Talk:Neuroepithelial cell

Non-peer review

Hey guys, this looks pretty good so far! You got a lot of relevant images and have covered a lot of important points. Here are just a few suggestions:

• Your introduction includes a lot of good information, but you tend to lump a lot of it into long, sometimes awkward sentences. Maybe take a look at how you phrase that first paragraph and edit it so that it is more clear (think about what you would want to see if you needed to search this page)
• Under the "Neuroepithelial cell proliferation" heading, you place an in-text citation to the same source multiple times. You only need one at the end if that is the only reference you used for that section. The same goes for the paragraphs under "Neural chimeras" and "Depression"

Good luck! 136.167.53.42 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

We fixed up the first paragraph so it flows a little better and fixed the issue with the citations so that there was only one citation at the end rather than many throughout. Thanks for the help! Sheggers (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 1

This was, overall, a good article. There were only a few things that I think you may want to change.

At times, the “Embryonic neural development” section would just throw out terms without explaining them. For example, you mention asymmetric division, but it is not until the “Genesis of Neuroepithelial cells in the Adult CNS” that you give a description of what that means. When you did get around to explaining it, you gave a very concise and informative description, but it may be better to place that earlier in the article. Similarly, when you discuss radial glial cells, you use the phrase “a similar, but more fate restricted cell.” You may want to briefly explain what you mean by that.

Other than that, I did think it was a good article. The “Associated Diseases” section, in particular, was well organized. The only other notes I have are a few grammar problems (listed below).

1. When you say “neuroepithelial cell express prominin-1,” you should use the plural (“neuroepithelial cells”).

2. In the “Neuroepithelial cell proliferation” section, there are two instances that you do not place a comma after a phrase involving “during.”

3. In the “Oligodendroglial Tumors” section, you misspelled oligodendrocytes.

Kniemeyer (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise and critique - we've fixed the grammatical errors you found and have rehashed how we present the information about radial glial switch and the asymmetric division. Thanks again!--Leomagrini (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

Overall, this was a really well written article. The first thing I noticed was that there are no images. After doing a quick search on Wikimedia Commons, I found several really great images pertaining to this article. To find these images, I went to the Wikimedia Commons and searched "neural tube development." The first image on the search actually shows the neuroepithelial cells. Including an image of embryonic brain development may also be helpful to include when the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain are mentioned; I also found some useful pictures while searching "embryonic brain development."

You guys did a great job of laying out all of the important sections. If you are looking to expand your article, it would be a good idea to add a "current and ongoing research" section to give the reader an idea of the importance of neuroepithelial cells. By just doing a quick search on PubMed, I found several interesting articles that would go really well with your topic.

As for grammatical errors, there were very few. Under the subheading "Genesis of Neuroepithelial Cells in the Adult CNS," there is a space missing, "(SVZ)and the dentate gyrus." Also, the last sentence under DNT, "DNT is usually treated through invasive surgery and the long term outlook for patients is generally good," is somewhat vague. This section would benefit from a more precise description of what is meant by "generally good."

Lastly, under "Brain Development" a brief definition of "pial surface" should be given, so that someone with a non-science background has an idea of what the pial surface of the brain is. Finding an image of the three meninges of the brain would suffice.

Good job on this article! As seen in the writing and organization, it is evident that a lot of thought and hard work was put into expanding this stub.

Marcetk (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips - we've found some great pictures as you said, as well as some interesting topics for ongoing research. The grammatical errors were taken care of as well. Pial surface has been linked to the Pia Mater Wikipage. Thanks again! --Leomagrini (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 3

I think you did a great job expanding your Wikipedia page. The organization was very clear, and overall you included a lot of detail. I learned a lot about neuroepithelial cells and their development in the brain. I have a few suggestions for your article. First I would recommend adding a picture or a figure. It is probably hard to find one from the Wikipedia database, but even creating a table/figure of your own would be beneficial for readers. For the most part you did a great job linking your article to other pages. The Associated Diseases section did not have any links, and I think that you could make some to pages like tumor, cyst, and seizures. Because there is not a Wikipedia page for the plial surface, it would be helpful if you described what that is. One last, and very small error I noticed: in the Neuroepithelial cell proliferation section I think you should add a comma after "an antiproliferative gene". Other than these minor suggestions, you did a great job. Good luck with the rest of your project. Allison (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reading - we found some good pictures after some digging that definitely contribute to the page, and the links in "Associated Diseases" have been added as well. Grammar problem was addressed as well, thanks for finding it! Again, cheers.

