User:RandyGreeves/sandbox

Evaluating an article

History of penicillin

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
  • some information does not seem to be relevant to the topic, such as the use of Sri Lankin sweetmeats as a means of treating wounds
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
  • The most recent update was November, 2nd, 2018, so new information could be available. however, many of the other updates were two or more years ago and could be out of date.
• What else could be improved?
  • Over all the fluidity of the article could be improved as well as detail into the uses of penicillin.

• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • I saw no evidence of bias in the article
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Information on Alexandar Fleming and the methods used for producing Penicillin lack detail for how much impact they had in the history of the drug

• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • several of the citations link to papers published by academic journals, however there are a few citations to sites such as "Tom Volk's fungus of the month" which may have good information but probably is not a scientific/peer reviewed source.
• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
  • Much of the facts have good quotes attached to them, however, some ask for citation.

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • Many people are making points and asking questions, however, there is no one responding to them.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • It is rated as a mid to high importance with multiple projects it belongs to.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
  • There is not much of a conversation. most of the talk page is people saying that something should be added

RandyGreeves (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Article Draft Additions

History of Penicillin

(In 1877, French biologists Louis Pasteur and Jules Francois Joubert observed that cultures of the anthrax bacilli, when contaminated with molds, could be successfully inhibited. Some references say that Pasteur identified the strain as Penicillium notatum. However, Paul de Kruif's 1926 Microbe Hunters describes this incident as contamination by other bacteria rather than by mold. In 1887, Garré found similar results. In 1895, Vincenzo Tiberio, an Italian physician at the University of Naples, published research about a mold in a water well in Arzano that showed antibacterial action.

Two years later, Ernest Duchesne at École du Service de Santé Militaire in Lyon independently discovered the healing properties of a Penicillium glaucum mold, even curing infected guinea pigs of typhoid. He published a dissertation[17][18][19] in 1897 but it was ignored by the Institut Pasteur. Duchesne was himself using a discovery made earlier by Arab stable boys, who used molds to cure sores on horses. He did not claim that the mold contained any antibacterial substance, only that the mold somehow protected the animals. The penicillin isolated by Fleming does not cure typhoid and so it remains unknown which substance might have responsible for Duchesne's cure.[a]

In the early stages of penicillin research, most species of Penicillium were generally referred to as Penicillium glaucum, so we cannot identify the actual strains used. Thus, it is difficult to tell whether it was really penicillin preventing bacterial growth.[20]

In Belgium in 1920, Andre Gratia and Sara Dath observed a fungal contamination in one of their Staphylococcus aureus cultures that was inhibiting the growth of the bacterium. They identified the fungus as a species of Penicillium and presented their observations as a paper, but it received little attention. An Institut Pasteur scientist, Costa Rican Clodomiro Picado Twight, similarly recorded the antibiotic effect of Penicillium in 1923.) https://ac-els-cdn-com.libproxy.mst.edu/S0160932716300072/1-s2.0-S0160932716300072-main.pdf?_tid=3a88d811-4b9b-4df8-a02f-fa93b94249fd&acdnat=1552787619_c46a2f0c5dc36e04875f334fe484a22e

Penicillin is a

Microbial antagonism (new section?) -principle behind penicillin

Duchesne had the idea of putting darwin's work on the evolution of species and the idea of the survival of the fittest into practice with microscopic organisms. In doing so he hypothesized that some organisms would be able to neutralize bacterium.

“Further investigation revealed that the strains of Penicillium being used on either side of the Atlantic were in fact producing different penicillins; the American material was termed ‘Penicillin G’ and the British one ‘Penicillin F.’68 There are in fact some half dozen naturally occurring penicillins. They differ only in the nature of the acyl side chain that is attached to the defining feature of the penicillins – the beta-lactam ring fused to a thiazolidine ring.” (Shama)

Another difficulty with producing penicillin is that some Penicillum byproducts are toxic.

During WWII, some scientists attempted to reproduce penicillin, but the end product was often too toxic for humans.

