Talk:Cell potency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Would like to see an over all improvement of this article - specifically:

  • More content with a better general description of cell potency, types and impact to medical science
  • Better images of cells, diagrams of potency types and relationship between them
  • Specific mention of induced PS


Aaron.aude (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC) I would like to add in the following graphic/flash animation. Any concerns? http://outreach.mcb.harvard.edu/animations/preloaderStemCells.swf



Aaron.aude (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Davidwhanks[edit]

Thanks for the work to improve this article; you have presented difficult-to-understand scientific concepts in a way that is easy to follow. Also important is your neutral point of view. Please feel free to incorporate any of the recommendations below. The biggest point of feedback is to consider approaching the material with the assumption that the reader has no science background, but instead has stumbled on the article after reading the term "cell potency" in a basic science article on a major news site, and is now looking for more information. At times, the material makes heavy use of jargon and assumes the reader has some background in the information. Other points for consideration:

  • Sometimes terms are cited that may require a basic definition and/or a link (ex: "morula" in the totipotency section)
Good suggestion. Incorporated
  • Recommend more links (within wikipedia) throughout
Good suggestion. Incorporated
  • Some sections could make better use of inline references. For example, there are none in the 2nd paragraph of the totipotency section.
  • The pluripotency section contains better explanations of certain terms that could be cited earlier when first used. An example is the parenthetical explanation of the terms endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm.
  • In the "induced pluripotency" section, recommend providing links and or explanations of some important terms, such as "transcription factors", "epigenetic factors", "chromatin/euchromatin", and "tumorigenic". Also in this section:
    • There is mention of an ethical debate but this could use an inline citation
    • The end paragraph that discusses possible applications is strong and leaves the reader wanting more. Is there more that can be added? It may be worth its own subsection under "induced pluripotency".
  • The multipotency section veers a bit from a neutral point of view (ex: use of "interesting")
Agreed. Reworked
  • The oligopotency and unipotency sections have relatively little information and inline citations here.
Agreed. Working on making these sections more meaningful
  • The article overall is well-sourced. Some of the links did not work, however. Specific recommendations are below:
    • Ref 1: the link didn't work. www.books.google.com provided access, and it presents a very good overall background that discusses some of the subject in simple terms. It also puts the subject in context in terms of medical application. Consider implementing a table (like Box 1 of this ref) that provides a quick one-stop-shop summary of the major terms used in the article.
    • Ref 3: the link also didn't work.
    • Ref 4: This is a very good reference for pluripotency but it was not cited in the pluripotency section (instead, it is cited in the totipotency section). Some of the language in the wikipedia article may be phrased too closely to how the author of Ref 4 presents the material. Recommend revising how the article information is paraphrased.
    • Ref 5: recommend deleting this reference, as it doesn't come up when selected (the information isn't accessible)
    • Ref 6: the link doesn't work.
    • Ref 7: the opening paragraph offers good information regarding potential medical application that could be cited in the article (perhaps used to develop an "application" section as mentioned earlier?)
    • Ref 8: presents some background on the ethical debate that could be cited
    • Ref 11: there is a good mention of medical application potential regarding "creation of patient and disease-specific stem cells"
    • Ref 13: presents a good description of the role of transcription factors in producing diverse cell types

Thanks again for the work you've done already; best of luck. Cheers, Davidwhanks (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

David: Thank you for your input and review. Our group will definitely be looking it over in detail and taking it all into consideration as we continue to edit, update and add content to this article. Thanks again. Vdiaz3 (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
David: Thank you for your input and comments. You have given our team great insight into how to make this article better. Aaron.aude (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Aaron.aude (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Awotawa1[edit]

