Wikipedia talk:USEP/Courses/JHU MolBio Ogg 2012/Section 83/Group 83F

Hello Rubayath and Susana! It looks like we have been grouped together as 83F. I think Dr. Ogg just saved the best for last! ;-) I'm just posting this as a Test message as she has recommended on our Wiki Assignment Discussion board. Talk to you soon! Rexsmiley (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Test Message

Hello again. I believe that I should have started a "New Section" like this for my test message. Rexsmiley (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Rex. As promised, here's a test edit for this group (talk) page. Let me know if you got it or not, by just replying here. Cheers! Klortho (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I got it! Thanks again for your help!! Rexsmiley (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Article Assessments

Hello again Rubayath and Susana. I've been working through this week's wiki assignment for assessing articles for our group to work on improving throughout the semester. I pretty much reviewed all the articles on the course Wikipedia page and I believe that one of the three below would be good to work on. These are in no particular order and any of them would be fine with me.

DSCAM

Down Syndrome Cell Adhesion Molecule - In looking at the main page for this article, there is very little information provided. It does seem to have a good start on the use of some notes and references that I believe we could build on. On the Talk page of the article, it is considered to be "Stub-class" on the project quality scale. This simply means that is just barely started and has vast room for improvement. This is good for us! The last time the page was edited was in 2007. I also believe that there are many good resources available for us to use in order to create a more informative article.

Homeotic selector gene

In looking at the main page for this article, there is even less information provided. It has some use of references, but not many. On the Talk page of the article, it is also considered to be "Stub-class" on the project quality scale. The last time the page was edited was in 2011, so it hasn't been looked at much in a while either. Again, I believe that there are many good resources available for us to use in order to create a more informative article.

Segment polarity gene

In looking at the main page for this article, there is really only an opening "definition" sort of paragraph provided. It only has one reference right now. On the Talk page of the article, it is also considered to be "Stub-class" on the project quality scale. The last time the page was edited was in 2010, so again, it hasn't been looked at much in a while. Once again, I believe that there are many good resources available for us to use in order to create a more informative article.

If possible, please review the above articles (or any others that you may have an interest in) and give me your thoughts on which one we should work on by simply replying to this post. As Dr. Ogg has pointed out, articles like those above that have very little content, would be the best to work on because they have the most room for improvement. Also, I did some quick searches on the three topics above, and it seemed like there was a pretty fair bit of information available for us to use for article improvement. I don't mean to sound demanding, but the sooner we can decide on an article, the better chance we will have to "claim" it on the course Wikipedia page. So, I'm just going to throw out a date and time to make a decision. How about by this Sunday, October 14th at 11:00 am eastern time, we will make the final decision? If you can't decide by then, just let me know. I'm only trying "set" a time so that we can have a selected articled claimed and then continue with our group review before the Tuesday deadline. Hope this helps us get started! Rexsmiley (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Assessment 10/12/12

Hey Rex! Thanks for starting the talk page for our group. I agree with you that it is better to decide on the topic sooner. I looked at your selections and I agree with your reasoning that "stub-class" project quality scale implies more room for improvement and more opportunities for us to contribute.

DSCAM

It seems like most of the research on DSCAM is done on drosophila. I think it would be really interesting to research more about its role in the neural circuit development - I am actually working on a project to determine the polarity of the neuronal processes right now so it would be nice to have an in-depth reading about the role of DSCAM in the process of neurons meeting and talking to each other. Although I was initially worried that the topic may be too narrow, I think there are actually plenty of room for possible discussion/expansion with this one - for example, the effect of its abnormalities in the cell, homology across organisms, why it got its name, et cetera.

Homeotic Selector Gene and Segment Polarity Gene

These two also sound interesting. There are people at my workplace who are working on segmentation in drosophila right now (although I know that this team is rather 'private' with their knowledge so I don't think I can gain much from the connection). My experience with drosophila research is that there are many sources on the 'specifics'(i.e. specific gene/proteins/processes) if you know 'what' you are looking for - but it is hard to find a global resource on it. Segment polarity gene and homeotic selector gene seem like a broad topic in the sense that we may need to elaborate a lot on the developmental mechanism as a whole to explain their specific role in the segmentation process.

Conclusion : To be honest, I am fine with either of the three that you mentioned Rex. I think they all sound interesting (I know - this doesn't help). Your thoughts, Rubayath?

P.S. Are we supposed to post our assessment on the Project page? - is it only the "final" assessment that we need to put there? (instruction on the Project Page: Use this page (not the talk page) for article assessments (optional, see Unit 5); rationale for selecting an article (Unit 6); progress reports (Units 9 and 12); and the final report (Unit 14). Please create a new section here for each of those assignments.)

