Talk:Aquaporin-4/Archive 1

Archive 1

class note

We are part of the Neurobiology class at Marquette University taking part of the Wiki Education program. We are in the process of fixing our references on this site as well as adding more information to the "function section." We are not completely finished, and we would appreciate positive feedback on how to improve this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdagj (talk • contribs) 05:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Verdagj (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Please finish drafting in your sandbox. WP is live and there cannot be unfinished citations - that content is unverified and cannot be in WP. If you want to just add the bits that are actually done, that would be fine, of course. Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Class note: revision

We have updated the article main space with correct references and additional sections. We have added the sections: function, location (tissue and cellular distribution), and clinical significance tab to this page. We are continually updating and revising the page as we receive feedback on how to improve. Verdagj (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing

The three sources relied on the most in this article are PMID 27941618, PMID 24118484, and PMID 27529222, each of which were published in International Journal of Molecular Sciences, which is published by MDPI, a very borderline predatory publisher. This was not wise and that content will need to checked against stronger sources Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I would recommend linking/defining more scientific or complex words like glia limitans and ependymal. Remember a person with a non-science background should be able to comprehend the information. Be sure to emphasize that aquaporin 4 is unique in that it functions within the CNS. Consider listing the CNS location paragraph first in the tissue and cellular distribution if that is the primary location.

Be sure to review the grammar and sentence structure to ensure the article flows. It might help to read it aloud.Jpeagles (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Student Review

To go with what the others have said, this is a nice and simply written article that generally helps to condense information and make it more comprehendible. My only critique of your article is centered on the Clinical Significance and Research sections. To me, it seems like some of the information you have in the research section actually belongs in the clinical significance section, specifically the information pertaining to neurodegenerative diseases. Are there any sources available that have noted these effects in human systems? Again, this is my personal opinion. I understand the distinction between clinical significance and research, but if you can find a source that shows these effects in humans, then I think some of this information could be moved to the clinical significance section. Rschocke (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Studies conducted in mice are not necessarily directly translatable to humans. To say that protein X is relevant to human disease we need studies from humans, using human tissue, showing that. And even that level of stuff is different than something being clinically relevant - it being actually used in the clinic to drive treatment decisions. There is basic research, clinical research, and then actual clinical use. Three different things. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

The introduction is well written but it does not grab the reader’s attention because it does not state the purpose or the main function of AQP4. Some sentences resemble phrases because they are inconclusive, meaning that they are too short or they do not present an important idea. The rest of the sections are informative and give the reader an idea of what AQP4 is and how it is relevant to the field of neuroscience. But, the clinical significance section is not written in a way that most people understand because of the terminology used. Keep in mind that people with all types of backgrounds and of different professional settings will be reading this and it is important for them to be able to understand the significance of the article. I would recommend fixing the grammatical errors and it would be beneficial for the readers if more links were included because the topic would be easier to comprehend. I like the subsections included and the table specifying all of the information about AQP4. Another recommendation would be to add more images, if you can find any, because this usually helps to visualize the way this protein works in the human body. Overall, the article was written in a concise manner but I just think that by modifying some of the sections it could be an even better article!

0475ramosk (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Katherine Ramos Delgado

Student Secondary Review

I liked that the article was concise and straightforward—this made it easy to understand. I do agree with some of the other reviewers in regards to expanding some of the sections. For instance, for function maybe you could create more subheadings underneath that describe the different systems that the protein is involved with. Additionally, you could expand on the different disorders that were introduced under the clinical significance subheading. Lastly, something you could do to enhance the article even further is adding some images to allow readers to understand the structure of the protein more. Francesca Marie A. Florendo 04:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Student primary review

I know it said your page might not be ready for review yet, but here's what I have since the deadline is close: A lot of information is missing, and not just in the function section. The introduction should be expanded as well and made more elaborate. There might also just be a better way to state the first line to have it make sense to people without a scientific background that read this article. It would also help to have more sub-sections within the article apart from just Function and Pathology, such as Basic Features, Structure of the channel, Discovery, etc. You've done a good job with linking all the words you thought were necessary to existing pages for explanation to someone that might understand the references. These all seem like valid choices. The current information shows that it is all properly focused on the topic and does not deviate. More images could be used if necessary and cited properly with good captions. Article [3] cited as below - Jung JS, Bhat RV, Preston GM, Guggino WB, Baraban JM, Agre P (December 1994). "Molecular characterization of an aquaporin cDNA from brain: candidate osmoreceptor and regulator of water balance". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 91 (26): 13052–6. doi:10.1073/pnas.91.26.13052. PMC 45579Freely accessible. PMID 7528931.

