Talk:Circulating microvesicle

This article was part of an assignment from Saint Louis University in Spring 2013 (see the course page for more details).

Microvesicle vs. microparticle vs. nanoparticle/vesicle

What is the justification for using "microvesicle" instead of "microparticle" or "membranous microparticle"? The literature is not unanimous on classifying exosomes as microvesicles, and the term "nanovesicles" is also in use. My understanding is that microparticles are membranous vesicles that include both exosomes and microvesicles. SpectraValor (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments from MChapman5

• One thing that jumps out at me right away is that you seem to lack citations because of the way you created them. Instead of listing them all at the end of the paragraph, I would try and make more citations at the end of each sentence.

• I disagree. In those paragraphs the citation used covers the entire paragraph. I feel like citing every sentence with the same citation is redundant.

• There are hardly any wiki-links within your article. By adding links to other wiki pages, you will allow this page to be found more often and will be able to integrate your material with other pages.

• Added several links

• If possible, I would add a couple of figures, like in the section of Mechanisms of cMV signaling. Perhaps you can create your own image or find suitable open access images from some journal articles.

• That's a great idea, I would like to get permission from cell to use one of their figures. But if that doesn't work i can make my own.

• It looks like you created a leading paragraph under Circulating microvesicle formation and contents. I would expand upon the knowledge here of what this entire section contains. That way, the reader will not have to scroll through all the detailed information if he is only looking for a quick, general explanation.

• I added a little information, but I'm not sure it's any better.

• Under Process of formation, do you think it would be a good idea to create a box or a list to compare microvesicles and endosomes instead of having all of it written out in paragraph style? Maybe you can break down this section into several more subheadings (ex: budding, endocytosis, migration, etc.)?

• This may be a better way to break down the differences, but I'll have to think about how I will implement this.

• I went through the article and deleted some words that I felt were unnecessary. You can look at the page history to see the specifics of what I did.

• Thanks

• I edited your sentence spacing throughout the document. There was an inconsistency of one space or two spaces after each sentence, so I made all the sentences just one space.

• Thanks

• I edited spelling and grammar. You can look at the page history to see the specifics of what I did.

• Thanks

• I double-checked several of your sources throughout the article. From what I can tell, it looks like you re-phrased the material nicely into your own words and integrated the information into an informative, understandable way.

• Thanks

• After reading the article, I feel like I am left wanting more information on the Clinical applications of microvesicles. You do a nice job explaining the aspects of cancer in clinical applications, but what about other disease states? Does it expand beyond cancer? Maybe you can add another section or two with different summaries or future research in disease models if these clinical aspects exist.

• Added other diseases associated with micro vesicles.

• The section on Molecular contents of cMVs seems a bit lengthy. You may want to consider splitting this up into several parts, like you did with your section on Mechanisms of cMV signaling. From what I can tell, the contents could spend sections such as: lipid content, protein content, nuclear content, etc.

• You are probably right. I didn't write the original paragraph so I just contributed to it, but it may be better to organize it in a fashion that I did in my presentation

• You do a great job keeping the information short, concise, and avoiding unnecessary prose. Nice work.

• Thanks

I will periodically check back on your article to see if I find any new corrections or have any more critiques. Great job so far! MChapman5 (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your comments Maximus155 (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• The exosome article does not have a link to this page, but one definitely should be added.

• Added link to Exosome article

• It would be helpful to respond to the merger discussion explaining why you think the articles should be kept separate. Then maybe the box can be removed. It has been unchanged with minimal discussion for quite a long time.Biolprof (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review: BreCaitlin

• Whats up with references 28-37?

• Gpruett fixed these referenced

• In the very first intro paragraph, I forget whats its called but the one thats not included in the table of contents, maybe say which disease cMVs have been implicated in.

• I added a blurb about disease, that its involved in cancer among others.

• Is there any specific scaffolding machinery involved in formation of MVs? or specific signals?

• The scaffolding machinery is not very well understood, more research needs to be done before something can be written about it here.

• How are circulating MV used for drug delivery? Do you have to use that persons own MVs or can you make them from scratch and guarantee which tissues they target?

• Current research is looking into creating these microvesicles synthetically as well as through engineered cell lines and the patients own cells.

• Could the second to last paragraph in the section titled molecular content of cMVs move to the section about diseases? I get why its there because it about protein content, but just wondering.

• You're right, it's redundant and was deleted.

• Good organization and flow to the article

• Thank you

• How specific are the RNA transcripts in the vesicles?

• I added some information about RNA specificity in vesicles.

• Really well written and easy to understand whats going on, looks like a good article

• Thanks! Maximus155 (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

BreCaitlin (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Gpruett2

• Overall, the article is very easy to read, concise, and well structured.

• Thank you

• I fixed a lot problems with your citations. Those fixes include format fixes and consolidating citations.

• I appreciate the help.

• I feel like the paragraph before the table of contents is too brief. Perhaps you could treat this as an abstract to give a basic idea of the contents in the article?

• I added additional information about cMV contents, disease, and clinical uses.

• This article is really well written, so good job.

• Thanks! Maximus155 (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Best of luck editing your article. Gpruett2 (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Flemingrjf

• Honestly hardly anything bad to say about this page. I really, really liked the casual and almost conversational tone of the article. I enjoyed how it was scientific while at the same time being able to appeal to any casual person looking surfing Wikipedia. The subject matter was interesting and not bogged down by superfluous detail. The sources were very well utilized. The “leaving muscle cells alone” struck me as perhaps being overly simplistic, but that was honestly the only critique I could even think of mustering up regarding the writing style. I’d personally leave it the way it was. I thought this article was great. It might not be too enclyclopedic, but I’d leave it alone.

  Thanks, I changed "leaving muscle cells alone" to something less anthropomorphic.

• In the first paragraph, it references that microvesicles can be broken into shed and exosomes. The source for this information, however, does not include shed microvesicles in it.

  In that source, they refer to shed microvesicles as simply microvesicles. The meaning is the same.

• Paragraph three under molecular content of cMVs had four citations in a row. I remember hearing that two citations in a row at most was optimal, but this is more than likely also fine.

  That's true, but there is also a lot of information in that sentence. Talking about 4 different tetraspanin proteins.

• Citation [7] in paragraph four needs fixing.

  Not sure what that is, I deleted it since the following sentences citations cover that.

• Perhaps adding some visuals would be nice.

  Yeah I agree, it has been hard finding good pictures in the public domain.

Flemingrjf (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the suggestions. Maximus155 (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jnims

Great job with your project! Let's start with the things I particularly enjoyed/appreciated:

Good stuff

• Lots of informative content
• Good organization
• Clear prose
• Surprisingly easy to read (in a good way!)
• I have very few suggestions to make, because the article is excellent, overall.

...But here are some suggestions for improvement:

Suggested improvments

Circulating microvesicle formation and contents

• The image is extremely helpful, but the caption could use some cleanup, especially the placement of the numbers.

• I edited the caption in a way that I think you were asking for

Role on target cells and Relevance in disease

• Both of these sections contain good information, but the small subsections could use more, especially those that contain only one or two sentences. Alternately, you could eliminate the subsections and lump everything together in a few larger paragraphs.

• I lumped the vascular disease subsections into one large section as you suggested. Although some of the sections in Role on target cells are short, I would argue that they are concise and convey the information necessary. I also think that is important that they are distinct because they are distinct mechanisms of action.

Best of luck! Jnims (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you! Maximus155 (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Circulating microvesicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710211816/http://www.exosome.com/uploads/ASCO_2010_PCa_Poster.pdf to http://www.exosome.com/uploads/ASCO_2010_PCa_Poster.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)