Overall, you are off to a great start with this article. It looks like you've added some substantial, meaningful content thus far and maintained a neutral tone in your presentation. As David referred to in his comments, beware of words such as "interesting" because it conveys that the author is interjecting his/her opinion into the article. The text is generally well-written, and easy to follow if you have a science/biology background. However, the article as written at this point, is not presented in a way that makes it useful for someone without extensive cell biology knowledge. There are numerous references to complicated terms that the average reader would not be familiar with practically throughout the entire article. Specialized field-specific terminology should be explained when used to enhance readability. We must remember that Wikipedia is a reference used by everyone, not just scientists.
I think the article is organized very well, and sound references have been used (please be sure all links work). I like the breakdown of the different categories of cell potency in the article; however, the differences between each category (i.e. totipotent vs pluripotent vs multipotent, etc.) should be explained in a more clear and concise manner. Perhaps, an additional image or different image can help to convey this more clearly. I would suggest presenting this in the introduction section and using subsequent subsections to merely present and further explain each different type of cell potency. Also, the statement about totipotency via RNA regulation in C. elegans needs to be elaborated on. This sentence just makes a brief statement and leaves the reader hanging. There is a lot of information presented in the "Induced pluripotency" section and it appears that more focus has gone into this section at the expense of other subtopics within the article. For example, the last two subheadings about oligopotency and unipotency are little more than a brief mention of each category as it stands. These two sections need to be developed further. As far as mentioned new breakthroughs or research, you could either have a completely separate subheading for that topic, or you could present news or new research pertaining to each category of cell potency within those specific sections. I think I would choose the latter option as it discusses and wraps up each category nicely for the reader.
Thanks for the hard work put in on this article thus far, and I wish you continued success with completing the article in the coming weeks. Great start! Awotawa1 (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, guys. Thanks for being open to considering all feedback given thus far. Nice use of images! The article is coming together well. Keep up the great effort! Awotawa1 (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations on developing a great article. The images really contribute positively to the article. You also have a superb reference list. I like that you used examples in explaining the different degrees of cell potency. Nice job! Awotawa1 (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Review by Keilana[edit]

Hey guys! Great work so far! I've gone through and done a pretty thorough review for you. One thing before I dive into the rest - if you want to use a source that you don't have full text for, ask me and I can see if Loyola subscribes to a database with that article. I've found that sometimes universities have different specialty journal subscriptions for whatever reason. Anyways, I've bulleted the review so you can respond to comments individually. I'd prefer that you respond here but you can also ask me questions on my talk page or via email as per usual. I know this can be pretty overwhelming with the number of things to do, but most of them are small and easily taken care of. You can do it! :)