Hey Susana! Thanks for responding so quickly. In reading your assessment, it seems like maybe DSCAM is pretty interesting to you. I would have to agree and if I were to pick one of the three, DSCAM would be it. We can wait to see what Rubayath says too before we make a selection. For your comment above in regards to using the main page for these assessments, I think we're okay in using this Talk page. Since the unit 5 is "optional", I don't think it will be an issue. It also seems to be what other groups are doing. It will also leave our main page for the "required" assignments (i.e. Units 6, 9, 12 & 14) and keep it neat. So, for our group review assessment for Unit 6, due this coming Tuesday, Oct 16th, we will definately post on the main page. Thanks again! Rex. Rexsmiley (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rex! Thank you for the clarification! Whatever choice we make, I think it is going to be a worthwhile experience :-)

Sytae (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Article Selected 10/14/12 - DSCAM

Hi Susana and Rubayath. As promised, I selected our group article today. I assigned our group number to DSCAM for us to work on through the semester. I think it will be a good subject on which to collaborate and provides ample opportunity for improvement. It seems like Susana and I agree that it is a good topic. Rubayath, if you have a strong opinion against it or for a different article, just let us know and we can probably still change our mind. I just wanted to "claim" an article that we were interested in so that we could proceed with our Unit 6 summary assignment. If we would like to discuss how to proceed with the summary and/or if you have any questions or concerns, I think this section would be a good place to communicate. Thanks! -Rex Rexsmiley (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Article Assesement

Hi Susana and Rex! First of all sorry for joining in late because my laptop had crashed and had to be sitting in the library to do my online work all this time. Rex you came up with some pretty good suggestions. As mentioned by both of you I was also looking at articles that were a Stub-Class or one that was just started.

DSCAM

I reviewed this article too before as one of the options. It seems to have a good starting point since starting absolutely from scratch would not be that great of an idea. But this has a good amount of references from where we can start working. I have not quite done any drosophila study or work so was not quite sure if I was comfortable with this but then it is definitely linked to Downs Syndrome which will be a very interesting research. I am sure this has a lot to do with genetics which I really like learning about.

Homeotic selector gene and Segment polarity gene

These were not my choices since again I don't quite know about drosophilas. Also the Homeotic selector gene article has too little to start from and same is the case for the Segment polarity gene.

DnaC DnaH or DnaX

I was looking into these articles to work on too since they are pretty much related to what we are learning right now and how these are linked to transcription and replication processes but then again the starting material is way too less for these and one of them don't even have ANY references I think.

Trans-acting siRNA

I was interested in this one too. And it looked like a great topic to work on since siRNA are very effecting tools in gene regulation these days. It has good starting material too like DSCAM. This would be a great one to learn and contribute to gene knockdown techniques I was thinking.

But I think the DSCAM is a great one. I was torn between my first and last choice. But thanks Rex fro choosing the article because I am usually very indecisive! So since the article has been chosen I think we should start working on the summary now. Lets Do this! :D Rmohsen1 (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Summary Discussion

Hey Rex and Susana, how do you guys think we should start with the summary? I was brainstorming as to what to write and I guess it is just discussing what are the features of this stub-class article that made us choose this article (kind of a compilation of all three of our assessments about this article I am assuming). Let start with this but we need to figure out how to write a 300-400 word summary as a group of 3! Thoughts on how we should go about it? Rmohsen1 (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rubayath! No worries about joining a little later. I understand how computer things can go sometimes; For sure!! :) Also, I'm glad you agree with Susana and me on using DSCAM. It should be good! As far as writing our summary as a group, I think you are spot on. Sort of a combination of all three of our assessments (I know some parts are very similar) and then maybe a little about DSCAM, its importance, and maybe why we chose it. If you would like, I could maybe put together a rough draft tonight and post it on the main page. Then, the two of you could edit and add to it to improve it?? Other thoughts?? I think it will be pretty easy for the three of us to get up to 300-400 words. Just keep in mind, we can work from the main page and make edits to it; just like we will do for our article. All versions are kept in the history, so you do not need to sign like here on the Talk page. Anyway, I am on central time and I should get home around 5:30-ish. I will write a rough draft then; if not a little before unless there are any objections?? Have a great week and I will talk to you both soon! :) Rexsmiley (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rex and Rubayath! Yay- We have a complete team now! :-D I agree with Rex - no worries about joining in later. My laptop battery died yesterday and I forgot my charger at work - so I'm responding late too (sorry about that). I really like your idea of putting our assessments together, Rubayath - and Rex, it would be great if you can put them into a draft form. Rubayath and I can edit them like you said (if that's okay with Rubayath). I found some extra information about DSCAM so maybe I can add that when we have our draft. Thanks! Sytae (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello again Susana and Rubayath. I just wanted to let you know that I have put the first draft of our Article selection rationale summary on our group main page. It is already 378 words! LOL! Please feel free to edit and improve as you see fit! :) Rexsmiley (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice job Rex! I think what you have is great - I don't know if I can add anything if we already have 378 words! haha. Thanks! Sytae (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rex and Susan! I just read over the summary and it looks great and didn't really find any nooks to add anything. Good job Rex and thanks for doing it. 209.124.163.42 (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Related Papers and Images