This cited article states what is stated in the Wikipedia article, but it seems to be about APQ1 specifically. "AQP4 is abundant in brain where it may function as the hypothalamic osmoreceptor responsible for secretion of ADH" is what is said about your topic Aquaporin 4. 9230isaact (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello 9230isaact, we recently just posted our final edit of the article on the main space if you wanted to look over it one more time. Thank you for your review. Verdagj (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

ADDITION: “Focusing on AQP4, which has the most water channels in the CNS, are specifically located at the perimicrovessel astrocyte foot processes, glia limitans, and ependyma.[5]” Pick whether you are speaking about it in singular or plural terms. “Aquaporin-4 was first discovered in 1986, it was the first evidence for the existence of water transport channels.” Can be separate sentences. “Similar to other aquaporin in that AQP4 monomers assemble into tetramers.[8] In addition, has two distinct structural isoforms located in the CNS called M1 and M23, both forming homo- and hetero-tetramers that are permeable to water.[4]” Not full sentences. General grammar and flow of writing can be improved.

More could be added to the Clinical Significance section, with either further detail about the given NMO, or also talking about the AQP4 antibodies in myasthenia gravis. The loss of AQP4 too has effects. I found more information here: http://www.nature.com/nrneurol/journal/v4/n4/full/ncpneuro0764.html but you could look for a better source with similar information.

Overall good structure! 9230isaact (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello 9230isaact, we have fixed the grammatical errors and flow of the sentences you listed above. Thank you for input. --DKS7623 (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi 9230isaact, the suggestions you provided to us was extremely helpful. We went over our whole article and corrected the grammar to make it more cohesive. As well as took your advice and looked for more information of AQP4 to add in the Clinical Significance section. We initially did have more information under Clinical Significance, but editors thought it was more prevalent in the Research section. Thank you so much for your response and review. Yoyotime (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

student Primary review

The article is simple-written, which is easy to follow and understand. Summary of the article can include general function of aquaporin 4 to give readers a quick view on what aquaporin does in the body. Reference section seems under-completed as part of the source is useless, for example, reference 1 ‘Human PubMed Reference’ and reference 2 ‘Mouse PubMed Reference’. Nevertheless, specific terms are linked correctly in the content which allows readers to link to other existing pages and read related information. Contents of AQP4 can expand more. Although general functions of AQP4 are listed in the article, adding more sub-sections such as distribution of AQP4, features of AQP4 contributed to its function in different part of body or mechanisms of AQP4 would help to build a comprehensive article on this topic. Language used is neutral which does not bias to editors’ point of view. More figures could be added to help illustrate the mechanisms of AQP4 or explain its function on molecular level. Overall, this article provides a general information of aquaporin 4. Alice0iris (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Alice0iris, we just posted our final edit of the article up on the main space. If you wanted to take one more look over it. Thank you for your review. Verdagj (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alice0iris, thank you for your review. Unfortunately, we aren't able to use your review as strongly as we would have liked, since your review was posted before we posted our article "live" in main space. But in regards to the PubMed references, those references were initially on the page before we started to edit. We were also notified by the Professor to try and remove those references, but could not figure it out where to edit the box on the right without messing up everything else on the page. Thank you again! Yoyotime (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Student secondary Review

As the primary reviews above stated, the article is easy to follow and provides general information about Aquaporin 4. Under the clinical significance heading, in the Disease and pathology section I believe that it would be best, if possible, to link the diseases that show a prominent relation to AQP4, so that readers can see the relation between the diseases and AQP4. Also, in the second paragraph when you are talking about the discovery of AQP4, it is unclear who you are revering to when you say "The method they performed to show evidence of water transport channels." More history on who discovered AQP4 would be helpful in this section. Hondaporsh24 (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hondaporsh24, thank you for your comment. Regards to the first suggestion you stated, we ended up keeping what an Editor changed of our sections to Clinical Significance and Research. Then focusing on the comment about the second paragraph, we edited that section to make it more clear as well. Yoyotime (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Primary Review

In the intro section the sentence, “...significant role of AQP4 in the central nervous system (CNS) injuries and brain water imbalances” I think has an additional “the” which makes the sentence a little choppy. The structure section was informative but the writing could be a little more fluid. In the function section there is broad coverage but function in the CNS only seems to be mentioned and not described in much detail. How is AQP4 essential to the formation of memory and what specific mechanism does it contribute to? I think if you expand a little bit more on how exactly AQP4 is assisting in memory and homeostasis of potassium there will be a solid amount of material specified to the CNS. On other criteria the article is very neutral and covers many different aspects of AQP4. In the article cited 10 there is not too much detail on how AQP4 directly works with synaptic plasticity but more research could have been done to make a section on that topic. In addition the article has a lot of information about AQP4 and cognition which would have been a good topic to cover when talking about AQP4 and the CNS.

