|This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): BioEd53, Mknut3, Nathanneuro.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Channel blocker article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Pharmacology||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|The content of Open channel block was merged into Channel blocker. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
- 1 Student Primary Review
- 2 Secondary Review
- 3 Secondary Review
- 4 Secondary Review
- 5 Secondary Student Review
- 6 Primary Student Review
- 7 Primary Student Review
- 8 Student Primary Review
- 9 Student Secondary Review
- 10 Student Secondary Review
- 11 Author Comment
- 12 Secondary Review
- 13 Secondary Review
Student Primary Review
Wikipedia Edit - If you read this in the edit section the formatting isn't as awful to look at
1. Ion Channel Inconsistency
a. “Certain channels called ligand-gated ion channels are mediated by the binding of a specific channel protein. Others, known as voltage gated channels, open and close in response to a change in the membrane potential” b. Various ion channels have varying mechanism of function. They include: i. voltage-gated ion channels 1. Ion channels that are activated by changes in membrane potential ii. ligand-gated ion channels 1. Ion channels mediated by binding of small molecules to the channel protein iii. mechanosensitive ion channels 1. Ion channels that respond to stretch, vibration, or temperature changes iv. light-gated ion channels 1. Ion channels that open or close in response to light c. Issue: In your introduction, I feel like you imply that there are only two types of ion channels, but in your list of types of ion channels later in the article you list four types of ion channels d. Suggestion: I would get rid of the sentences in (a) and begin the next sentence with, “Ultimately, all ion channels regulate…”
2. Binding of open channel blockers and channel structure
a. I would rename this section, “Imaging Methods” or something along those lines b. Suggested Change: By studying the structure of ion channels, researchers can identify the types of molecules that bind to these channels. Tools such as X-ray crystallography, Hydrophobicity plots, and electrophysiology have been essential in locating the binding sites and chemical makeup of open channel block molecules. i. I would cut everything else in that section and just link to the Wikipedia pages for electrophysiology, X-Ray, and hydrophobicity. That way the focus of the article stays on channel blockers
3. Pictures in article
a. I would include one or two more pictures in your article. I think a good place would be in the physiology section. If you could find a picture showing the different binding regions of a channel and put that in the receptor antagonist section I think that would be good!
4. Grammar – There are a few clunky sentences in the article
a. “To comprehend the mechanism of channel blockers, it is critical to understand the composition of ion channels. Their main function is to contribute to the resting membrane potential of a cell via the flow of ions through a cell membrane. To accomplish this task, ions must be able to cross the hydrophobic region of a lipid bilayer membrane, an unfavorable process.” i. Suggested Edit: Ion channels contribute to the membrane potential of a cell by regulating the flow of ions across the cell membrane. Ions are the charge carriers of the cell. By controlling the flow of these charge carriers, the cell can control its membrane (electric) potential. b. “Channel blockers are antagonists for the channels required for normal function within many cells” i. Suggested Edit: Channel blockers are antagonists of channels required for normal function within many cell c. “Excessive exposure to glutamate leads to neurotoxicity in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Specifically, over-activation of NMDA type glutamate receptors have been linked to neural cell excitotoxicity and cell death. A potential solution to this is a decrease in NMDA receptor activity, without interfering so drastically as to cause clinical side effects.” i. Suggested Edit: Excessive exposure to glutamate leads to neurotoxicity in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. The excess of glutamate causes over-activation of NMDA-type glutamate receptors. These NMDA receptors have been linked to neural cell excitotoxicity resulting in cell death. Potential treatments include decreasing NMDA receptor activity.