Hi Group,

I just wanted to get started on this week's milestone. The previous unit was about researching our article and to come up with ideas to add to the article. Please post if you guys have found some articles or ideas on how we should start on expanding the article. I looked up a few articles which are like DSCAM so we can use those as a start up guide. Colony stimulating factor 1 receptor is a general one we can use but I found another one which is more closely related to DSCAM and that is the Neural cell adhesion molecule. Let me know what you guys think and also lets start gathering up some sources.Rmohsen1 (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ooops sorry I thought we had a graded milestone for this week but its for next week but I think we should still get started on gathering articles and images.Rmohsen1 (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello group! I completely agree with you Rubayath in that we should be compiling some articles and images to use for sources for our DSCAM article improvement. I briefly looked at the two articles you mentioned above and I believe they can at least give us a good start for the layout/structure of our article. They are both, however, considered "Start" articles as well, so we will just have to keep that in mind as we expand DSCAM. I will continue researching and be in touch soon! Thanks for providing the examples! :-) Rexsmiley (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys! I agree that we should start planning/organizing. That's a great starting point Rubayath. I realize that there are many articles on this topic - it's surprising how short the current wiki is when there is so much research done on DSCAM already! Since we can't possibly read all the articles on DSCAM that are out there, maybe should gather as many articles as we can, read their abstracts/summary, and choose what we want to focus/expand on from there. PS Hope you guys are safe from Hurricane Sandy! Sytae (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Good morning Susana and Rubayath! I know we have all been working on gathering different sources and information on DSCAM outside of Wikipedia, but I think it is time for us to start compiling them together on here. I have looked at what a few other groups are doing to enable them to work together more easily and I saw that one group posted their entire article on their Talk page. I think this is a great idea. After all, this is "our" group Talk page and I think we can use it however we see fit. I am going to create a new section on this page entitled "DSCAM Editing Section" where I will attempt to include the entire current article. I think this will be an easier way to contribute for all of us. And I'm not sure about you, but I have been a bit nervous to edit the actual article on the article page because I'm not only just learning about DSCAM, but also about Wikipedia editing in general. I think this will be a good space to make our first edits to ensure we don't "mess anything up" and get more comfortable with the process. Once we have a good draft edit and are a bit more comfortable, then we can go ahead and add it to the real article page. From then on, we can just make edits to the actual article. Any objections???? We can at least try it out, and if we don't like it, we can always change! :-) On a different note, there are a couple of areas I'm struggling with in developing our article. 1) Differentiating between DSCAM and Dscam. Do we want to strictly stick to the DSCAM gene or also discuss the Dscam protein, differentiate the two and tie them together?? Your thoughts?? And 2) What type of outline or sections do we want to include? In looking at other articles that are put together quite well, they include Sections such as: Definition, Biological Function, Physiology, Structure, History/Discovery, Potential Therapy, etc.. just to name a few. What are your thoughts for sections to include based on the information that you have been able to find?? I think once we can get a couple of these things nailed down, we will really start to make some drastic progress on improving the article. Sorry to ramble on; please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!! -Rex Rexsmiley (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rex - Thanks for starting an editing section! I share your concerns on editing the actual article. This is also new to me so I am more cautious about taking a direct approach until we're familiar with what we do. I think your suggestions are excellent. With regards to focusing on DSCAM or DSCAM + Dscam - I looked at some wiki articles where the gene and its product(s) are mentioned in the same article. Here's an example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRCA1 Maybe we can do something similar? If we focus on the gene only, we may not have enough to write - unless we go into details on the splicing mechanisms. I think if we want to talk about the function of the gene, we have to talk about the proteins (38,016 isoforms! haha). With regards to which sections to include - I think what you have there is a good start. We should first have all the basics (definition/background,function, structure, etc) and then start adding extra sections pertaining to what we find on the topic, as needed. I'm flexible so I'd be happy with any suggestions you guys have. I will post my summaries of the articles by tomorrow. Thanks! Sytae (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. Thank you Susana for your comments! I look forward to seeing your summaries. Divya, from our class, emailed me and shared a great link to a Wiki Style guide for structuring articles exactly like what we are doing for genes/proteins. I think it will be an outstanding resource for us to use as a sort of template! Here is the link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology/Style_guide_(gene_and_protein_articles) Make sure to check it out when you have a chance! Thanks, Rex Rexsmiley (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rex (and Divya!!) Thanks for that helpful link :-) According to what the article suggests then, we should have:

1. Lead

2. Gene

3. Protein

4. Species, Tissue, and Subcellular Distribution

5. Function

6. Interactions

7. Clinical Significance

8. History/Discovery

I think that's a great layout to start with. We can always modify along the way if we find anything extra or can't find anything on the section. But let's also wait for Rubayath's suggestions. Oh and I just wrote a brief summary of what I found so far - 10 articles but that was all I could digest :-( I tried posting it in my sandbox.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sytae/sandbox It's really time consuming to cite all the sources! Sytae (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey! I thought when things are written on the talk page, I should be getting a notification. And hence the late reply to all these posts. I agree that sections listed above will be a great to start with. So are we discussing the protein? I guess it is a good idea since the gene itself doesn't do much than to code for the protein whose function is important. And great summary Susan. I am gonna post a few things tomorrow for the article tomorrow. But need to work on the progress report I guess. I will try to post a draft of the progress report that is due tomorrow here.Rmohsen1 (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey team! I think that sounds great Rubayath! If you want to post an initial draft of the Unit 9 progress report here, then Susana and I can simply review and add to it. Once we have it complete, I will post it to our main group page tonight before the deadline! Also, I agree with both of you in regards to covering both the gene and protein. It will add both more substance to our article as well as relevance to the topic. I also agree that the section outline above is a very good structure for us to go by and Susana, your article summaries were great!! Do we want to divide up the sections so we aren't overlapping our research?? Of course if we find info that is relevant to another section we can sure add it too. Let me know what you think! Lastly, Rubayath, for notifications, make sure everything is selected correctly in your preferences to receive all notifications and that you have added this Talk page to your watchlist (Simply click the "star" in the upper right corner of the page). If that still doesn't work, you may want to contact Klortho so he can help you get it straightened out. Thanks! -Rex Rexsmiley (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be awesome Rubayath. I'll tag along and update anything as well. Thanks guys! :-) Sytae (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys on agreeing. The Report will be up shortly and really appreciate if you could edit it.Rmohsen1 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

And I agree with Rex that we should divide up the work, I think that would be the most efficient way to do it.Rmohsen1 (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

We are getting indented quite a ways, so I'm starting over! LOL! Hey, I just wanted you guys to be aware of a way that is MUCH easier to cite your sources when working on the article. Go to http://sumsearch.org/cite/ and it will make your life a lot easier (the one listed on our course page did not work for me). Anyway, if an article you are using has a PMID number or DOI or PMCID or NCT, simply enter it into this website box and it will create the code/information for the footnote reference; and it is the correct Vancouver Style!! It is Awesome!! Hope it helps and talk to you soon! Rexsmiley (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello again Susana and Rubayath! :) I just wanted to let you know that I have added several journal article abstracts along with the references (and coding for footnotes) on my Sandbox page. Feel free to review them and use them in any portions of our DCSAM article where they may be helpful for the group. Just follow the references to view the full articles! Rexsmiley (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

DSCAM Editing Section

DSCAM and Dscam are both abbreviations for Down Syndrome Cell Adhesion Molecule-- a member of the immunoglobulin superfamily and is thought to play an essential role in the establishment of neural circuits. The case difference is significant: DSCAM refers to the gene, and Dscam refers to protein the gene codes. DSCAM belongs to the "Down's syndrome critical region" of chromosome 21 in humans and chromosome 16 in mice.

Of particular interest is that Dscam in drosophila has 38,016 isoforms from four variable exon clusters (12, 48, 33 and 2 alternatives respectively). The diversity of isoforms from alternative splicing of the Dscam1 gene in D. melanogaster allows every neuron in the fly to display a unique set of Dscam proteins on its cell surface. Dscam interaction stimulates self-avoidance mechanisms that are essential for normal neural circuit development.

See also

• Down syndrome

References

1. Li W, Guan KL (July 2004). "The Down syndrome cell adhesion molecule (DSCAM) interacts with and activates Pak". J. Biol. Chem. 279 (31): 32824–31. doi:10.1074/jbc.M401878200. PMID 15169762.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
2. Wojtowicz WM, Flanagan JJ, Millard SS, Zipursky SL, Clemens JC (September 2004). "Alternative splicing of Drosophila Dscam generates axon guidance receptors that exhibit isoform-specific homophilic binding". Cell. 118 (5): 619–33. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2004.08.021. PMC 2691713. PMID 15339666.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. Watson FL, Püttmann-Holgado R, Thomas F; et al. (September 2005). "Extensive diversity of Ig-superfamily proteins in the immune system of insects". Science. 309 (5742): 1874–8. Bibcode:2005Sci...309.1874W. doi:10.1126/science.1116887. PMID 16109846. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
4. Chen BE, Kondo M, Garnier A; et al. (May 2006). "The molecular diversity of Dscam is functionally required for neuronal wiring specificity in Drosophila". Cell. 125 (3): 607–20. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.03.034. PMID 16678102. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Progress Report 9 Draft

