Talk:Two-pore channel/Archive 1

Archive 1

student notes

Braun4135, AF1980, 9230isaact - It was our intention to comprehensively cover two-pore channels with much of the known information. Images are yet to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braun4135 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review

I have a couple quick notes: there's a lot of repetition in the first few sections. I would say you could take out the "basic features" and add anything from that to the above paragraph if it hasn't already been covered there. Then maybe go through the other paragraphs to make sure the information isn't too repetitive there as well. I would also link to the Shaker Unit or explain briefly what that is as you mention it a lot and many people may not know what it is. Otherwise, this is a great article! You did a good job of going into detail with each section and covered a lot of different aspects of the channel for such a limited amount of time to do so. OArnold2017 (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)OArnold2017

One thing that I believe would help your article would be an explanation, or a little more description, of certain sentences. For example, the sentence "This is a conformation change from the activation state to the inactive state", while telling what occurs, does't explain the significance of it or give any context. That sentence also does not flow well from the prior sentence, "Voltage sensing domain 2, VSD2, is voltage sensitive active and can be inhibited by calcium in the lumen". You can rectify the this situation by stating that "calcium induces a conformational change from an activated state to an inactivated state in VSD2". It would benefit to fix other cases like this one in order to maintain clear wording. Overall, good job! --BioEd53 (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

student Primary Review

Lead paragraph: I would say you should cut the first sentence short (make it into two sentences) because when you read it, it feels like it’s too much at once. You mention two known paralogs, what are those known paralogs? You can put link to Shaker-like and quasi-tetramers. Also, you casually put in TPC2 in there. Are they all TPC2? Or maybe it just needs some kind of transition to that 4th to last sentence. Another suggestion I would make is to make this paragraph more flowly. It seems very choppy and so what can help is using transition words and rewording some sentences.

I agree with the secondary review above, you don’t need the basic features, it’s a bit repetitive.

Structure and domain: State what VSD is in tat 5th sentence. You so end up saying it later in the paragraph, but make it earlier in the paragraph when you first introduce VSD. What does EF-hand domain stand for? In the second paragraph, you write down VRD2 instead of VSD2. Also, you guys can link some of the structure words in there, like VSD, N-terminal, C-terminal, EF-hand domain.

Biological roles: So for the Ebola part, it’s a good thing that the TPCs are not functioning because the Ebolavirus is not able to escape and therefore be able to be degraded by the lysosome? (I guess make that part clearer). You mixed up TPC with TCP.

I looked into the 9th citation and it is cited correctly. I like how you summarize the article about fatty liver disease well and didn’t add unnecessary information to this paragraph. What I suggest adding is the last sentence of the article because it highlights the crucial role TPC2.

History: I would say to highlight Patch-clamp technique (even though it is highlighted later)

Verifiable: it contains no original research and all the sources are reliable

Coverage is broad

It is Neutral

Pictures: I know it says you guys would add the pictures later but a picture suggestion would be a picture of the TPC, patch clamp technique picture, and maybe a picture of how membrane trafficking works.

Additional comments: Check each section for grammar because I found a few in each. Overall, Good Job! You guys did great in getting good and reliable sources and summarizing those into this page :) --Achem10 (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review

This is a good article that is interesting, and written professionally, and I really liked the use of the tables in the beginning. I agree with the previous comments that the basic features is repetitive and not needed. I also think that adding pictures, and some more links within the text would give it the polished over all look, and keep your readers attention. Adding the links to other pages would also help keep the article on topic without explaining extra things. User: Brookeheim (talk: Brookeheim) 18:22, 18 April 2017

student Primary Review

1. Well written, however a lot of the wording from the intro was similar to the basic features so maybe change up the wording or get rid of the basic features. I like how you tied in diseases and offered solutions of how the disease occurs, but also a solution in how the disease can potentially be silenced. I would look at the vocabulary again and ensure any potential unknown words are linked to another wiki page to assist with the understanding. For instance, melanin could probably be linked up.

