Talk:KCNB1/Archive 1

Archive 1

student goals

We edited this document to include information about the channel including structure, function, regulation, blockers and physiological role in disease. We have left the infobox and some information contained in the function section. This is an educational assignment for a class and is undergoing continued edits and reviews. --AMonocle (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

sourcing

Moved this here

Blockers

Potassium delayed rectifiers have been implicated in many pharmacological uses in the investigation of biological toxins for drug development. A main component to many of the toxins with negative effects on delayed rectifiers contain cystine inhibitors that are arranged around disulfide bond formations. Many of these toxins originate from species of tarantulas. G. spatulata produces the hanatoxin and it was the first drug to be manipulated to interact with KCNB1 receptors by inhibiting the activation on most potassium voltage-gated channels. Other toxins, such as stromatoxin, heteroscordratoxin, and guangxitoxin, target the selectivity of voltage KCNB1 rectifiers, by either lowering potassium binding affinity or increasing the binding rate of potassium. This can lead to excitotoxicity, or overstimulation of postsynaptic neurons. In nature, tarantula prey injected with these endogenous toxins induces this excitotoxic effect, producing paralysis for easy capture. Physiologically, these venoms work on KCNB1 rectifier affinity by altering the channels’ voltage sensor, making it more or less sensitive to extracellular potassium concentrations.

KCNB1 is also susceptible to tetraethylammonium (TEA) and 4-aminopyridine (4-AP), which completely block all channel activity. TEA also works on calcium-activated potassium channels, furthering its inhibitory effects on neurons and skeletal muscle. Some isoforms of TEA are beneficial for patients with severe Alzheimer’s, as blocking KCNB1 channels reduces the amount of neuronal apoptosis, thereby slowing the rate of dementia. This has been attributed to the oxidative properties of the channel by ROS.

Moved this here from the Physiological Role in Disease section

Cancer

Exploitation of this channel is advantageous in cancer cell survival as they have the ability to produce heme oxygenase-1, an enzyme with the ability to generate carbon monoxide (CO). Oncogenic cells benefit from producing CO due to the antagonizing effects of the KCNB1 channel. Inhibition of KCNB1 allows cancer proliferation without the apoptotic pathway preventing tumor formation.

Hepatitis C Virus

Virus cells contain preventative measures to avoid the apoptotic effect of KCNB1 channel to ensure their survival and continued infection and spread. These viral cells encode for HCV NS5A protein that interferes with kinase phosphorylation. Kinase phosphorylation is a key step to induce a surge of delayed-recifying potassium current before apoptosis. Inhibition of KCNB1 phosphorylation prevents termination of the virus through the apoptotic pathway.

Channelopathies

Mutations in KCNB1 is a fairly new area of study. Mutations to the voltage sensing region as well mutations in the pore domain have been connected to a rare form of epileptic encephalopathy. Mutations in the voltage sensing regions complicated the ability of the channels to sense changes in voltage. Changes to the sequence in the pore domain lead to loss of any potassium current through the KCNB1 channel. Either type of mutation no longer produced deep interspike voltages.

References

The first ref is a predatory publisher that was on Beall's list; the second is interpro which is OK but what is sourced is fragmentary so just moved with the rest. The third is a primary source and is not OK for WP:Biomedical information per WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand you would not know that source number one was a predatory journal. Also, while the business practices may be suspect, it does not mean that the science reported is suspect. The corresponding author on this article is a faculty member at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey. He has written two other recent reviews on the topic. Look through these reviews and you may find very similar information; one is in Aging and Disease and the other is in Brain Research. Here are the citations:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27114846 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26947620. If you can find the same information in Sesti's other reviews, you can revert the changes related to this source and then replace the source. The third reference is a primary source so I would try to find the info in a secondary source. A quick way to find a secondary source that may have the same information is to use pubmed to see who cited the primary source. If you have issues, work with the librarians. MMBiology (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

student Reviews

Overall I think your article is good, but I feel it would be helpful to add a few more hyperlinks such as potassium voltage gated channel and apoptosis. Feeny95 (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feeny95 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 @Feeny95: Thanks for your thoughts! We will be adding extra hyperlinks for the more scientific concepts. CarElizLup (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review

I think that overall this article is well written and organized, allowing readers to understand the topic. I like that the explanation is detailed, but not to the point where the reader would not be able to understand what is being explained. It would be good and helpful to add more external or Wiki links throughout the article to be able to find out more information about specific things mentioned in the article. I think it is great that many links are provided allowing anyone interested to be able to research more into the topic. Otherwise, I think it is a great article!