Upon selection of our article topic, our group worked to develop an efficient strategy to compile and present the data for our research. The web and the scientific journals provide good resource for our research of the DSCAM gene and proteins. We talked about whether to address only the gene (DSCAM) or both the gene and the protein (DSCAM/Dscam) in our article. After looking at different articles on Wikipedia, we decided that we should follow the prototypical gene-protein article structure, since the protein would shed further light on the functional analysis of the molecule in the biological system and the consequences of their mutation. Since we are starting with a “stub-class” article, the article itself has very few sections. Hence, our group decided that the best way to improve it would be to start with the layout that focuses on the basic properties of DSCAM /Dscam and modify the sections to produce a well structured and informative article that is relevant to our research findings. These include information on the functional and structural properties of DSCAM gene and proteins, their clinical and scientific significance, as well as their role and distribution in the biological system. We started the investigation of our topic by finding articles that could be used as an initial guide for our progress. This included few articles about the immunoglobulin family, which has some very closely related functions as DSCAM. By collaborating with our fellow classmates, we recently found a Wikipedia page that provides a structural guide for articles that contain gene and protein, and decided that it suits the approach that we want to take for our article topic almost perfectly. As first-time Wikipedia editors, our group has been little cautious about making edits on the main article page so far. Hence, we decided to use our group talk page for the initial editing. This way we can build onto our Wikipedia editing skills and once mastered, the transition to the main article page would be easier and more effective. As for citations on Wikipedia, we were facing some difficulty with it but now upon research we have found web resources that will allow the group to that part of the article fairly smoothly now. In order to avoid research and editing overlap, the group has agreed to distribute the subsections of the article among the members for research. We will be working on summarizing and adding onto the designated sections on each individual sandboxes and later compile them together so that it can be posted to the main article page. So far, we have worked on the functions of the DSCAM gene using about 10 articles as sources. On a future note, we plan to do thorough research individually on each subsection of the article and produce an initial summary on our sandbox pages. On making a sufficient progress, the team members will edit each other’s topic and finally add it onto the actual Wikipedia article. Rmohsen1 (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Sytae (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys I just put together the draft and this is about 426 words. I have definitely kept a window for editing here since I am not a naive English speaker so please edit the grammar and style wherever necessary, would really appreciate that. I think I have included what we wanted to say in this report as a team.Rmohsen1 (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rubayath. I reviewed the summary and it looks pretty good. I will wait for Susana to review/make edits. Once she is done, I will make any last minute additions/edits and then insert the summary on our main page under the "Unit 9 Progress Report" section that I have already created...As promised! :) Good job! Rexsmiley (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rubayath and Rex - nice layout of the progress report, Rubayath! I just made some minor edits to the draft. Rex, please feel free to make any additional changes as you see them. Thanks guys! :-) Sytae (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright! Thank you team. I will make a few last edits to the summary and post it to our main page. Thanks again! Rexsmiley (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input guys! I think it look good to be posted. Thanks Rex for posting it on the group page. :)Rmohsen1 (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I made a few changes/additions to the progress report and I posted the final version to our main page before the 11:59 EST deadline. Great team-work everyone!! :) Rexsmiley (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yay! almost made it!Rmohsen1 (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Review

Hey there

I'm a member of your "reviewer group", group 83C. I see you guys are just getting ready to do your edits so there's not a lot I can offer. However, I have to make a suggestion, if only so I can check it off my list, so: The grammar in the article as it sits suffers from several issues. For example, the first sentence is a run-on and missing a definite article ("the"). So I guess I suggest you revise the grammar (which you probably going to do anyway). ;)

Have fun!

