User talk:DKitch21/sandbox

Sources

Resources for PLCG1 page — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKitch21 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Lattanzio, R., Piantelli, M. & Falasca, M. (2013). Role of phospholipase C in cell invasion and metastasis. Advances in biological regulation. Advances in Biological Regulation. doi:10.1016/j.jbior.2013.07.006

• Koss, H., Bunney, T. D., Behjati, S. & Katan, M. (2014). Dysfunction of phospholipase Cγ in immune disorders and cancer. Trends in biochemical sciences. doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2014.09.004

• Jang, H.-J. et al. (2018). PLCγ1: Potential arbitrator of cancer progression.Advances in biological regulation. Advances in Biological Regulation. doi:10.1016/j.jbior.2017.11.003

• Kang, D.-S. et al. (2020). The function of PLCγ1 in developing mouse mDA system. Advances in biological regulation. Advances in Biological Regulation. doi:10.1016/j.jbior.2019.100654

DKitch21 (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Looks better than Jake's, but aren't the references supposed to be on the user page rather than the talk page? Doesn't really matter, but just might make feedback a bit tricky to find. KC1200 (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review/Wickypears

Here is a link to my full peer review as suggested by the wikipedia classroom: Full Peer Review Wickypears (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your link to the PLC, I think that is a really good addition and will make your page more clear. In one of your paragraphs there is a sentence that could be more cleaer: PLCγ1 is used during the growth[1] of cells as well as in a cell migration[3] and apoptosis[2]. I think that it would be more clear to say "cell growth" and avoid using words like as well as.... I also think that the sentence, "Mutations in this protein show increasing issues for cells to better regulate proliferation and it's cell signaling," could be more clear. Maybe you could say "PLC protein mutations cause issues for cells such as not being able to regulate proliferation and cell signaling." What you have now is fine, but I had to read it twice to really understand what is going on (and thats after listening to your oral presentation.) This sentence, "The basic PLCγ1 pathway, a scientist currently understand it, is seen below," is kind of difficult to understand. What do you mean by " a scientist currently understand it" Do you mean that as science currently understands it?

In your cancer section, I would try to avoid saying "research says" so much because it is implied that research says it since there is references to research articles. I also think that it sounds more concrete to just say what it is. Again, try to avoid saying, "Current understanding..." instead just cite the source. This whole section has a lot of current research, in research, novel research, etc. I think that you could have a first sentence be some sort of disclaimer about current research and it being novel and what not, etc. So that when you are actually in the paragraph you don't have to keep mentioning it over and over again because that language is kind of distracting. If you decide to change it, I can re-edit these paragraphs if you like.

The rest of your page looks really good, and I think you did a good job of adding to your page especially the section on cancer. I think you were able to add a lot of good information from your oral presentation as well. Nice job. Wickypears (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The section on cancer looks good, and I am not seeing any errors. I like your graphic too; it is very clear on the pathway. -Your clarification in the first paragraph about DAG and IP3 will be very helpful for future readers. Wickypears (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You have so many sources (4). That is good, keep up the diligent work. Wickypears (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.116.25 (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review/KC1200

Overall, great job! There are just a few, mostly superficial, things that I noticed and think you should look over to polish it up a bit.

Just remember, I'm picky because I care.

The second sentence in the paragraph right above the image (which is excellent, by the way) is a bit lengthy and confusing at the end where it says, "...all of which are vital cell processes and mutations can cause cancerous properties to form within the body." Are you saying mutations of PLCγ1 cause cancerous properties or mutations that disrupt the processes mentioned causes them? If you mean mutations to the processes then I would rephrase it to something like, "PLCγ1 is used during the growth of cells as well as in a cell migration and apoptosis, all of which are vital cell processes that, if disrupted by mutations, can cause cancerous properties to form within the body." I think that would make it clearer and feel more connected. If you mean the PLCγ1, then I think it would be better to incorporate that statement into the next sentence where you are talking about the effects of mutation. For example, "Mutations in this protein show increasing issues for cells to better regulate proliferation and cell signaling, causing cancerous properties to form within the body."

Speaking of the next sentence, it uses "...it's cell signaling..." and I would just delete it (I think technically the correct word would be their since you used cells earlier in the sentence but I don't think it's necessary). Also, "increasing issues for cells to better regulate" seems a bit off.

The next sentences seem they could be reorganized and condensed a bit. One mentions "neuronal actin growth... brain development" and then another talks about "neuronal actin cytoskeleton organization and synaptic plasticity." There are some redundancies. Finally the last sentence says "The basic PLCγ1 pathway, a scientist currently understand it, is seen below." Instead of, "The basic PLCγ1 pathway, as scientists currently understand it, is seen below."

CANCER

The second sentence under the cancer section "Research shows the role PLCγ1 is involved in cell proliferation..." reads a bit weird to me. It sounds like you wanted to say "PLCγ1 plays a role in" or "PLCγ1 is involved in" and put both on accident.

Second paragraph, sentence 4 "Different studies show in tissue samples of cancer patients the PLCγ1 levels are not elevated, however regulatory factors for this proteins are lowered and amplification of PLCγ1 is extremely high." What are these studies different from? I would throw a that in somewhere and break it into two sentences. "...show that in tissue samples of cancer patients, PLCγ1 levels are not elevated. (Also maybe change the of to a from?) "However, regulatory factors for this protein are lowered and amplification of PLCγ1 is extremely high." (also change this proteins to this protein). If you don't want to break it into two sentences, you still will need to add a comma after however

What does it mean for amplification to be extremely high if the levels are not elevated? Do the regulatory proteins usually block PLCγ1 and it just take a little bit of PLCγ1 to have large consequences? I think you could clarify a bit more on this point (unless the information is unclear and not conclusive, which I understand entirely) KC1200 (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)