a. Wikipedia Article: “Others, known as voltage-gated channels, open and close in response to a change in the membrane potential” b. Website: “Most ion channels are gated—that is, they open and close either spontaneously or in response to a specific stimulus, such as the binding of a small molecule to the channel protein (ligand-gated ion channels) or a change in voltage across the membrane that is sensed by charged segments of the channel protein (voltage-gated ion channels).” c. Summary: Valid secondary/tertiary source that is properly cited and says what the authors say it says
Response to primary review
Thanks for the review. We're working to increase the consistency and continuity between the lead paragraph and the rest of the article. We've changed some of the titles for the subsections to better reflect their content and distinguish between them. We added another image to the physiology section. Thanks for pointing out some of the clunky wording, we've cleaned up those sections. We didn't delete the section formerly titled Binding of open channel blockers and channel structure, since it provides some useful information on how channel blockers were identified. Nathanneuro (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I like the overall layout of the article, and how you created lists for the types of ion channels and the classes of channel blockers. However, in the Pharmacology section I think that more hyperlinks could be added to increase the understanding of your topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feeny95 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
You might consider moving "Binding of open channel blockers and channel structure" to another section or creating a new sub-heading. It seemed a little out-of-place right after the discussion on the types of ion channels. I think the heading title could also be shortened for clarification. The article could also be improved with the addition of a few more pictures in the "Therapeutic uses" and "Pharmacology" sections. I really liked the overall organization of the information and feel as if I have a better understanding of channel blockers myself. --CollPaulie (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Great opening summary. Throughout the article I noticed a few mistakes:
Maybe add Wiki or external links to alanine, leucine, phenylalanine;
Third sentence of specificity of molecules has bad sentence structure;
Only link to another Wiki or external page once
The first sentence under Kinetics section - target channel's pore
Under therapeutic uses - "For years, researchers have been investigating the effects of an open channel block, memantine, on as a treatment option for neurotoxicity," typo with on as
Under cystic fibrosis - dysfunction vs disfunction?
Second paragraph in CFTR channel disfunction - side-dependent or site-dependent?, and again disfunction vs dysfunction
Otherwise great job, interesting to read!
Secondary Student Review
Overall, the article is well written and has a good source of information.
Provide more clarity in the Receptor Antagonist paragraph. You should clearly state agonists bind for normal function. The second sentence in this paragraph is a little unclear.
The short paragraph on Cystic Fibrosis under Therapeutic uses seems out of place. As explained, the disease is a negative result of channel blockers and does not seem to fit under this category.
Under Therapeutic uses and Pharmacology there is some repetitiveness. These two sections should be combined. The Alzheimer's paragraphs under both have the same information.
The use of "ought" seems less formal and appropriate. --(User talk: User:SewellBio) 13:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your review. We adjusted the wording of the Receptor Antagonist paragraph, trying to clearly state the information and cutting out extraneous wording. We used the section "Therapeutic Uses" to dive into the background of why understanding channel blockers are necessary when looking at certain disorders. Understanding the mechanisms of the disorder allows for therapeutic targeting; this is the reason our group placed the information where we did. We ended up placing the two subsections under the heading "Clinical Significance", in order to organize the two sections a little better. Thank you for your feedback! --BioEd53 (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Primary Student Review
1) Introduction: In your introduction section I believe you could improve by adding the names of some specific channel blocker. Another point to consider would be adding a sentence about the basic mechanism used by channel blockers. At the end of the section you introduce pharmacology very briefly and don't mention your section on Therapeutic usage at all. You could expand on pharmacology a bit and also introduce therapeutic usage as well. Overall a solid introductory paragraph.
2) Identity:In your identity section there are several minor grammatical errors that should be proofread and edited. You may also consider changing the name of the section to "Background" based on the material presented. One additional suggestion would be to break up the section titled "binding of open channel blockers and channel structure" into two separate sections, or consider rephrasing the paragraph since it jumps around a little bit in the material discussed. Once again a solid section with important information throughout.
3) Physiology: In this section there were also some minor grammatical errors to be corrected. In this section you mention that channel blockers are able to block voltage gated ion channels, along with other channels. I would suggest finding somewhere on the article page to discuss how channel blockers may effect different types of ion channels in different ways (i.g. ligand versus voltage gated). I was also a little bit confused by your specificity section, I would suggest possibly expanding this section or clarifying. As for the section on Kinetics you seem to focus on anesthetics which you also mention in the pharmacology section, I think you would be fine just keeping the anesthetics information in the pharmacology section alone. Overall a good section.
4) Therapeutic use and Pharmacology:I grouped these sections together because I believe they are somewhat similar in their subjects, I would suggest possibly combining these sections into one section titles "clinical significance" or something like that. Within both of these sections there are a lot of complicated science terms that you could add links to, these words include: memantine, NMDA, antiepileptics, antiarrhythmics, neurotoxicity, and neurodegeneration. Overall both of these section contain well stated, and important information. I did not mention the Types section because there was nothing I could think of to change.
5) Images: There are a scarce amount of imagery used in the article, I would suggest adding a diagram of the cell membrane and a channel that may be effected by a channel blocker. I would also suggest adding an image or video that actually depicts the mechanism of channel blocker channel inhibition.
6) Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4692491/ "The hitchhiker's guide to voltage-gated sodium channel galaxy". This is an excellent example of a secondary source since it is a distinguished peer-reviewed journal, coming from the Journal of Genetic Physiology. In the article it is used to define the hydrophobic and hydrophillic domains of the cell membrane and their function in relation to ion channels. This is a correct use of this source and efficiently adds to the information on their topic.