First isolation and successful treatment[edit source]

In 1928, Scottish biologist Alexander Fleming noticed a halo of inhibition of bacterial growth around a contaminant blue-green mold on a Staphylococcus plate culture. He concluded that the mold was releasing a substance that was inhibiting bacterial growth. He grew a pure culture of the mold and subsequently concentrated what he later named "penicillin". He soon began treating infections in patients with penicillin. One of his first being his assistant Stuart Braddock. Fleming applied penicillin to his Sinus infection. Within three hours, most of the bacteria in the infected area had disappeared.  In 1929. He reported his findings in an article for The British Journal of Experimental Pathology. During the next twelve years, Fleming grew and distributed the original mold, which was eventually identified as Penicillium notatum (now known as Penicillium chrysogenum). He was unsuccessful in making a stable form of it for mass production.^[21] Although Fleming did some research with penicillin directly on patients and greatly contributed to its medical use, he did not realize it’s revolutionary potential, due to the impurity of the penicillin he made and the difficulty in mass producing it. Most of his further research with penicillin was focused mostly on the properties of penicillin rather than medical treatment with penicillin.

Penicillin resistance

In 1940, Chain and Edward Abraham reported the first indication of antibiotic resistance to penicillin, an E. coli strain that produced the penicillinase enzyme, which was capable of breaking down penicillin and completely negating its antibacterial effect.^[5][6][23]. In 1942, strains of Staphylococcus aureus had been documented to have developed a strong resistance to penicillin. Most of the strains were resistant to penicillin by the 1960s. In 1967, Staphylococcus pneumoniae was also reported to be penicillin resistant. Many strains of bacteria have developed a resistance to penicillin.

Manufacturing process of penicillin and its evolution over time.

Origins

In 1939 Howard Florey and Ernst Chain wanted to carry out clinical trials with penicillin. In order to do so they needed to produce roughly 500 liters each week, and to do so they began to optimize the manufacturing process. At first they produced penicillin in anything that could hold water, later they had a special vat made for the fermentation process and hired girls, known as “Penicillin girls” to take care of the fermentation process. As the demand for penicillin’s curative properties grew and the toll from the war hindered production Florey set out for the United States to secure the means of production required to continue  and expand clinical trials. With the help of the Rockefeller Foundation, which put him in contact with physiologist John Fulton, the Department of Agriculture and the Northern Regional Research Laboratory (NRRL), located in Peoria, Illinois, agreed to help innovate the manufacturing process and produce penicillin.

Increasing efficiency

When production first began one-liter containers would have a yield of less than 1% to a yield of 80-90% in 10,000 gallon containers. This increase in efficiency happened between 1939 and 1945 due in part to restless innovation of the process. Orvill May, the Director of the NRRL had Robert Coghill, who was the Chief of the Fermentation Division, work on using his experience with fermentation to increase the efficiency of extracting penicillin from the mold. Shorty after beginning Andrew Moyer substituted sucrose with lactose which resulted in an increased yield. In an even larger increase of efficiency Moyer added corn-steep liquor.

One major issue with the process that British scientists had was the inefficiency of growing the mold on the surface of their nutrient baths, rather than having it submerged. Even though a submerged process of growing the mold would be more efficient, the strain used was not suitable for the conditions it would require. This led to a search for a strain that had already adapted to work. A cantalope in a Peoria marketplace ended up being the best they could find. In order to try and improve upon that strain they subjected it with X-rays to facilitate mutations in its genome and managed to increase it production capabilities even more.

Now that scientists had a mold that grew well submerged and produced an acceptable amount of penicillin the next problem to tackle was providing the required air to the mold for it to grow. This was solved using an aerator, but that caused severe foaming due to the corn steep which was solved by the introduction of an anti-foaming agent known as glyceryl monoricinoleate.

Harvesting the penicillin

Peer Review by Amanda Skeeters (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

What does the draft do well?

~ The article is really thorough about the information and is good at including the names and descriptions of those involved

Is there anything that impressed you?

~ The detail on the discovery of Penicillin

What changes would you suggest that the author apply to the article?

~ The article is missing a flow. I would suggest in the intro of your article describing what Penicillin is in a broad sense, stating who was involved, and then opening the article into the discovery of penicillin. After these are stated first, it will be easier to tell where the article is going and to create a better flow

Why would those changes be an improvement?

~ This will allow readers to follow along easier and get key information on understanding the topic before delving into the history of the medicine. It is hard to digest the history of something if you don't have a general understanding of what that something is beforehand.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

~ Make sure to rearrange the information and bold/underline any sub-headings so that the article is organized. Make sure all names have links attached since there are a lot of them.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?

