Talk:Low-threshold spikes

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

Neuroscience Low‑importance

	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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

This page is being updated as part of Dr. Burdo's BI481 Introduction to Neuroscience course. It is in the process of being reviewed and will be updated throughout the semester. Financ (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Siwek M, Henseler C, Broich K, Papazoglou A, and Weiergräber M. states that T-type channels are active in both thalamocortical eurhythmia and pathophysiological -aberrations. The review also proposes that pharmacological modulation of voltage-gated Ca(2+)-channels might be useful in the treatment of more than just Parkinsons. Drug therapies that affect the T-type Ca channel can be used for treatment of neurological and psychiatric disorder such as schizophrenia, mania, dementia and epilepsy.KOskar (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out this article--we were able to incorporate it into the page even though this is still a new area of research. Thanks! CorinneMarieClifford (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to add a short introductory paragraph to briefly explain what low threshold spikes are, in order to go along with the common Wikipedia style. The first sentence in the physiology section would be a good first sentence for the intro paragraph, or you could just use those first three sentences in the physiology section as your intro. Also I noticed your history section isn't cited, so you might want to add a citation there, and maybe beef the paragraph up a little bit. Maybe you could mention a person/group that first identified low threshold spikes. Lastly, in the section "LTS Kinetics" in the second sentence, you should uncapitalize "Low-threshold". Mjavorski (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These suggestions were very helpful, thanks! I made all of the structural changes that you suggested and I definitely think that the article flows better. I uncapitalized "low"--thanks for catching that. I also just incorporated the history section into the introduction. Thanks! CorinneMarieClifford (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a interesting topic that I enjoyed reading about. I think in terms of content there should be a little more background to the T-Type channel, along with more of an introduction into the topic. If there is a small section briefly describing LTS before you begin mentioning T-type channels then it will seem less random. Also, I think that you should move T-type channel description to below the LTS kinetics section. Also, make sure to site experiments in the LTS Kinetics section, maybe going into further description of who performed the experiment and why. These fixes should make it a little better organized so that it flows a little better. User:NicoleKopidakis (talk) November 18, 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the structural suggestions, we were not exactly sure how to structure the article in order for it to flow the best. We also included an introduction section that explains the LTS more before delving into other subjects. We will definitely site the experiments and expand on them. Thanks! CorinneMarieClifford (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

For the improvement of this article, I think a short introductory paragraph of what low-threshold spikes are should be added. The article seems to just dive in to T-type channels without addressing the low threshold spikes: “The T-type calcium channel is found in neurons throughout the brain. These channels produce particularly large currents in thalamic, septal, and sesnory neurons. Due to their activation near the resting membrane potential, as well as their fast recovery from inactivation, they are able to generate low-threshold spikes.” Also, in this section, sesnory should be changed to sensory. In the history section, I feel you could go more in-depth about the experiment that discovered low-threshold calcium current rather than just briefly mentioning it.

We added an introductory paragraph so the section on T-type Ca2+ channels should fit better now. Typo was fixed. The history section was incorporated elsewhere into the article - there is not much more to say about the history, as the details pertaining to LTS from the first experiment are built into the entire article.Financ (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a reader not familiar with neuroscience, I think it would be beneficial to explain some of the terms. For example, what are “spike bursts”? Some of the wording of sentences could also be changed to flow better. For example in the Rhythmogenesis section, three consecutive sentences start with the word “this.” For a more reader friendly viewing, Ca2+ could also be changed to Ca2+. Other wording is confusing, such as deinactivating. Many of the sections that are relatively short seem very split up and could probably be grouped under one heading or beefed up some.

Wording suggestions have been addressed. Not sure what you meant about Ca2+ change. Some section changes have been made. We also clarified what is meant by "deinactivation". Financ (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the diseases, the section on Parkinson’s was rather short and could benefit from more information. Delving into the research done could provide further insights regarding LTS in Parkinson’s. I also noticed from one of the other reviews that LTS occurs in other pathologies. It would make the article more complete to include LTS in these other diseases as well.

We've added a little more to this section. It is not an entirely well-researched area, so there are more indications rather than facts as to the impact of LTS on Parkinson's. That makes it hard to expand on the section.Financ (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

I thought that this article was very informative and personally very interesting. To improve the article, I think you should include the introduction paragraph in the beginning that summarizes some of the main ideas of low-threshold spikes. I also noticed that you have some typos as well as few grammar mistakes. So it would be nice if you should proofread once more. And there are some paragraphs that do not have citation at the end. (history section for example) You should go through your article to make sure that they are all cited.

We consolidated the "history" section with other background info that was in the article and created an introductory paragraph as well as proofreading and adding citations. Thanks! CorinneMarieClifford (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good if you include more information on current research. Maybe some of the unanswered questions or current direction of the researchKaram91 (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC) I added something about how they are currently researching the T-type calcium channel in hope that modulation of the channel could help different neurological disorders. Thanks! CorinneMarieClifford (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these few suggestions, I thought the article was well-done and had been well-researched. Clarkat (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! CorinneMarieClifford (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Nice job so far. I think you should add an introduction to your article instead of jumping right in discussing T-type calcium channels. As for organization, I think your article may flow better if you move the “T-type calcium channel” section and incorporate it further down in your article. At the beginning of the “Physiology”, “LTS Kinetics”, and “T-type calcium channels” sections, you define LTS. I think you should consolidate your definitions of LTS and place it at the beginning of the article, in the introduction. I have a question about some of the material in the “Physiology” section. Here, you state that spike bursts are caused by hyperpolarization and subsequent calcium channel deactivation, but later on in “LTS Kinetics” it says: “LTS is a large depolarization due to an increase in Ca2+ conductance…” There seems to be a contradiction regarding calcium channel activation versus deactivation. I also suggest that you elaborate on the “History” section of the article. Also, make sure you proofread your article: if you are going to abbreviate low threshold spikes to LTS, be sure to relate the two as “low threshold spikes (LTS)” early on in your article. -Reedich (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, it was very helpful. Sorry about the whole deactivation/activation problem. It was actually supposed to read "deinactivation"--sorry for the confusion it should make more sense now. Other people addressed the structural problems as well and those were incorporated. We created an intro that provides more background info and consolidates it all and addresses the abbreviation issue. Thanks! CorinneMarieClifford (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]