Talk:Epigenetic regulation of neurogenesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Neuroscience (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hey Guys, this article is being created as an assignment for my Neuroscience course. The assignment will be over by the 12th of December. I would appreciate any suggestions or assistance with the article, but please let me know about it here so i can keep up with the changes! Thanks!

-There has been a ton of studies done linking epigenetic misregulation to Parkinson's disease, Schizophrenia, and BPD. However, i haven't been able to find ANY secondary sources that discuss with enough depth to put up into wikipedia. I would LOVE to add these diseases to the Epigenetic Misregulation & Neurodegenerative diseases section, so if anyone can point me in the right direction or would like to help out with that, it would be appreciated!

Michael K. Duke (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

-Also, on mobile this site is reporting as having problems. Any idea how to make it mobile compatible? (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review 1[edit]

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

  • Very dense, but I think that's just the nature of the content

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 1.5

  • Transcription factor
  • SATB2
  • EZH2
  • Valproic acid
  • Knockout mouse
  • I'm not going to keep listing them so, see if all these other proteins/enzymes, neuronic genes and others exist on wikipedia and link them (DNMT series (or just one of each series to prevent overlinking), GCM, etc...)
  • Brain locations (SVZ, Dentate gyrus, etc...)
  • Use your judgement to prevent overlinking, but you can definitely use some more links to more easily inform readers.

6. Responsive to comments: 2 - I'll assume.

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 1.5

  • "throough", last sentence of paragraph 1, Embryonic miRNAs
  • "exhaustion is the subventricular zone" - 'is' should be 'in', correct?
  • Re-proof, there are a few sentences with extraneous/missing words ('in's, 'a's, things like that) throughout the article.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1.5

  • Clean up some errors and it'll be very well written and informative.
  • Nice graphic, maybe include 1 or 2 more showing more mechanisms if possible


Total: 18.5 out of 20

Alec DeFilippo (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2013 (EST)

Thanks for the input Alec. I added some more links and fixed those typos. Michael K. Duke (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review 2[edit]

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 1

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 1

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 2

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1 _______________

Total: 17 out of 20

1) Information seems correct and relevant, supported by many recent references.

2) Article size as of Nov 18 is 16,891 bytes, falling into the specified range. Not in danger of going over the 25kb limit.

3) Easy to read, although somewhat daunting to see all that text together. Maybe breaking the text up with a chart, image, or other example would make it look kinder. Some processes are not explained or linked such as neuron proliferation.

4) 10 out of 10 references are present.

5) Differentiation is mentioned once before it is linked. A few links to other key terms missing (ncRNA, stem cells) but there seem to be more added since the Nov 18th edit so good job on that!

6) Made comments on talk page to begin conversation with other wiki users.

7) Well organized in accordance with wiki standards.

8) Only a few grammatical errors here and there that have since been cleaned up

9) Check.

10) You have room to add more figures to keep the article interesting. Overall a very well written and informative article.

Sdavis32 (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I am thinking about where to put some mechanistic images in under the subsections for types of regulation. I am curious as to where you think a chart would fit in? I hadn't previously considered putting one in and would love the variation.
Michael K. Duke (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review 3[edit]

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 1

Slightly more journal-style than I've seen on Wikipedia, for instance these sections:

  • "When DNMT3b and DNMT1 were ablated in mouse embryos, each separately, embryonic lethality followed due to impairment of neural tube development. DNMT3a ablation did not cause embryonic lethality, but did result in a severe detriment in postnatal neurogenesis."
    • This is more paraphrasing results section than encyclopedia summary. Would try to be more informative and less reportive (as in reporting on study results), if that makes sense. Using present tense would help.
  • "One such gene is Hes5, hypermethylated in E7.5 Embryos but completely demethylated by E9.5"
    • I might refrain from "E7.5" and similar clinical language

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 2

Could use links describing processes and concepts (noticed the biomolecule and brain stucture linking was pointed out and fixed). Such as:

  • "methyl groups are either added or removed to the histone altering it's structure and exposing chromatin and leading to gene activation or deactivation."
    • gene activation
  • "When DNMT3b and DNMT1 were ablated in mouse embryos, each separately, embryonic lethality followed due to impairment of neural tube development."
    • neural tube, ablation
  • "Further examination revealed that around 1.4% of CpG islands in DG neurons are actively methylated and demthylated upon electric shock."
    • CpG islands

6. Responsive to comments:2

7. Formatting: 2

  • Could use an intro paragraph above the table of contents.

8. Writing: 2

  • "It entails many different complex processes which are all time and ordered depenedent" - should be "time and order dependent"?

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 2

  • Well cited, I like the level of detail and ambition.


Total: 19 out of 20

TDavies3 (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback TDavies3 ! I get that using terms like E.10, E9.5, etc. may seem sort of journalish, but i had it written like that because i felt constantly repeating "embryonic day ten", "embryonic day seven", etc. would be tedious to read. I can't just say "day ten", as zygotic development can be slightly variable (on an hours scale) and the starting point for when the mouse is in it's embryo stage may vary. Given that, do you think it would be better to use embryonic day ten spelled out rather than E10? Your opinions are appreciated. :) Michael K. Duke (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)