Danimcclo (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 @Danimcclo: Thanks for the contribution- your thoughts are appreciated! CarElizLup (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

student secondary Review

Summary: However, its main function as a delayed rectifier, is to propagate... (changed commas); It is commonly expressed in the central nervous system but may also ... (get rid of comma). Use superscript when indicating charge of potassium.

Structure: might want to add some wiki or external links to this section. Again, use superscript for charge on potassium.

Function: third sentence - target not larget.

Otherwise great article, very interesting to read and learn about! Pfletch (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)pfletch

 @Pfletch: Thank you for pointing out some of our grammatical errors- we will be fixing those. We will also be adding more hyperlinks, and definitely changing larget back to target, haha. CarElizLup (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

student Primary Review

1) There is definitely a thoughtful and well written proposition made by the authors of this article. Spelling and grammar is mostly correct however consider proofreading some sentences for grammar. For instance in the function section the sentence "Human studies on pulmonary arteries have shown that normal, physiological inhibition of KCNB1 current aids vasoconstriction of arteries" the comma in front of "normal" breaks the flow of the sentence too much so take it off to let the sentence flow. Also in the introduction paragraph the sentence "However, its main function, as a delayed rectifier, is to propagate current in its respective location" also has too many breaks and so change the structure of this sentence because it disrupts the flow.

2) All of the information that is being presented here is coming from a list of sources that were found and cited correctly to avoid plagiarism as well as displaying no original input or research done to this article since each sentence has a correspondence to the sources that were being looked up.

3) On the talk page there is a demonstration of specificity where you as authors mention what it is you are doing with this article and with organized structure of plan. Great job on staying on topic with this article because it shows how KCNB1 applies to what your focus discusses on the main talk page before we as reviewers review this article.

4) Article is neutral. No biases

5) Stable

6) Yes there is illustration on your article with one picture but at the same time I feel like there should be more pictures on your article relating to possibly the regulation of the blockers section and another reason being make your article look more exciting and inviting for the audience to look at. Also with the only picture there being in mind explain what it is representing and show why it is significant.

Additionally:

-Source I looked at was "Identification of the Kv2.1 K+ channel as a major component of the delayed rectifier K+ current in rat hippocampal neurons"

-Source is correctly cited

-Source matched up to what the authors said it did

-It is coming from a reliable source

-The information that is displayed is represented well within the article as a whole

-Suggestion- try to apply to more sections as it is a strong source of evidence

Crnogorac15 (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Crnogorac15 (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Crnogorac15 (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Crnogorac15

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crnogorac15 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC) 

 @Crnogorac15: Thank you for your positive contribution! We will definitely be adding more pictures, hopefully one on structure and maybe one for blockers. We have also read through and fixed any grammatical errors we could find.  CarElizLup (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I think this article is well explained and easy to understand. One suggestion I would have is to include one or more images, such as of a voltage-gated potassium channel, if there are any available. One other minor grammatical detail that I might change is in the beginning of the first paragraph in the sentence that currently says "This channel has a diversity of functions". I would maybe reword this sentence by either using the word "variety" or saying "a diverse number of functions". Stromdabomb (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 @Stromdabomb: Thank you for your comments and suggestions! We have added two images of the Kv2.1 channel under the structure section. We also agree with your comments about the sentence in question. We too find that rewording of the sentence would help strengthen it. This should help make the paragraph flow and make it easier to read. Please refer back to our page to view the changes we've made! Gloryrunner13 (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

student Primary Review

General Thoughts

First and foremost, this article is well organized and well written. However, there are some components that I would like to see added into this page. There are a few grammatical errors here and there. I would consider reading through your article for minor tweaks, especially with some of the phrases as others have noted. I would have liked to see more about the role that KCNB1 plays in other diseases, but I understand that there were some issues with the credibility of the sources you selected. Removing the category of physiological role in disease or incorporating that section into another part of the page may be beneficial. The guidance and reasoning outlined on the talk page gives a clear description for the article itself. As for the 6 pillars of a good Wikipedia page, I would say that a few pictures of the 3-D crystallography of the channel itself would help tremendously as a visual aid. The issues with your sources are being fixed. This article was broad in coverage, neutral, stable, and well written. You excelled in hitting the key points of channel structure, function, and biomedical application.