2. The first source used has some really good information and the material taken from the secondary source was used in a logical manner. However, some of the terms could have been simplified or further explained in the article. For example when describing the pore, it is a “shaker like”, I am not sure what is meant by that. That is why I would include a picture or explain what a “shaker like” object looks like.

3. The article demonstrated a broad overview of the pore indicating structure, function, associated diseases, and the history. I think the basic features section can be removed.

4. The article was not one sided and seemed to state all of the known facts regarding the channel.

5. n/a

6. I noticed in the talk page that pictures haven’t been added yet. However, that would really help with understanding the article and visually see the pore. Try this website rcsb.org where you can find your pore’s image.

Also make sure the formatting of your page is correct. I don't think there should be two titles listed.Jpeagles (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review

Excellent job on your article! It flows nicely overall, and I especially find the pathological roles of channel dysfunction interesting. A couple ways to further improve the article would be to add in a picture of the structure of the channel. This would help readers better visualize the channel as they read that section. Additionally, I noticed one small spelling error under the fatty liver section in the last sentence with the words "fatKty liver". This can be easily fixed. Great work overall! Parker443 (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary Review

Overall, the article did a very good job at supplying plenty of information about the Two-Pore Channel but there were however some things that I noticed when reading that really stuck out to me. First, the section about the history of the Two-Pore Channel should probably be earlier on in the article because putting it later in the article seems to disrupt the flow of the article. It may fit better towards the beginning of the article. Secondly, I feel as though before reading your article, the reader must have some background knowledge in domains and sup-units. This is because there are some things within the article that may need a small explanation, for example in the opening paragraph there is no indication of what a Shaker-like sub-unit is. Without any background knowledge, there will be a lot of tab openings just so an everyday reader can get the main ideas you are trying to get across. Jjazzpur (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

student secondary review

I would move history to the top of your page so that it's the first section following your lead paragraph. In the structure and domain section, I found myself getting pretty confused on everything you were trying to convey, forcing me to backtrack through the article to see if I missed other information. In this section, I would explicitly say what a VSD is rather than expecting us to know. Also, what is an EF-hand domain? I would assume that these features are integral to the functioning of a Two-pore channel, though I know nothing about them. I would try to flesh out these features a little bit more to convey their importance. Rschocke (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

student Primary Review

1. Overall it seems well written, but there are a few instances where things can become unclear due to wording and long sentences, and assuming the reader understands more than average (ex. Autophagy, patch-clamp technique, fluorescent microscopy, etc.). I think providing more links than not is better. I think the flow of the article is good, but can be improved by breaking up large sentences into multiple ones. Along with other reviews, I think the Basic features section is a repeat of what is in the intro. I think it should stay if the content is cut from the intro. The last sentence of the intro does a good job of introducing what will be talked about later in the article. Also good job with topic sentences. In the Parkinson’s disease section I think the 2nd to last sentence should end more along the lines of “…the way it should, which is associated with the onset of the disease“ since we don’t actually know if this dysfunctional lysozyme is what causes it. Rather it is suggested that it may be caused by dysfunctional lysozyme.

2. It doesn’t look like there are any hints of using primary research except for in the last paragraph of the Biological roles (function/dysfunction): “With the knockdown of these channels, we….” Although the article cited is secondary, using “we” makes the author (which is unknown to the reader) seem like they conducted the research. I evaluated reference citation [5]. The content cited is verified by the original article. I don’t think the article was used to its potential, this source looks like it can be cited multiple times as it covers a lot of the same material in your article, and it covers it by the sections you’ve organized your own article in as well. It looks like you guys just took one part of a sentence from it, which is fine, but I think if you want, you could look at the sections of this source that correspond to the sections in your article and use it more that way.

3. The article is broad in coverage,

4. Neutral. There is no bias.

5. Stable - you do not need to evaluate this criterion.

6. Illustrated – I think the most important image that should be provided is the structure of the protein that goes along with your thorough explanation of it in words. It was very detailed in the description, but an image would top it all off and make it easier for the reader to follow along visually.