Tony

Dusty40 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tony! Thanks for starting the review section. We are currently trying to create/improve the article in our own respective sandboxes and offline before we make any major edits to it. However, it sounds like from the email we received, that we need to be bold and get on it! LOL! We hope to make some pretty marked additions to the article within the next couple of weeks. Thanks again for the comment. -Rex Rexsmiley (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please get whatever you have now into the article as soon as you can (within the next couple of days) and continue working on the article in-place, rather than in sandboxes or offline. This way, other Wikipedia editors, as well as your reviewers, can actively participate. Klortho (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tony, Rex, and Klortho! That is a good point. Thank you for the clarification! Rex, what I currently have are 'summaries' so I think I'll start 'snipping' information to go along with the sections (and create additional sections if they're needed). We can expand and edit things as we go along. What do you think? And thanks for keeping the discussion updated! :-) Sytae (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Susana! I think that sounds like a great idea! I will do the same and like you said, we can just edit as we go. I think seeing each others' ideas actually in the article will give us even better ideas on how to build it! Thanks! Rexsmiley (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Susana and Rubayath! I just wanted to let you know that I have started editing the main article for DSCAM. It doesn't look like I've done much, but I actually worked on it for quite a while! :( To view the changes/edits I've made, simply go to the "View History" tab on the article. I also posted a note on the article's Talk page to inform other editors that we would be working on it for the next 5 weeks and that any helpful feedback they would like to provide to us would be great! Think I'm gonna stop for today...I've had enough for a little while! ;-) Rexsmiley (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rex! (Chuckle) Awesome job! Thanks for all the updates! Isn't it exhausting!? My mind was getting strained last time reading the articles, just to end up with that meager summary in my sandbox! haha. I'll get into some more reading this weekend - we should also keep in check with the other group's topic too (Homeotic Selector Gene) ;-) Have a nice weekend! Sytae (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Crystal structure of one of DSCAM's isoforms DSCAM- reminds me of Jar Jar Binks from Star Wars for some reason!! haha Sytae (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Another Review

Group 83F,

Great improvements since the last time. I see a number of differences in the "changes so far" tab on our class home page. Awesome work! Like Tony, I found some grammatical errors and sentence structure issues. I have listed some of them below. I think that these edits will clarify how your page should be "read" and therefore clarify some of the content as well.

A couple things:

1. In the first paragraph, I don't really understand what you mean by Dscam refers to protein the gene codes? Is Dscam being treated as a verb when it is lowercased? I think the grammar of the sentence might be confusing me.

2. What do you mean by "with the highest level in fetal brain"? Is the highest expression level in the fetal brain? I think the sentence structure is confusing me here as well.

3. I think the sentence starting as "diverse glycoproteins.." doesn't need the beginning half of the sentence. Is the point of the sentence to describe CAM molecules? If so, just start with "cell adhesion molecules are important...", not sure how the beginning half of the sentence relates.

4. I don't believe that "that" can follow the words "Of particular interest is".. I think you can either say.. "Of particular interest to" or "Of particular interest is" without "that".

5. Instead of just switching from humans to drosophilas, maybe you can add in a sentence prior to paragraph 3 that says something like "a homology of DSCAM in drosophilas".. so that there is a better transition.

6. History/Discovery looks good for the most part, but I think for the title you should decide on one or the other. What do you mean by "its appropriate expression" in sentence 2 of that section? What's appropriate?

7. This website might be helpful to you: http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/23/2/147.full, it gives a well-rounded account of DSCAMs and Dscams.

Good luck, and looking forward to reading/editing/checking out your improvements soon!

Happy Thanksgiving! Jedwar48 (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jamie! Thank you so much for the great review! It is incredibly helpful! :) We will work on getting your suggestions implemented into the article. And thanks for the website link that we can potentially use as an additional source! Rexsmiley (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Review #3

Hi Group 83F,

Looking at your wiki page for DSCAM, it looks good though I’ll have to agree with Jamie and Tony when they say there’s something about the grammar that doesn’t flow well. I do like the well distributed link and reference placements, which is half the battle when building a wiki page, so kudos there. Simplifying the grammar may be the way to go so that you don’t drive yourselves crazy trying to rearrange too much since your content is strong.

I’ll give some suggestions on how to fix problematic sentences as I see them:

1: “The case difference is significant: DSCAM refers to the gene, and Dscam refers to protein the gene codes” can be changed to something like: “The case difference is significant as DSCAM refers to the gene that encodes for the Dscam protein”.

2: “DSCAM is predicted to be a transmembrane protein with a very high structural and sequence homology to immunoglobulin (Ig) superfamily of cell adhesion molecules and is expressed in the developing nervous system with the highest level in fetal brain” changed to “DSCAM is predicted to be a transmembrane protein with a very high structural and sequence homology to immunoglobulin (Ig) superfamily of cell adhesion molecules. When this gene is overexpressed in the developing fetal central nervous system, it leads to Down syndrome.”

3: “Of particular interest is that Dscam in drosophila has 38,016 isoforms [4] from four variable exon clusters (12, 48, 33 and 2 alternatives respectively)” can be cleaned up to read “The Dscam protein in drosophila has 38,016 isoforms [4] arising from four variable exon clusters (12, 48, 33 and 2 alternatives).”

4: There’s a wiki gene page for DSCAM which I thought may help you add content to your article as there’s a section titled “High impact information” covering some topics related to DSCAM that are not included in your wiki page. If time allows this kind of information would be great to see in your article following the introductory description of DSCAM.

I really do like the simplicity with which the content is presented though a few improvements on grammar would improve the readability of your article. More content (outside the initial introductory paragraph) would also help round out your article. Great job so far!