  • You don't need footnotes/citations in the lead if you discuss the material in the body of the article.
  • The whole phrase "cell potency" should be bolded, not just "potency".
  • Rephrase "can be thought of" if possible to make it more encyclopedic.
  • The lead could do with some expansion, as it needs to cover the whole article. Think of it like an abstract - for an article this size, it should be a decent-sized paragraph.
  • Links in the caption of the (excellent!) image would be really helpful for the lay reader.
  • You don't need to bold any of the terms in the body, just cell potency in the lead.
  • There's a couple places where you need to fix the spacing with the references.
  • You don't need to capitalize the titles of other Wikipedia articles (e.g. "Vascular Stem Cells").
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph and the entirety of the second paragraph in "Totipotency" need to be cited.
  • It really helps a lay reader when you gloss terms like "cytotrophoblast", and you get the added bonus of having a more thorough explanation.
  • Link morula, cellualr differentiation, and post-transcriptional regulation (for RNA regulation)
  • It would be helpful if you explain the specialization process and how totipotent cells become pluripotent in the second paragraph of "Totipotency".
  • Expand the 3rd paragraph of "Totipotency" if possible; you could explain the C. elegans result further and see if you can find more research on post-transcriptional regulation in other model organisms or in humans.
  • Footnote 3 (Regenerative Medicine Glossary) is malformatted, you only need the pages or at parameter, you can't have both.
  • I would prefer that footnote 3 link to the PDF, that's more direct for the reader.
  • You could use source 4 (Mitalipov and Wolf) for way more in the article, especially for expanding on totipotency mechanisms.
  • Footnote 5 needs to be a full citation. You can also use this to talk about totipotency in Drosophila to go along with the discussion of totipotency in C. elegans.
  • Rewrite the sentence beginning "RNA regulation may play a role in maintaining..." because the paraphrasing is too close.
  • The last two sentences of Pluripotency need a citation.
  • Footnote 6 is a dead link; you either need to fix it and put in a full cite template or find a replacement citation.
  • It would help the lay reader if you explained why the inability to differentiate into extraembryonic tissue means a pluripotent cell can't become a fetus or adult.
  • Why does the phrase "induced pluripotent stem cells" have two citations? You could use those sources for so much more.
  • Again, you could use more information to expand this section from source 9 (Stadtfeld).
  • Transcription factors could use a gloss and link. More specifically, you could explain what they do to help induce pluripotency.
  • Footnote 10 needs a date (I think it's 25 August 2006?).
  • Mention that the induction of human stem cells was similar to the methods used in mouse cells.
  • The last two sentences of paragraph 1 of Induced Pluripotency need a citation.
  • You don't need to repeat footnote 12 in the second paragraph of Induced Pluripotency, just remove the first one and you'll be good.
  • Change the word "erase" or rewrite the whole sentence it's in to avoid close paraphrasing.
  • The last couple sentences of paragraph 2 of Induced Pluripotency need citations.
  • Having a source that's not a science journal for the first part of the 3rd paragraph in Induced Pluripotency would be fantastic to augment that section; try the [nytimes.com New York Times] or [sciam.com Scientific American].
  • The last sentence of paragraph 4 of Induced Pluripotency needs a citation to not be original research.
  • When you say "recently determined", you need to give a date so Wikipedia stays current.
  • Remove the last sentence of Induced Pluripotency, it's editorializing.
  • You don't need to repeat footnote 14, same as 12, just remove the first one.
  • Is there more research on therapeutic uses since 2008? Try to find a secondary source (review, etc.) to comply with our reliable source policy for medicine.
  • Rewrite the sentence beginning "iPSCs may also be used in studying..." because of close paraphrasing issues.
  • You need to make the sentence on hematopoeic cells more clear. That first paragraph on multipotency also needs citations.
  • Rewrite "There is also interesting research"; that's editorializing also. Just comment that research in the 21st century has focused on X, Y, and Z. (Try to find more than one source about current research, a review could be helpful here too.)
  • Can you find an English source to augment source 19?
  • Source 20 is great in terms of medical reliable sources! Can you use that information in more places?
  • In Oligopotency and Unipotency, don't say "in biology" or "in cell bio", we have that context from the lead.
  • I don't have the book physically but source 1 doesn't (from a google books adventure) seem to support the article text. Can you find another source?
  • Oligopotency needs expansion overall and a citation for the last sentence.
  • Rewrite the first sentence of Unipotency for a more encyclopedic tone. One suggestion I would make would be to change "the concept" to "ability".
  • Why are precursor cells similar to unipotent cells? Spell that out for the reader.
  • GONUTS is not a reliable source, being a wiki itself, you need to find a new source.

That's all I have for you. Good luck! Keilana|Parlez ici 22:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Keilana for your thorough review. My partner in updating this Wiki article and I appreciate it very much and are taken these points into consideration as we gradually edit and update during the next couple of weeks. If we have any additional questions regarding any of the suggestions we'll be sure to ask. Again, thank you! Vdiaz3 (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Keilana: Thanks for your review and insight. It is great to have someone so passionate about making this article better helping us out. Much of your insight is under our consideration, as Vanessa has stated, and we are slowly incorporating changes from you, David and Amy.

Aaron.aude (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Team Response to Feedback[edit]

We took most (almost all) of your feedback into consideration and have addressed as much as possible at this time. We're working on updating cell potency iteratively and expect to wrap-up in two weeks. Yours were great points and suggestions, and we differed with you on a few of them. With regard to technical terms, cell potency has many. Most reviewers have suggested explaining these terms (which would definitely be ideal), but we are struggling with which to define, which to link and which to keep as-is. Defining each one might overwhelm the article.


