Talk:Stretch-activated ion channel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Physiological function[edit]

I'm suprised to see that there is little information on the physiological function of these ion channels. The function is fairly straight foward; they turn mechanical stimuli into nerve impulses. I added a bit about this; I'll find a reference for this just as soon as I am able. Fuzzform 02:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

More roles in the body[edit]

Mechanically sensitive ion channels have multiple roles in the body. These channels have more functions than just the two that were listed, so I added two well-identified functions. I also added examples of two other specific channels that have been identified.Ktrychta (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Redundant references[edit]

In updating this page, somehow the References section got really redundant. What would the easiest way of fixing it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccbowman (talkcontribs) 01:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've merged duplicate citations. See WP:REFNAME for multiple references to the same footnote.  --Lambiam 12:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Critical review[edit]

For starters, this article is informative and pretty clear in terms of content. There are a few grammatical errors and sentence structure issues, for example wordiness. The introduction could include the definition with a side note about the discovery. It seems more important to emphasize what a stretch activated channel is before discussing the history. I would also suggest linking your article to other pages by using double brackets. This will improve the reader’s knowledge and the quality of the article. In one section, “the researchers” are discussed and it seems a bit awkward. You could possibly introduce who the researchers are for that specific experiment or use the general term “researchers.” The examples in functionality should be grouped into one paragraph for better clarity and flow. Stand-alone sentences create choppiness in the article. Structure and functionality could be combined into one section that focuses on specific channels. Once again, this would strengthen the flow of the article so the reader doesn’t have to go back and look up what a TRP channel is after learning about its structure. The regulation of channels is clear. In the regulation mechanisms section, do the three different mechanisms act on different kinds of channels? Or are they specific to the cell type? Is there any crossover? The explanation seemed a bit unclear. Could the clinical relevance section be added to the function section? Under the examples section, there are more stand-alone sentences that should be grouped. Also, it is unclear what the example is for. Additional information that could be pertinent might be if there are other experimental procedures that are used on specific channels. In addition, a picture would be nice (maybe mechanotransduction or the structure of a channel?). Overall I like the article! Improvements in structure (placement and order of headings/content) would make the article read better. Leelindseya 29 April 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC).

Overall, the page is good. One thing you might think about is talking about the relationship between structure and function. The structure section is full of technical jargon that the average reader isn't going to understand. If you can add a paragraph saying what the particular subunits do when mechanically activated, I think it would help people better understand the article. I also think that the examples section is vague at parts. You have a good "Examples of functionality" section. If you can take the functions described in that part and find the channels associated with the function, it will make the examples much more relevant. Otherwise, I think the content is good. Make sure you proofread; there are some awkward sentences. Good use of references, but consider linking to more pages within the text. Consider moving the regulation section after the function section; it is confusing to read about how to regulate a channel without knowing what it does. I would also consider expanding the clinical section. I don't know how much literature is on the topic, but I would try to find more information if you can. Good job, and keep up the good work. DuncanCleveland (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is very thorough. It does a good job of giving examples of what it talks about, and is understandable and fluid for the most part. However, there are a few things that you could work on, mostly with regard to the headings and organization of the article. In the introduction, beware of some awkward parallel structure in the last sentence. In the “Definition” section, it might be nice to give context or link to an article on hair cells (with double brackets).

In the “Regulation” section, rephrasing the first sentence would be helpful, and would make it flow more, maybe just by adding a comma before “or channel-linked receptors.” Right after that, there comes an explanation of the previous material: how the channels convert the mechanical signal to an electrical one. It might do good to eliminate this repetition. This happens later in the paragraph again. Also, you said that the “opening the channels allows ions to which they are permeable to flow down their gradients,” but in the “definition” paragraph, you said “non-specific ion flow.” You might want to check that or make it more clear exactly what you mean. Also, when describing the capsule on the afferent neuron, a picture or a link for context would be very helpful. The last part of the paragraph jumps around a bit, and by the end of the paragraph I wasn’t really sure what you meant by “regulation.”

In the “Regulation Mechanisms” section, rethinking the heading might be a good idea- I wasn’t sure what this really meant, since the paragraph was a little jumpy. This might be way too picky, but the first sentence was a little awkwardly worded- beware of ending with a preposition! The semicolons are confusing when talking about the three types of opening mechanisms. Also, when describing the difference between gating mechanisms of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, it would be useful to have parallel structure between the sentences for maximum clarity.

In the “Functions” section, again beware of repetition. You gave a very nice summary of examples, so it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to have another heading right after that called “examples.” In the “Structure” section, some context or pictures would be a nice addition.

Very nice job overall! I think your article is very thorough, informative, and readable.Jenasp (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Response[edit]

Thank you for your recommendations. We took them into account and made some changes on the page. We expanded the Introduction to cover the basic points of the page. We made a few formatting changes to allow for better flow. We also specified regulation mechanisms and put them into their own paragraph. Hopefully this will clear up the fact that the mechanisms are for the channels. I think now people will understand that there is a difference between mechanosensitive channels and mechanogated channels, and that the mechanisms describe mechanogated channels. Structure is a tough thing to explain in simple terms. A lot of times the only way that it can be said is with technical terms. Some further editing can be done to explain basic terminology. We will add pictures soon.

We found another page with mechanosensitive channels that seems very similar to ours. We should consider either merging these two pages or specifying the difference between the two. Thank you for all of your comments! They are very helpful! Let us know if you find something else that needs to be fixed.--Mork.olaf (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)