--Leomagrini (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 4

I think that your group did well on this article. As other reviewers have noted, your work is very in-depth, which is great. However, as a result, I agree with those who have said that this page would greatly benefit from an image of some sort in order to help the reader connect that level of detail to a "bigger picture," so to speak.

As one reviewer already wrote, you may want to include a "current/future research" section if possible, as it would not only add to the article but also hit a point on the grading rubric.

You include many hyperlinks in this article, which certainly aids readers, but I am not sure that you need to hyperlink words such as "neuron" when you first bring it up in each section following the introduction. However, that is completely up to you.

In the section, "Embryonic neural development," there are several sentences that could benefit from commas, such as "During neuroepithelial cell division interkinetic nuclear migration allows the cells to divide unrestricted while maintaining a dense packing." Adding a comma after "cell division" would make this sentence much easier to read.

These are just picky suggestions--overall, great job! Ldellostritto (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - hyperlinks have been fixed and a current/ongoing research field added. Grammar has been corrected for the most part as well, from what we can see. Cheers!

--Leomagrini (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 5

I thought this article was very well written and very clear. I agree with the previous comments about adding a picture or figure from Wiki Commons. I think an image depicting the neuroepithelial cell proliferation pathway would be a great addition. I just had a couple other suggestions to add.

The neuroepithelial cell proliferation mentions the radial glial cell switch in one sentence and then changes course to talk about later development. I thought the radial glial cell switch needed further explanation in this section because it was unclear why and how the cells could undergo this switch. I realize that the next section goes on to talk about this switch in further detail, but I think it would be helpful to condense the neuroepithelial cell proliferation and the radial glial cell switch together so that the concept was fully explained when it was first introduced.

Secondly, in the associated diseases section, I think the diseases listed would benefit from an explanation of how the genes or pathways that are found in normal neuroepithelial cells are mutated or disrupted resulting in the diseased state. The information given does a great job of describing the diseases in general, but relating these diseases back to genes and proteins discussed earlier in the article would make the article more cohesive.

Great job! Kierak33 (talk) 20:40 PM, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know what you think. We added a lot of pictures as you can see including the one you suggested (although it is a bit generalized - there were none specifically for neuroepithelial cells). I added a brief sentence about radial glial cell switch, but I didn't want to add too much detail because as you pointed out, it is explained in the next section. Finally an attempt was made to tie the associated diseases back into the context of neuroepithelial cells. Thanks again. Sheggers (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 6

Good job on the article so far. My only suggestions: 1. Maybe try to expand on the intro, perhaps add the date of discovery and briefly mention the type of diseases associated with this cell (I know it's at the bottom of the page but a simple sentence to hint that there are diseases would help). This would just round out the intro a bit more. 2. It's been mentioned before, but a 'current/future research' section would help. 3. Images! It's a type of cell, I'm sure there are available images to use. (This is worth repeating from the above comments) 4. The last section on Associated Diseases has no links in it. If any pages have been written on the specific diseases you mention, definitely link to those original pages. Or at least link to some of the other words like tumor, cerebrum, anaplastic oligodendroglioma (there's a typo here also; it's oligodendrogLIOMA, not oligodendrogLILOMA), cysts, and hydrocephalus, just to name a few. Other than that it's looking good. Cameron (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your critique. The intro was expanded and a current/future research section was added. There were no images of neuroepithelial cells exactly on wiki commons, but we did add some other images. Finally the last section had links added to it. Sheggers (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hey guys, good job expanding your article. I thought that the article was well organized and clear. I particularly liked how you structured the article with the three primary sections: Embryonic neural development, Adult Neurogenesis, and Associated Diseases. I thought that this gave the article a clear direction and flow. However, I also had a few suggestions:

As has been mentioned before, you should define terms the first time that you use them. For example, define "porgenitor cells" when you use it in the introduction. It is explained concisely later, but it is only linked in the first sentence. By describing the word in the text, the reader will be able to peruse the article more easily. Furthermore, I think that you should lengthen the introduction with a summary of the entire article. Also, as has been extensively mentioned, include images. Because you are referencing specific parts of the brain, you need to give the reader a visual context. For instance, when you discuses the genesis of neuroepithelial cells in the adult CNS and the different regions in which they arise, you should include a diagram, which will help the reader visualize those locations. You should also provide more context when discussing some more technical terms. When talking about G1 and S and G2 phases, go into a brief description of each in terms of the whole cell cycle. Therefore, less familiar users will be able to understand what they are reading. Finally, I would just generally suggest that you read your text carefully for grammatical mistakes and include hyperlinks in your Associated Diseases section. Hope this helps! JaFlick (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The introduction was modified to be more descriptive of the terms used and was lengthened to include more of the actual specifics that would be discussed later. Images were also added. We did update some of the terms to include definitions in the text, but we didn't think it was necessary to define G1, S, or G2 phases of mitosis. These are pretty basic and explanations would clutter the main focus of the article. We thought if someone wasn't clear on the mechanism they could just check out the Wikipedia page for each one that was linked in the text. Thanks again. Sheggers (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Overall you guys wrote a really good article. You were able to take a very dense and very specific topic and presented it in an informative and easy-to-follow manner. I do have a few suggestions that I think could help to improve your article. First, I noticed that you do not have any images. Adding images where possible would really help to boost your article because it gives a visual aid as well as helps break up the text. I thought you guys did a really good job with adding external links, but I found a few that I think would be for you to add. Examples could be: central nervous system, induction, seizure, invasive surgery, cysts, mucinous fluid, cerebral spinal fluid. It really helps readers who may not be familiar with certain topics or concepts that are covered in your article. Your grammar and spelling was really good. I only found one little thing that I would change under the embryonic development section. You have written " develop in the early fetus" and I would just change this to "develop into the early fetus." On a more technical note, only the first word of any heading has to be capitalized (ex: Adult neurogenesis; Neurogenesis in neural repair). My final suggestion would be that you include a Current/future research section at the end of the article. This is an important aspect to any research topic and would really help to improve the quality of your article. I hope you find my suggestions helpful. You guys have written a really great article so far. Great job! Peter Clarner (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. We incorporate almost all of your suggestions. We included a link for colloid cysts instead of regular cysts as you suggested and did not include a link for mucinous fluid since there isn't one for that. We also did not fix the grammatical error you pointed since I think the sentence makes sense as is. (Gshan12 (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC))

Peer Review

Wow great job guys! This is a really great, well detailed article. I only have a few suggestions for you. The first would be to try and include a Current/future research section if possible. It's indicated in the rubric, however I know its tough to include especially if there is no current research being done on the subject. Also just put a space between the (SVZ) and the word and in the adult neurogenesis section. I would also try to include an image if you can find any that relate to this topic. Another thing I would consider would be to expand the introduction a little bit more, maybe by including past research that has been done with these cells. You could also include a History section to talk about when and how these cells were discovered. Overall this is a great article. Well done! Ivesm Ivesm (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. We fixed the SVZ issue and added the research section. We did not include the history section since there's very little to no information available on it. (Gshan12 (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC))

Peer Review

Overall the article was really well done. I just have a few points that I believe can be improved:

1. Some more terms that people may not understand can be hyperlinked such as pseudostratified epithelial cells.

2. Although the flow is good, I think some pictures would make the article more interesting and easier on the eyes. Also some examples of these types of cells would be helpful.

3. Are neuroepithelial cells in adults only in the CNS, or are they elsewhere, as well?

4. I think some more external links would be helpful in showing readers other topics in the neuroscience field are similar to this, maybe other types of epithelial cell pages or even other types of cells. (You did a good job at mentioning many of them within the article itself.)

5. I liked this: "This also leads to many controversial concepts, like neurogenic therapy involving the transplant of local progenitor cells to a damaged area." Can you tell the reader about more of these controversial concepts?

6. The title "Radial Glial Cell Switch" is kind of awkward and I think it should be more specific/more scientific.

I hope these help, good luck editing. Let me know if you have any questions for me!