As such, we think that choosing key ones to define might work and reduce clutter in the article. On a different note, the induced pluripotency subsection is not a main article - in fact, the main article is found in WikiPedia under “Induced pluripotent stem cells”. We can add more details about things like medical uses for them for example, but we’re not planning to be exhaustive about including every detail. This main pluriopotency article is broader—as it should be, and goes into a lot more details.



One other point, we believe that our article attempts to draw comparisons between the different cell types - within the spectrum. As a result, we're attempting to provide a theme of comparison in the article, and allow the various parent (or sub sections) to define more of the detail. A good example of this is the range from totipotency to pluriopotency. Lots of good research, literature, etc., but our article should (we believe) describe the differences between these cell types rather than exhaustive definitions of each.

Aaron.aude (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jberendt[edit]

Overall this article is very well written with clear and concise content, easy to read, and flows well from the start of the article to the end as an overall comparison of cell potency. As a lot of recommendations have been made in the recent critiques, I realize that a lot of this is in progress. I read through your comments and agree with what's been said thus far. Here's what I have to add:

  • Terms needing explanation. This can get lengthy, I agree! Pick ones that are directly related to your overall content such as "extraembryonic tissues" since tissues as you describe several times as being the final designation of stem cells.
  • Latin word "potents" means "having power" - Mentioned in the pluripotency section but really this applies to all the cell potencies described. Consider moving this short segment to the lead section. Leave the other portion of the word meanings in Latin where they are.
  • I believe the first sentence of the second and third paragraph under Totipotency are awkward. Simple rewording will make these flow better. For example (2nd paragraph) "Research has shown that totipotency can be regained however this process is complex. . "
  • "Inner cell mass" is capitalized mid-sentence ( 3rd paragraph of totipotency)
  • A couple of words are linked several times such as pluripotent and transcription factors through out the article - link first time use
  • The first paragraph of Multipotency needs a reference
  • State within Oligopotency: "It is a degree of potency." Aren't they all? I would either incorporate this in the lead or simply remove it.
  • I couldn't access anything useful from Reference #1. Forgive me if this has already been addressed since this is a topic of previous threads. However, since you have this citation along with reference #2 in your lead, you may be able to either find this information all in #2 or rephrase so only #2 is necessary.
  • You have great images at the start of your article! You could use more throughout since you set the precedence right off! I found this one in the wikimedia commons that I thought might go with your Oligopotency section if you agree with it. Here is just the link so you can do with it as you wish.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stem_cells_maturing_into_blood_cells_and_precursor_cells.jpg

Best of luck for our final week of this project! Great job! Jberendt (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I see there have been some modifications to your article. Overall, I think this article gives readers a good understanding of cell potency and the different levels. Good job and good luck! Jberendt (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. This has been a great experience, and appreciate your insight Aaron.aude (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Jbmcgregor[edit]

I think the contributors did a good job improving this article. Much has already been discussed in terms of improvements to the page in the earlier comments section, but I will comment on the areas that still stand out to me.

I like the picture used at the beginning of the article. I think that it does a good job of being a visual for people who might be less familiar with the topic. The divisions of the page worked well and the overall difference between types of potency was explained well. There were many areas that I feel would be difficult for someone without knowledge of biology to understand. It started to get a little too technical around the part about transcription factors and throughout the rest of the article. I think a few extra sentences here and there explaining the more scientific terms would help the lay person to be able to understand more of this article.

I also agree with another reviewers comment that the topic of C. elegens, zebrafish, and humans could be explored further. The two sentences introduce the topic, but then readers are left wondering.

There were a good number of references and I felt like most statements were backed up with a citation.

I also think the contributors did a good job of staying neutral on a topic that often introduces many opinions/bias.

The descriptions of the types of potency seemed to get shorter and shorter as the page went on. There was so much information in the beginning and I felt like the last two sections were not as thorough as the beginning of the article. I don't know if this was do to less research available or if the contributors felt there was enough information covering the subject of unipotency under precursor cell. Jbmcgregor (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have updated/edited the epigenetic section under induced pluripotency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.43.126.65 (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)