Overall, good job. I think this article was very informative. pootsonewts (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review

As others have said History section should be moved earlier and "basic features" info should be incorporated into other sections. Some places where sentence structure could be improved. Make sure that information is described in such a way that it can be understood by someone with cursory knowledge of these topics. Hyperlinking or providing brief descriptions of uncommon topics would be a good step. Kyle.mckibben (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary Student Review

Overall, this was a very well written article on the Two Pore Channel. I think that you guys gave a lot of good information about this type of channel and what it is involved in. I liked how you guys separated out the categories like function and history and structure, but I think they need a little rearranging. Maybe putting history first would make the article flow better since that is the start of the "story" of the channel. Also, I would expand upon history to include a bit more detail on who discovered/ how it was discovered. Overall, you guys give a lot of good and educational content though. A second think I might add is a picture of the channel. I'm sure you could find one on a reputable website or journal. If you can find a generic version of a two pore channel, maybe include an example or multiple. On the line of pictures you could also include ones on patch clamp recording or of the diseases covered in your article. Another suggestion would be to add a few more links especially in the basic features and structure sections. A few examples you could maybe find a link for includes: voltage sensing domains, rapamycin, R1, R2, and R3 etc. Those are just a few I found that could be possible candidates. This article stays neutral and broad in coverage, meaning you guys hit your goal and came out with a rather solid Wiki article. In accordance to sources you seemed to use them well throughout your article. I looked deeper into citation #3, and it was a secondary source, properly cited, and used throughout the article especially in the introduction, however I think some of this information could be used in the function/dysfunction portion. Again, great job and with a few tweaks I think this article could be even better!Paige MU (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to Jpeagles Primary Review

Thank you for your feedback. We are working on getting an image up on our page. There are no copy righted images nor images on Wikimedia; so, we are seeing if Wikipedia will allow a drawing of one. We also fixed the formatting of our article. More links to words will be added for clarity, and descriptions of what you said could be simplified will be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braun4135 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to Student Primary Review by Achem10

Thank you for your feedback on our article. You have given a lot of good insight. I went ahead and restructured many of the sentences in the lead paragraph to make it more concise and understandable. This should help identify the two known paralogs as well. I could not find a link to Shaker-like and quasi-tetramers specifically. I will add those if I find something. I took the suggestion about the basic features section and incorporated any vital information to the lead paragraph. I also restructured the structure and domain section to make it more clear what the VSD1 and VSD2 represent. I added a link to the EF-hand domain, as well as N-terminal and C-terminal. Thanks again, for your valuable feedback.

AF1980 (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I added links to Shaker-like and quasi-tetramers and a description to help explain what they are more clearly.

AF1980 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to pootsonewts Primary Review

Thanks for your feedback! We’ve looked through and worked on adding links to more words that might not be common to the average reader. The introduction was edited to not be repetitive and a lot of details about structure were removed and placed in the sections where they would belong better. Basic grammar and sentences were edited for clarity. The primary citation with the “we” was edited as well – thanks for pointing that out! And an image has finally been added to be able to understand the structure of a TPC2 channel better – we could not find a useable one so we created it. Thanks again for being so detail-oriented!9230isaact (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review by Paige MU

Thank you for your feedback. We have made a number of changes accordingly, such as rearranging some of the sections as well as moving the history section up to the beginning of the article. I did have some difficulty finding who actually founded two-pore channels, nonetheless, I modified the grammer and structure sentencing throughout the history section. I was also able to find an appropriate figure of patch clamp recording to add into the history section as you requested. Additionally, although a bit complicated, we were able to figure out and apply an appropriate image of a two-pore channel into the article as this seems very supplemental to the reader. Lastly, we took your advice and added additional links for some of the terms in our intro and structure sections. Again, thanks for the considerate feedback in helping us improve our article!→Batmed 095 (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Do two pore channels actually have two pores?

Can someone clarify this for me? It's not clear from the article. If anyone could provide a reference for it, I'd appreciate it. Jamgoodman (talk) 21:40, 28 May 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): Batmed 095, Braun4135, 9230isaact, AF1980.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)