--Liepa (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. We incorporated almost all of them. We could not find much information to include on neurogenic therapy since research is just beginning so we could not add much more detail on that. Other than that we changed the other things you pointed out. (Gshan12 (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC))

Peer review

Wow guys, this is really an awesome page. First off, you mention that the neural tube divides into three distinct regions of growth and then say three distinct areas of the brain. I am just wondering if you are making a distinction between these two groups of three or just using the second one as an explanation. Its just a little confusing. Also you say that "The neural plate itself eventually gives rise to the spinal cord.[1]" and while that's true, it also becomes sensory and motor neurons, and when it develops into the spinal chord it is already in the neural tube formation. It might also be helpful to mention how neuroepithelial cells are separated from the regular epidermal cells that develop around it from the mesoderm. (Its largely caused by n-cadheron vs e-cadheron expression I think, which you mention later)

Under the proliferation section it would be helpful to try and link symmetric proliferation and possibly compare it more directly to the asymmetric division that happens later and how the type of division is largely determined by the orientation of mitotic spindles in these cells. Its also a little detailed, but if your looking for more information, you can look at the graded regulation of sonic hedge hog and BMP and how they are graded along the dorsal-ventral axis and are very influential in determining the type of neuron or glial cells.

You might want to talk about the importance of reelin in the migration of neurons up radial glial cells, but what you guys have is pretty comprehensive, so you might not want to clutter it. This happens largely during brain development.

Under Genesis of Neuroepithelial Cells in the Adult CNS, you repeat some of the same things in regards to division that you said in the paragraph before. You could probably get rid of it and just use the terms now and be ok.

Your disease section could also use some more links, and like other people said, you could benefit from pictures. Overall I think you guys did a great job of offering a comprehensive, encyclopedia life, view of what a neuroepithelial cell is. Keep it up Gallagcw (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your very detailed comments. We tried to change as much as we could. The only thing we felt was not necessary was the information regarding reelin since as you said it is somewhat extraneous and would clutter the page. However, we did add everything else you suggested. (Gshan12 (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC))

Peer Review

Hey guys, first off good job. This topic falls under a pretty big category of neuronal development but I thought you did a good job of narrowing it down to the important parts and making it readable for the normal person. A few sentences might need some slight editing as they just don't sound right. The first sentence sounds a little off a I think deriving should read "that are derived' instead but it's your call. Also, under the heading Neuroepithelial cell proliferation, in the first sentence you reference that they "are a class of stem cells and have similar characteristics." I understand that you are just comparing them to other types of stem cells but the sentence could use revision. Either say outright what they are similar to or just note that they have notable characteristics that include self renewal (without saying they are similar). Lastly, under "Genesis of Neuroepithelial Cells ..." you say that the cells are multipotential. That term works but I think the more used term is that they are "multipotent". Also, you reference that they are different than pluripotent but don't include how- this could be cleared up in one extra sentence. Or you can just redirect both of the terms to the wiki article titled "cell potency" which would clear up any confusion.

As for the content, I agree with Alex in the post above this one. Much is known about the development of the neural tube from the ectoderm in terms of molecular cues such as BMP and Sonic Hedgehog as well as the switch in cadherin expression (from E to N). I think that in regards to neural tube formation, a picture is always helpful to visualize it and there are many good ones that help with understanding the process. Also, you should definitely include the mechanism by which symmetric and asymmetric division are different, which is the orientation of the mitotic spindle.

I think the biggest thing that you should include is how the epithelial cells form the neural tube using their cytoskeleton, namely microtubules and actin. The microtubules cause elongation of the cells and then the apical actin filaments bundle, causing the cells to contract together on one side which leads to them pinching in and forming the tube. This is well documented and should be easy to find (see if you have any friends in vertebrate cell or cell bio because it is detailed pretty well in the textbook--which is big and red).

You guys have a very good platform from which I think you can build upon. Good job. I hope this helps and was clear. Let me know if you want any additional clarification. -K. Melnick Melnickk (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You had some good comments and I added quite a bit of information regarding cell polarity and apical-basal downregulation after reading your review, but while your other suggestions are good the information you're looking for does not directly relate to the page's aims and would clutter the page with information that isn't necessarily a priority. Instead our group believes the link to the neural tube/plate is sufficient (where that information can be found) because our page does not directly involve neural plate formation. Repeating the information from that page isn't necessary. Thanks again. Sheggers (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neuroepithelial cell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926232251/http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site812/mainpageS812P0.html to http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site812/mainpageS812P0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)