~ The article did a good job of breaking down sections into bite size chunks

Peer Review by Mghgd (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• First, what does the draft do well? Anything that impressed? Anything the described the subject in a clear way?
  • Lots of interesting information. The content is interesting, and the individual paragraphs are generally pretty good.
• What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
  • “In the early stages…” is copied from the Notes section under citation [a], I don’t know if that was on purpose or not, but one of them should probably be removed.
  • More sources would be good. There are quite a lot of new information relative to the number of sources (one?).
• What’s the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
  • The flow of the edits could probably use a little work. That might be a symptom of copying pieces out of the article, but most of the transitions between paragraphs are pretty rough. You might want to think about moving the order of your additions around in the article to see what flows best.
• Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
  • There is a lot of technical information in the edits that fit better than I thought it would. I had avoided doing that in my article, but I might go back and add it now.

Peer Review by RFoley2 (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are a few notes on your current article draft you may want to think about:

1. I like how you looked at the paragraphs and moved some of them around to try and make the paragraphs flow better.
2. The paragraph “In the early stages…” could do with a slightly different introduction to make it flow more smoothly into the idea that we don’t necessarily know which strain was being used. Saying something like, “It should be noted that in the early stages…”.
3. I think it’s a good idea to add the new section about the principle behind penicillin. Possibly change the section heading to something like “History of the Principle Behind Penicillin” to make it clear it ties it into the history topic.
4. Also in this new section make sure you put in the sources your using within the article. I’m sure you have some but just make sure they’re in there.
5. If that long section within the quotations (in principle behind penicillin)is an exact quote from that source it may be beneficial to summarize that instead of doing a direct quote.
6. In the “principle behind penicillin” section it would be nice to have more transitions between the paragraphs there as now they seem quite isolated and don’t flow quite as well as they could. This may also be solved by adding more content to each including possible dates/time periods when the ideas were uncovered.
7. The sentences, “One of his first being his assistant Stuart Braddock. Fleming applied penicillin to his Sinus infection.” could be combined with each other because as of now they are kind of choppy separate.
8. I do however, like that you added this bit of information to the article because it adds a sense of how he realized it could be used to treat patients.
9. Possilby add something after “He reported his findings…” that describes how they were received or something else that happened as a result of it (or didn’t’ happen).
10. I think the last sentence, “Athough Fleming…” does a really good job wrapping up that section and describes Fleming’s contribution. It is a really good addition that was missing in the article.
11. I think adding the section “Penicillin Resistance” is a good addition as it ties together the theme of how antibiotics have become resistant over time to penicillin which is an important in its history. I noticed you took some already existing sentences to use in this section which is good but make sure if you remove the sentences that the place you removed them from still flows well and works without them.
12. In “Manufacturing Process of Penicillin…” I think it adds some good points. However, I am wondering where this section will go as there is already a section in the article about the mass production. Will this new section replace some old parts? And if so make sure you don’t get rid of any points made in the old section. If it doesn’t replace anything make sure it doesn’t repeat any information already presented.
13. Also in this section when you say they “hired girls” how old were the girls? If they were very young maybe include an age range or an adjective to highlight this. If they weren’t all young maybe say women instead of girls.
14. For the cantaloupe part elaborate on why a cantaloupe was the best they could find.
15. In “increasing efficiency” you say “restless innovation”. What makes it “restless? Maybe give examples of time people put into it or something else to back up that it was “restless.” As of now it seems to just give praise to the people working on it without saying why.
16. Something from this article that I could add to my own article is using subsections within each section. This really helps break things down.

In general I think you added a lot of good material that really adds to the article and helps it flow better and connect ideas. The main things to focus on are adding some transitions or dates to some sections to make how each part of its history connects clearer, make sure you include citations (I’m sure you have some but there were a lot of areas which had no citations at all) and the proper formatting for section titles and similar things, and make sure you don’t delete any preexisting information when you move these ideas around and add new sections to the article (also try not to repeat ideas already stated somewhere else in the article when doing this). Finally, just simply read through it and make sure all the sentences themselves flow. There were a few areas were some commas or other things could be added to help the sentence flow better.

Overall good job adding content! Just keep working on refining it some. --RFoley2 (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer editied by: Clandis0217 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

1. what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way? This draft is goes into the the history of penicillin very well. it provides information about how it was discovered and the new information to me that all penicillin is not referring to a specific antibiotic but a group of antibiotics.
2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I think that the organization of this draft could be better. it's all chopped out and not integrated into the article and I believe it would be easier to read and relay the information better if it was organized.
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I think integrating into the article and merging the information you and your partner have woudl be most important.
4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?

I think this draft did very well in describing the origins of penicillin and maybe i could come up with the origins of my guys thoughts on the ideas he is famous for.