3604weberk (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi 3604weberk, thank you for your response. We have reread our whole article making many grammar corrections. As well as adding/removing some information. Yoyotime (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Primary Review

Overall, after reading this article, it can be said that with the exception of some grammatical errors, the article is well written. The article is concise and very easy to follow, especially with links to other pages to provide explanations for words many readers may not have any knowledge of, as well as providing a good summary of what AQP4 is. There are however some suggestions you may want to take into consideration. In the introduction portion of the article, you may want to separate the actual introduction from the small history portion. With the small history snippet present within the introduction section, it sort of throws the flow of the introduction off. If it is possible to maybe to expound upon the history of AQP4 a little more, then make it into its own subheading, the article may possibly flow better. Another suggestion is to maybe expound more upon the clinical significance if possible. If it is not possible, you could possibly think about combining it with the research portion of the article. Another thing I did notice is that in the introduction section, when you begin to state the history of the AQP4, you state "The method they performed to show evidence of AQP4 was a knockout experiment." It would be helpful if you could identify the "they" you are pertaining to without requiring the reader to go to the source itself to determine whom you are referring to. It would also be very helpful to insert more images of AQP4 than just the crystalline structure. When it comes to the source, Oklinski MK, Skowronski MT, Skowronska A, Rützler M, Nørgaard K, Nieland JD, Kwon TH, Nielsen S (December 2016). "Aquaporins in the Spinal Cord". International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 17 (12). doi:10.3390/ijms17122050. PMID 27941618., you all use it very well. The source is a review article that is mainly focused around Aquaporins 1, 4 and 9, yet it provides great detail on each one, especially AQP4, and its role when expressed in different environments such as a when the spinal cord is damaged and what happens in a healthy individual.Jjazzpur (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jjazzpur, thank you for your suggestions and comments. Beginning with the suggestion about the introduction and breaking it into a small portion for history. My group and I did consider doing that, but since we were unable to find more information about the history we thought it was okay to combine the small history portion with the intro. Then also for the clinical significance we added more information on that section. As well as making many grammar edits on our page. Thank you again! Yoyotime (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary Review

Overall, very interesting article. I would have to agree the the previous reviews in that the article was easy to follow, which is important.

I noticed a few grammatical error throughout the article.

In the first introduction paragraph the word "limited" does not seem to fit. The second paragraph also seems out of place and does not flow well with the first.

Functions paragraph is very interesting, more detail would be great.

Try to elaborate on the role AQP4 plays in the diseases listed. Even if you provide an internal link to those diseases, the wiki pages likely do not discuss AQP4.(User talk: User:SewellBio) 13:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi SewellBio, we read through out article again and fixed the grammatical errors in the first and second paragraph. Slight more detail was added to the function whereas for the disease we are currently working on to elaborate on certain diseases, such as TBI. There are a lot of them, so we are going to focus on just three probably. Thank you for the suggestions and advice. --DKS7623 (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Student Review

Overall, I thought this was a well written and very simple and concise way to describe multiple components of AQP4. In fact, I really liked how you guys split up the different sections and it made it easy to follow and read. However, I feel as though these can be adjusted a bit.Some portions of these sub units like Clinical Significance and Research could be combined, but there could also be more sections to really expand upon, information-wise. Also, along the lines of organization, you could separate the history portion from the introduction paragraph and expand upon that. Lastly, I thought you guys did a great job on giving links for terms that may not be well known to the public which is necessary on a very scientific article like this one.

Overall, great job and with a few tweaks, I think this article could be even better! Paige MU (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Paige MU, we elaborated and expanded on some of the topics for clinical significance and research. Thank you for your helpful suggestions --DKS7623 (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Final Edits and Revision Suggestions from Reviews

Hello, we have finished our final edits on our page about AQP4. Unfortunately, we were unable to insert more images on the page that would help explain visually the context of AQP4. In particular under our Clinical Significance section about "hydrocephaly". There were 2 images showing the normal condition compared to the hydrocephaly condition, but it was part of an article which we were unable to get the publisher's approval on time due to time constraints. But if you are interested in see those comparisons the article is referenced in our article as article #12: Desai, Bhargav; Hsu, Ying; Schneller, Benjamin; Hobbs, Johnathan G.; Mehta, Ankit I.; Linninger, Andreas (Summer 2016). "Hydrocephalus: the role of cerebral aquaporin-4 channels and computational modeling considerations of cerebrospinal fluid". Otherwise, we would like to say thank you so much to everyone who has reviewed our page and added comments of how to better improve our final product. Yoyotime (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary Review

-Use hyperlinks for AQP1, 2, etc. Also hyperlink other uncommon terms if possible such as primi crovessel, glia laminates, ependyma, knockout experiment, etc.

-Add subtitles

-How is AQ4 regulated? any specific ligand or else?

-Maybe specify that AQ4 can be activated only if monomers form a tetramer.

-The second paragraph of the introduction can be improved or worded better.

-I wouldn't use quotations, I would put it in my own words

-Explain what orthogonal arrays of particle are under structure

Bea2017, April 19, 2017 4:20pm

I just added some material to the first four sections of the article. I also added a figure. I am a college student in Biophysics, and am doing this for an assignment. Please let me know, or change it, if something is incorrect or should be tweaked. Biophysstudent (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Verdagj, DKS7623, Yoyotime.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 19 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Biophysstudent. Peer reviewers: Bigcmemmott1, SaxofThunder.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)