Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Long-term potentiation

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Long-term potentiation edit

Really well written, abundant referencing, contains a lot of info, and very comprehensive, especially since it is on a topic that can be very obscure. dr.alf 09:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Good lead paragraph and clear writing. However, some specific concerns.

  • Strictly speaking, cell growth is a separate process from cell division. The section on "Early theories" may confuse readers by merging these processes.
  • In "Phases of LTP" the discussion of E-LTP seems to imply that new AMPA receptors are produced in the abscence of protein synthesis. Are the receptors re-localised to the synapse from intracellular stores? Needs to clarify.
  • Second paragraph in the "Phases of LTP" section unreferenced. Need at minimum a few refs for statement that many investigators doubt existence of this effect.
  • In "Early LTP" what the magnesium blockade is either needs referenced or linked, as it is not explained in the text.
  • (Pavlidis, et al., 2000) reference in "Reterograde signalling" section needs coverting to proper format.
  • Would you like an structural image of PKA or another one of the kinases mentioned? If you would like me to generate one for you drop me a note on my talk page.TimVickers 18:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added part of CaMKII's structure, which should suffice for now, but another image (preferably of PLCζ) would be excellent. --David Iberri (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll have another look at this over the weekend. TimVickers 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I still intend to make some major revisions (eg, the L-LTP needs a major overhaul), but I'd love to hear feedback about the minor touchups I've made over the past couple weeks. Thanks, David Iberri (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
L-LTP has been rewritten. --David Iberri (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. The two things that would most benefit this article's readability are explicit definitions of what it means to "strengthen" a synapse (the section in the neuron article isn't really enough) and of the difference between "induced" and "expressed" LTP. A few more specific comments:

I agree that a section on synaptic strengthening might help, but I haven't had a chance to add it. Hopefully the distinction between induction and expression is clearer now. --David Iberri (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a scattering of statements that could use a citation, e.g. "...can last from hours to days, months, and years." in the lead.
    • Agreed. I've begun adding references for these, but there are undoubtedly others. I'll add them as I find the appropriate reference. --David Iberri (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Types of LTP" section tells that LTP differs between different neurons and between neurons of different ages, but it doesn't say what differs (duration? ease of induction? etc). I'd move this section after "Phases" and expand it.
    • I've explained things a bit better now, but am still unsure whether this section needs expansion. --David Iberri (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Properties" section has several very short subsections and might work better as a single multi-paragraph section.
    • I've changed it to a definition list. Is this better? --David Iberri (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are strange juxtapositions, as in "There is also considerable evidence that late LTP prompts the postsynaptic synthesis of a retrograde messenger that diffuses to the presynaptic cell increasing the probability of neurotransmitter vesicle release on subsequent stimuli. All of this is largely hypothetical." -- so is there evidence, or is it hypothetical? If there is evidence, cite it; if not, cite a statement of the hypothesis.
    • Some of this was the product of multiple editors (myself included) working on the article without specific regard for how their contributions flowed with the rest of the article. I've fixed a few of these and will do the rest in time. --David Iberri (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not getting a clear sense of how much controversy there is over L-LTP; the statement that some investigators doubt it is uncited and doesn't say why they are doubtful. The L-LTP section itself is written as if there is no real dispute.
    • The latest revision hopefully clears up the problems with the L-LTP section. --David Iberri (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Tim, I'm confused about E-LTP somehow being independent of protein synthesis; clarification is needed on the mechanism here. The high acronym density might also benefit from a diagram of the signaling pathway.
    • Agreed. I think the E-LTP section is a bit clearer now, but L-LTP needs work. I'll get on it soon. --David Iberri (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Retrograde signaling" has tone problems ("unfortunately", "still life in..."). The previous section says "While LTP is induced postsynaptically, it is partially expressed presynaptically." but this one says "LTP, at least early LTP, is expressed entirely postsynaptically." Then this same paragraph ends with "since contrary to dogma, LTP induction does not appear to be entirely postsynaptic." As a reader I now have no idea whether there's a presynaptic effect or what it is. This reads as if the literature is contradictory but the author tried to beat it into submission, or the author(s) of this text are not clear on the point.
  • The sentence "The mere fact that cultured synapses can undergo long-term potentiation when stimulated by electrodes says little about LTP's relation to memory in an intact organism." is odd, as the lead and history sections say this has been observed in vivo. A simple transition like "LTP has also been observed in vivo and influences behavioral memory" is less 'pretty-sounding' but also less puzzling to the reader who skipped directly to this section.

Opabinia regalis 23:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. alf, thanks for the nomination; Tim and Opabinia, thanks for your comments, they've been amazingly helpful in reorganizing and improving the article. I look forward to any additional comments you may have. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Long-term_potentiation&oldid=123929345"