7) Overall: Overall this article does an excellent job of illustrating the function of channel blockers within the cell. The editors also effectively convey background information in order for people with little scientific background to understand. They also relate the function of channel blockers to broader pharmacological and therapeutic fields. The editors have shown that they have learned how to edit and navigate Wikipedia effectively through their use of links, references, and other coding Wikipedia tools that make their article even better. Well done. Jkrumholz13 (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Response to primary review
Thanks for the review. We added some sentences better linking the lead paragraph and the therapeutic sections. We've changed some of the titles for the subsections to better reflect their content and distinguish between them. We added another image to the physiology section, which helps to show the diverse way in which channel blockers and other molecules can bind. Since it is a broad topic, we couldn't show every way channel blockers and different types of receptors interact. We've worked to clean up any grammatical issues in the article. Additionally we tried to clarify the ambiguities throughout, especially within the physiology section. We didn't consolidate some of the sections you suggested, since they address different concerns and we felt they provided a good overview. Nathanneuro (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
As a group, we really liked the "clinical significance" suggestion - that really helped clean a couple of things up. We also utilized your suggesting regarding the "background" section. As @nathanneuro explained, we chose to focus on just a couple aspects and clinical roles of channel blockers, but did our best to list related topics at the bottom of the page. Neurosynn (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Primary Student Review
1. Well Written a. Overall the article is clear, but there are a few grammatical errors that could be fixed if read over again. A couple of run on sentences that could be changed into two sentences. For example, under Anesthetics, the sentence beginning with Introducing and ending with excitation could be worded better, and or made into two different sentences. b. The last sentence in the lead section should probably be removed or just added to another section in your article. c. Channel disfunction is incorrectly spelled. *dysfunction 2. Verifiable a. If you were to keep this last sentence in the lead section, it must also be cited, because the last sentence of all sections should end with a citation. So just make sure to go back and check that all your work end in citations. Good job with making sure to cite your information! b. The source I chose was https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5290713/ . This is reference number 19 in the article. This is a secondary source because it states in the conclusion that it is a review article. The source does say what the author said it did. Maybe elaborating more about how glutamate works can help explain Alzheimer’s a little more? 3. Broad in coverage a. Good job with summarizing the topics and not putting too much detailed information in to confuse the reader. The only thing I would say to do is to possibly add some more links to a few more terms in the Pharmacology section especially when talking about CFTR channel dysfunction. 4. Neutral a. This article represents viewpoints fairly. 5. Stable a. This article is also stable 6. Illustrated a. This article contains a lot of information, so it would definitely be nice to see more pictures to go along with the information, especially pictures for the channel blockers about diseases. 7. Overall the article has a lot of information, and one could learn a lot from reading it! All it needs is a few more scans for grammatical errors, and more pictures added. With all these good reviews I know the authors can have a great article in the end. Jenelove (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Response to primary review
Thanks for the review. We kept the lead section largely the same, but tried to make it flow better with the rest of the article. We've reworked the citations to place them at the end of some paragraphs when appropriate. We added another image to the physiology section, which helps to show the diverse way in which channel blockers and other molecules can bind. We added some hyperlinks throughout and cleared up some of the repeat hyperlinks. Nathanneuro (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I will add that we purposely left out some of the details about Alzheimer's (i.e. the role of glutamate) due to the fact that the a channel blockers is such a broad topic and and of itself! We thought that adding some hyperlinks as suggested would help readers have easy access to any information that may be supplemental to the information we decided to focus on. Unfortunately this is just too broad to cover every aspect in one semester! Neurosynn (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Student Primary Review
Physiology: I think it may be helpful for other readers if there were pictures within this section just to see the structure of something we cannot physically see in order to conceptualize channel blockers.
Types: Would you consider moving the section in which you list the types of channel blockers to further up the page, perhaps after the physiology section? I like how it was placed after I read the page in its entirety, however, there may be some readers which are more impatient than I, and would like this information sooner.
Source: Cystic Fibrosis: Insight into CFTR pathophysiology and pharmacotherapy This article is a secondary source and hits all of the check boxes required of a reference for Wikipedia. However, I feel like there is so much information in this article and that you could use that in your CF section. But I understand that this is only a Wikipedia article on channel blockers, and not on the molecular basis of CF. So, I think that this article is appropriately used, if you feel like it is necessary, I would use more of this excellent information to add to your CF section.