Introduction—I would like to see more hyperlinks inserted into this introductory paragraph. Hair cells, delayed rectifier, and even voltage gated potassium channels should direct the reader to another Wikipedia page to clear up any confusion. Describing KNCB1 in the first half of the introductory and then generalizing potassium channels in the second half is a perfect way to display how the class of KCNB1 receptors fall under the large umbrella of potassium channels.

Structure—As noted above, a visual representation of the channel itself would help here. For the “average person”, a visual aid would help understand the location of terms such as C Termini, subunits, pore, etc… I would like to see some explanation as to how “activating” portions of the delayed rectifier channel works.

Kinetics—The chain of events in describing the opening of the channel was very easy to follow. This section was very well written.

Function—You note here that KCNB1 is responsible for “cardiac beat and rate synchrony”. This sentence is very vague and can be interpreted many different ways. It sounded to me as though you were attributing KCBN1 function to that of the SA node. Rephrasing to “KCNB1 on structure __ of the heart helps maintain cardiac beat and rate synchrony,” or something along those lines would clear up any confusion. Other than that, the rest of the section provides accurate and critical information on the role of KCNB1.

Phosphorylation—The leading sentence of this section is poorly worded and does not makes sense. I would also consider adding in footnotes throughout this paragraph. You seem to be pulling information from multiple sources, or just a high amount of content from one source. Either way, footnotes are required whenever referring to a specific article, not just at the end of a paragraph.

Oligomerization—You say that another mechanism for regulation of apoptosis is oligomerization, yet I did not see any information about apoptosis anywhere else in the article. The phosphorylation explained how KCNB1 is activated and deactivated through phosphate group addition/removal, but there was nothing about apoptosis.

Blockers—This section presents a lot of information, so please be wary of appropriate citations. The blockers explained and their function was perfectly explained.

Physiological Role in Disease—It seems that there were some issues with your source, so I will just leave this section alone. I would consider dragging the second paragraph of the blockers section and simply adding it to the neurodegenerative diseases section. You explain TEA and how that blocker is beneficial for Alzheimer’s patients, which I think would fit under the neurodegenerative disease section more appropriately. Cwall511 (talk)

  @Cwall511: Thank you for your comments and suggestions! We agree that a couple read throughs are necessary to fix the minor grammar errors that exist. We plan on doing this right away. We are also planning on fixing the sourcing and adding a few more sections under the physiological roles in diseases. This way, we should be able to keep this section in its entirety. We also agree the more hyperlinks and images should be added, specifically of the channel itself. Thus, under the structure section, we've added two structural images of our channel, one from a top view and another from a transmembrane view. We are also planning on adding more hyperlinks in the coming days. We agree that this will be helpful for the average reader. On a few more specific points, we agree with your suggestions about the phrase "cardiac beat and rate synchrony." We will clarify this during future editing of our page. We also plan on editing the leading sentence in the phosphorylation section as well. We are looking into your comments about oligomerization and we will make any necessary changes. We also plan on slightly changing our TEA explanation under the blocker section and will make reference to it under the neurodegenerative category. Again thank you for your careful review. This was extremely beneficial for us! Gloryrunner13 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review

Overall, I think you explain the main components of the channel very well and the whole articles flows nicely. I like that you include the section on neurodegenerative disease- I would be interested in learning more about its role in that! Like the other reviewers, I agree that an image of the channel and maybe how it differs with other potassium channels would better help in understanding its structure/function. Also, are there any prominent experiments that lead to the discovery of this channel and its important features? If there’s info on it, it may be beneficial to add. MWStudent (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 @MWStudent: Thanks for your thoughts on our article! We are trying to add more information about diseases since its such an interesting subtopic for our main focus. We added two new pictures that show the structure of Kv2.1 to better understand its functionality. We didn't find any experiments specifically dedicated to Kv2.1, but we might look into that! Thanks again! CarElizLup (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review

KCNB1: The entirety of the article flowed well with clear reasons for each of the sub categories you dove into. As a suggestion to give more meat to the Interactions section, it would be nice if there was even a paragraph of how KCNB1 interacted with KCNH1 and PTPRE instead of just links. I could be wrong, but the article, “Voltage-Gated Potassium Channels At the Crossroads of Neuronal Function, Ischemic Tolerance, and Neurodegeneration” may be a primary instead of a secondary article. As long as you are all aware! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.boyd.mu (talk • contribs) 20:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 @Patrick.boyd.mu: Thanks for your suggestions! We will definitely re-check our sources and look more into adding some detail about other channels as well. CarElizLup (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2017 (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): CarElizLup, AMonocle, Gloryrunner13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)