Diane 68.55.75.53 (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Diane! Thanks for the great review!! Our group member Susana has added some more content to the article since your review and I plan to add quite a bit in the next couple of days...just trying to organize it a bit! We will also take your review into account and work to make the edits that you recommended. Thanks again!! :) Rexsmiley (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Diane for that wonderful review! Like Rex said, we'll take your points into account when we're editing our article! :-) Sytae (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Continued Article Editing

Hey team! I just thought I would start a new section for any article editing discussion. We are also working well on the article now, so we can also discuss any edits on the actual article "Talk Page". Just be sure it is in your Watchlist! ;)

Hey Susana! Great job adding some more content to the article! Well done!! I have quite a bit of information that I have pulled from a few articles that I plan to add either today or tomorrow evening. Just trying to organize it a bit before I put it in the article. Again, great job!! :) Rexsmiley (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Susana and Rubayath. I have added a few sections to the article along with some content. Additionally, all content is cited and I have put in some wiki links as well. I may need some help arranging the content and/or adjusting the Section Headings. It is sometimes difficult to pick headings that apply. I have more to add to the article (sections and content) but I think I'm done for today! ;) Rexsmiley (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rex! Thanks for starting a new section and making great additions to the article! I'll try to make any changes to what I see as well - feel free to tell me if you want anything done in particular! :-) Sytae (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Susana! I saw that you added some more content to the article. Outstanding!! I plan to add a bit more content to the article tomorrow (Saturday) morning and get a draft of our status report on our group page for our assignment this week. I'll try to get the status report draft on our page in the morning to give you and Rubayath the remainder of the day to make any edits to it. Unless this doesn't work for you, that is what I will plan on. Thanks! Rexsmiley (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Unit 12 Progress Report Discussion

Hi Susana and Rubayath! I have added a draft summary of our Unit 12 progress report to our 83F main page. Please feel free to edit, make changes/additions/deletions as you feel necessary. :) Also, please be sure to add summaries of your respective peer review activities that you have completed for group 83E's Homeotic selector gene page. You will see the section in the progress report with your name to add your summaries. If you have any questions or comments in regards to the progress report, just put them in this section and I will try to reply today. Lastly, I will take a final look at the progress report tonight before the due date time to make any last minute edits that may be needed. Thanks! :) Rexsmiley (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Post progress report review

Hey Group 83F, since our groups last comments, looks like the changes you have implemented have really improved the flow of the introduction as a whole. Great job!

There is a ton of content on your page that seems like it can be very valuable to the reader; the information nonetheless continues to seem a bit choppy in the way its presented. I think some of the reason for this may be because there is so much to say on DSCAM/Dscam that organizing it within subsections is difficult.

Although you wrote in your progress report that you hope to add more content, I definitely think you should continue working with what you already have. My biggest suggestion would be to make sure every single sentence makes sense in the context of the sentence before it and the sentence after. It seems to me that you have so much information in this article that some of the information is unconventionally grouped together without transitions between subject matter. We had a similar problem in our article, Amplicon (but with much less information). The way we approached this problem was by asking lay-people to read the article slowly and tell us where they're not really "understanding" what they're reading. We are still working on this, but definitely a useful approach to take.

For example, under the "Regulation of Synaptogenesis", you may want to consider making the large paragraph into a series of related paragraphs to make it simpler for the reader to understand. I'm most likely going to use this approach while reading your article in the next week to make more suggestions for improvement.

Another grounds for improvement I noticed after rereading the article is in the confusion between Dscam and DSCAM. It looks like in some places Dscam is italicized and in other places its not. If possible, consistency should be established in the article.

An image, as you suggested, may be interesting as well!

Great work so far, and I look forward to further edits, updates, improvements!

Jamie Jedwar48 (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jamie! Thanks for another great review! We will definitely use your suggestions to improve our article in the next couple of weeks. We really appreciate your very useful comments! I think that we look at the article so much that it is difficult to sometimes see what others that are more removed from the topic are able to discern. Thanks again for all your help!! Rexsmiley (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Following up on my review

Hi All,

Great job! There is much more content than previously found and I like the addition of both the homolog section and the picture.

My first comment is to be sure all instances where dscam is used as the gene definition have the word italicized. It's important to keep consistency here as it's introduced as significant. Also, in the immunity section it's better to not redefine DSCAM as that is just repetitive and may be confusing. Sections 3,4, and 5 all need links to unfamiliar terms just as sections 1 and 2 had.

Next, there are still tiny tweaks to grammar I'd like to help correct including comma placement, plural agreement and others:

1: "protein the gene codes" can be changed to "protein the gene encodes"

2: "Down Syndrome (DS) caused by trisomy 21 is ..." SHOULD have commas before and after "caused by trisomy 21". The most correct way to write this is "Down Syndrome (DS), caused by trisomy 21, is..."