Entire Page: On the whole, I feel like your article is well-written and sounds like it comes from one voice. Your sources are verifiable and you do not include any original research performed by your group. It is broadly covered in enough depth for someone that blindly types Channel Blocker into a search engine and reads your article, they will be able to understand what they are. Your article is neutral, it would be very difficult not to be neutral on channel blockers. Your article is illustrated, however, as previously suggested, you could possibly add images to the physiology section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshow14 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Response to primary review
Thanks for the review. We added another image to the physiology section, which helps to show the diverse way in which channel blockers and other molecules can bind. We kept the types section near the bottom of the article since it's just a list and is meant to be more like additional reading. We definitely would have liked to add more in the CF section but we felt that going too in depth would be beyond the scope of the article, our goal was to provide a clinical application in which channel blockers are commonly used. Nathanneuro (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Student Secondary Review
Channel Blocker: This article gave light to a rather simple topic and gave a solid insight into deeper understanding. In particular, I appreciated the extensive review on the different types of channels ie: voltage, ligand, etc. before delving further. The video for the example of voltage- dependent potassium ion channel is a nice visual for overweening significance of channel blockers. That being said, I do believe that one of the primary reviewers stated under “physiology” had good point where he/she discussed adding information about how channel blockers may effect different types of ion channels in different ways. If this information exists, I think that the article would benefit greatly! Lastly, the article, “Open channel block and beyond” is a solid secondary source. Good job overall, your team should be proud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.boyd.mu (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Student Secondary Review
-In the introduction add all the channels mentioned later, not only ligand and voltage
-The subtitle "Binding of open channel blockers and channel structure” could have another name
-Hypelink uncommon terms such as NMDA receptors, antiarrhythmics, alanine, etc.
-Maybe end cystic fibrosis with a sentence concluding how channel blocker is related
-Could implement what competitive, noncompetitive and uncompetitive channel blockers are
-I think is easy to read I really liked it
Originally, our group planned on focusing specifically on "open channel blockers" in an attempt to keep our spectrum of information a little more concise than it would be with just a channel blocker. However, Wikipedia editors preferred to see the information we provided on a page about channel blockers in general. Unfortunately for us, this topic has elicited quite a bit of information - making it near impossible to cover all of the literature they have collected on it! That being said, as a group we wanted to try and focus more on the real world application of channel blockers, not just what they do. This is why we chose to investigate the role these blockers play in illness and how researchers are using their kinetics as a treatment option. Thanks for the feedback! Neurosynn (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The introduction was written in a simple and concise manner, providing the reader with the most relevant information about channel blockers. But, I would recommend rewriting some sentences so that they are connected one to another, meaning that one idea is explained, instead of having multiple sentences that do not connect or that have no relation. The subtopics are divided in a way that it is clear to follow and to understand the function, and importance, of channel blockers in the nervous system. In the identity section, I would add more information in the ion channels part because it is easy to find, since it is a well-known topic. Also, change some of the verbs you used because some of them do not make sense. For the rest of the subtopics, it would be helpful if you added more pictures in order for the reader to understand the neurobiology of it. In the specificity section, you say that channels have evolved different structures, perhaps you can be more specific? The remaining three sections do a great job at giving the reader an insight of the function of the channel blockers and how these are present in common diseases. Overall, great job! This article has only a few grammatical errors and has all of the information written in a precise manner. 0475ramosk (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Katherine Ramos Delgado
Overall, I thought that the article was very well written, concise, and easy to understand! I definitely learned something new. Also, you went above and beyond with the images, videos, and hyperlinks added to the article! Perhaps you could enhance the article by adding some background information under the pharmacology section. Reiterate what was stated in the introduction, and emphasize the purpose of channel blockers in the synthesis of pharmacology. You listed a few subheadings that describe how channel blockers are used in the synthesis of drugs—“Anesthetics, Alzheimer’s Disease, and CFTR channel Dysfunction.” Why did you choose these topics in particular? Are there other disorders that can be treated with channel blockers? If so, maybe you could briefly describe them in a background section. If it is too broad of a topic, perhaps you could be more specific in the subheading titles and write "Therapeutic Uses for Neurodegenerative Disorders" or "Pharmacology in Neurodegenerative Disorders," so that the reader can immediately grasp that this section will pertain only to the effects channel blockers in neurodegenerative disorders. "Therapeutic uses," and "Pharmacology" might be too general since not much beyond neurobiology is covered. Francesca Marie A. Florendo 04:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)