCRs.
• This sentence seems out of place/doesn't flow well with the paragraph: "In the aptly named Very Large G protein-coupled Receptor 1 VLGR1 the extracellular region extends up to almost 6000 amino acids".

Immune system

• Is EGF-TM7 a subfamily of adhesion-GPCR? If so, please clarify.
• I would recommend restructuring this paragraph. It seems rather disjointed because it bounces from different immune functions without a clear transition.
• This sentence should be re-edited with more info or removed: "Details of EMR1, CD97 needed".

Neuronal development

• The progression of this paragraph is very disjointed and confusing. I would suggest talking about Schwann cells and the normal function of GPR126 before mentioning anything about how knockout affects neuronal development.

Bone marrow and hematapoietic stem cells

• This section is too vague and either needs to be expanded or removed. This can be easily done with the source already used to cite this section.
• The in-text citation for this section is not correct because its doi does not link out to the source.

Human adhesion-GPCRs

• You already list these under classification, so making another section seems redundant. I suggest either removing this section or removing the human-GPCR info from the classification section.

General comments

• Overall, the information seems sound and well cited; although, there are some issues with citing which I mentioned in the Signaling section review.
• A lot of your paragraphs are short and could use expanding. I found this lovely website of Adhesion-GPCR publications that you might find useful: [1].
• Your article is very text heavy and could use some diagrams/pictures.

Edits

• I also made some edits to you article and the differences can be viewed here: [2]
• If you think it necessary, remove or change these edits if you find them inappropriate.

I hope you find my comments and edits useful and best of luck with the rest of your editing. Gpruett2 (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review: BreCaitlin

• Is there anyway to organize the classifications into a table?
• Citations look good
• Article is easy to read
• Is research only happening in fish and fungi?

BreCaitlin (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review comments from MChapman5

• Is it possible to add wiki-links (or at least red-links) to the 5 classes of GPCR proteins in the leading section? Since this isn't my topic, I was hesitant to try and do it myself because I didn't want to link it through to the incorrect page; but if you can, that would be great.
• How about making a chart or table for the classification of G-Proteins? It may be more reader-friendly that way.
• I think adding a schematic picture to the signalling section would be really beneficial. Maybe the general pathway for an adhesion-GPCR?
• Are there any more roles in disease you can add to an article or at least cite for some possible studies/hypotheses?
• The last section you have on "Human-adhesion GPCRs" seems a little unfinished--or maybe just randomly placed. Could you add a couple lead sentences to give some detail to this section? I think that would make it feel more complete rather than just having a bunch of the proteins listed.
• What about a section on clinical implication? Have you found any research providing data from trials or experiments using adhesion-GPCRs in any disease states/treatments?
• You've done a terrific job over the course of the semester. The page is really coming along nicely! MChapman5 (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Maximus22

• A very dense introductory paragraph, may consider cutting it down or separating ideas out into paragraphs
• Wikilinks in the intro
• is talking about the various GPCRs in classification relevant? I think it would be better if you described the individual groups of adhesion GPCRs and explain what they have in common.
• A table would be great for Classification as well
• Do you have any insights into the difference in number between fish?
• Is Orphan receptor a well known term in this field? Do you think just stating that the ligand is unknown would be better?
• Are any other ligands besides collagen known?
• In signaling you talk about cleavage briefly but the cleavage section is below. I think it would be better if you talk about cleavage before you talk about the ligands. In fact, I think it is appropriate to have domains and cleavage sections first, then ligands and signaling to more logically track the pathway
• Wiki link for Ntn hydrolase
• Bone marrow and disease sections are very short, is there anything else to say about them?
• List of human adhesion GPCRs can be merged with the classification section in a table.

Great job Hakkinen2013 Maximus155 (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jnims

Great job with your project! Let's start with the things I particularly enjoyed/appreciated:

Good stuff

• Lots of informative content
• Good amount of citations

And here are some suggestions for improvement:

Suggested improvments

General: It looks like a lot of the information comes from primary sources, which should be avoided, if possible. Are there any review articles you could find with similar information?

Intro

• This section should be edited to conform to the WP:LEAD standards. The first sentence, in particular, needs work.
• I think there is too much information about classification in the intro, which would be more appropriate in the Classification section.
• Similarly, the structural information would be better in its own Structure section.

Classification

• This sentence needs work: "As the vertebrate superfamily can be phylogenetic grouped into five main families the GRAFS classification system has been proposed Glutamate, Rhodopsin, Adhesion-GPCRs, Frizzled/Taste2, Secretin has been proposed."
• A table might be a better way to present the proteins and groups.

Non-humans and evolution

• This information might be better in the Intro, because it seems out of place in its own section.

Ligands

• The end of this sentence needs cleanup: "Adhesion-GPCRs get their name from their N-terminal domains that have adhesion-like domains, such as EGF, and the belief that they interact with cell to cell and cell to extra cellular matrix."

Signalling

• A diagram of GPCR signaling would be helpful.

Roles

• More information is needed in the subsections with only one or two sentences.

Human adhesion-GPCRs

• This section is out of place and unnecessary. Consider presenting the information in a table, in a different part of the article.

Best of luck! Jnims (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)