3: "Recently, a novel gene named, DSCAM, " doesn't need the commas before and after DSCAM, so just: "Recently, a novel gene named DSCAM"

4: "DSCAM is predicted to be a transmembrane protein with a very high structural and sequence homology to immunoglobulin (Ig) superfamily of cell adhesion molecules" should read "DSCAM is predicted to be a transmembrane protein with a very high structural and sequence homology to the immunoglobulin (Ig) superfamily of cell adhesion molecules"

5: "Diverse glycoproteins of cell surfaces and extracellular matrices operationally termed as 'adhesion molecule' are..." should be "Diverse glycoproteins of cell surfaces and extracellular matrices operationally termed as 'adhesion molecules' are..."

6: "Invertebrates do not have antibodies and relies on innate immune system to..." changed to " Invertebrates do not have antibodies and rely on innate immune system to"

7: "While cell adhesion molecule belonging to the DSCAM immunoglobulin superfamily were..." changed to "While cell adhesion molecules belonging to the DSCAM immunoglobulin superfamily were"

8: "in the cell aggregation assays,[22][23][24][25] in other cases, they" remove the comma after "cases"- "in the cell aggregation assays,[22][23][24][25] in other cases they"

9: "Dscam1 of drosophila may be involved in to counteract the netrin-dependent..." changed to " Dscam1 of drosophila may be involved in to counteracting the netrin-dependent..."

10: "The isoform-specific binding properties of Dscam isoforms that mediate homophilic repulsion is the basis of self-avoidance..." needs tense agreement- "The isoform-specific binding property of Dscam isoforms that mediate homophilic repulsion is the basis of self-avoidance..."

11: "The neurons express stochastic array of Dscam1 isoforms on their cell surface..." changed to "The neurons express a stochastic array of Dscam1 isoforms on their cell surface..."

12: "Similarly, DSCAM is though to take a role" spelling mistake- "Similarly, DSCAM is thought to take a role"

13: "Due to the combinatorial use of alternative exons the homophilic binding specificity ofDrosophila Dscam is..." changed to " Due to the combinatorial use of alternative exons the homophilic binding specificity of Drosophila, Dscam is..."

This is by no means a comprehensive edit, but I hope it will help you clean up things before your final submission! All the best!

DianeDechava1 (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Diane! Thank you for the great review. We will use this last week of class to sort of "clean up" the article and implement your suggestions above in addition to reviews from other classmates. I know grammar issues are a major part of what needs to be corrected, so we will go through each section this week and ensure each point is clear and grammatically correct. Thanks again! ~Rex Rexsmiley (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Final Week Discussion

Hey Susana! I saw that you have been working on the 'Clinical Significance' section. Great work. I will also work on implementing review comments from our classmates and Klortho throughout this final week. It seems that we primarily need to "clean up" some grammar throughout the article, add some wiki-links where necessary and ensure the document is easy to follow for anyone who views it. I will get on it! Thanks! :-) Rexsmiley (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing the final product! Just reviewed some of Diane's suggestions from last week, and I think implementing those will certainly improve the flow of your article. I see that you've really refined certain sections, but are still running into some grammatical issues. Just crossed checked some of my uncertainties in reading, with her suggestions, and looks like she covered the ambiguities for the most part. Feel free to email me when these changes have been implemented, because I'm certainly happy to take a second look before submission! Jedwar48 (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Guys! I am sorry that I have been MIA from the workings of the article. I have been really sick for the past couple of weeks and been to the emergency too. So was just trying to make the deadlines on my courses till now so I don't lose a lot of points. But I am back now and still recovering but I will certainly try to put as much input as possible in the remaining time. Rmohsen1 (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello! It looks like we have made some great progress by doing some additions and editing the last couple of days to get things finished up. Well done! I will continue with some editing over these last two days with a final grammar check tomorrow before submission. I have already made many grammar corrections/clarifications in the first few sections and will also work through the rest. I will try to get the Final Progress Report summary on our main group page by this evening. As always, please feel free to add/edit as you deem necessary. Keep in mind that it needs to be really short...just a few bullet points to summarize the changes/improvements we have made to the article. I will also give it one last review prior to submission tomorrow! Thanks! Rexsmiley (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

DSCAM Article Completion

Hi guys! I think that our article is pretty well complete (for class submission purposes)!! :-) I have tried to go through each section to clarify, correct grammar, insert a bit more content and provide many wiki-links. From my standpoint, I think the article looks pretty good and should be more than sufficient for the end of the class project. Granted, there is always room for improvement, but I think from a class perspective, we have made some very marked improvements and additions to the article as I listed in our Final Progress report! I just wanted to say "Well done!" and let you know that I have finished contributing for the semester! Best of luck to you and happy holidays!! :) Rexsmiley (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)