Talk:Paraptosis

Outline

Preliminary outline for the article:
Lead: Paraptosis is a form of programmed cell death, distinct from apoptosis and necrosis.

Lead should have a general description of paraptosis.

History/discovery of paraptosis: first recorded use of the word 'paraptosis', by who/what were they doing.

Might not be essential, but could be interesting background.

Specific description of paraptosis pathway: more in-depth than the lead, contrast with apoptosis and other forms of cell death. Regulation of paraptosis.
Examples of paraptosis: some of the examples of paraptosis pathways.
Potential applications: cancer drugs/research, neurodegenerative disease/neural development. Basically, why is knowing about paraptosis important?
Myself and Jhayes21 will be creating this article, hoping to provide a sufficient explanation of paraptosis. This is just a rough outline to go off of. Any feedback or additional points are welcome and appreciated. Lisawisa (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Review by Neelix

It looks like you've made a good start to this article! Here are some recommendations for further improvement:

1. If you link to the article from several other relevant articles, then you can remove the orphan tag.
2. Sections should contain more than one sentence each.
3. Categories are very important for articles; add as many as are relevant.
4. No sections should be empty; they should be populated or removed.
5. Cytoplasmic cell death redirects to Autophagy, but this article suggests that "cytoplasmic cell death" and "paraptosis" are synonyms. If they are synonyms, Cytoplasmic cell death should redirect here and should appear in bold as an alternative title after the main title in the lead.
6. Very short sections, such as the "Cancers" subsections, are probably better to merge into the main section until such point as enough information is present to justify a full section; article sections normally consist of multiple paragraphs, each containing multiple sentences.
7. It would be worth adding WikiProject notices to this talk page so that people in the relevant WikiProjects know about this article.

You're making good headway with this article. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you'd like to ask any questions. Neelix (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the insightful suggestions. #2 and #4 I have worked on and will continued to, while my classmate has tackled #6. I completely agree with your suggestions #1, #5 and #7 and will look into how to do this. Jhayes21 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I didn't even think about linking from other articles, it'd be a waste if no one could actually find the article! I'll make sure to add links from programmed cell death and apoptosis at the very least. The empty sections are relics from our outline, they'll be removed or populated as we continue to write. I agree about combining really short sections, I've already combined the cancer sections. About #5, from the articles I've read there seems to be a bit ambiguity about whether these are synonymous or not, I'll have to look into it more to decide what to do. Lisawisa (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Lxu27

The article has a very good start and please see some of my comments regarding the development of this article.

1. I think overall content the article is cohesive and consistent with the headings. And the structure is well established for additional inputs later on.
2. Cited sources are mainly primary research papers, you guys have good reference list for initial input.
3. Lead section should be a concise overview, so I think it is best to write in a simple term and provide a general outline in this part. You can summarize some important points, and include some things that are not covered in the main article.
4. As a article that explains complicated idea, it may be helpful to explain concepts in a simpler term. For example, paratosis is different from apoptosis, in terms of its cell morphology and biochemical pathways as well as its kenetics.
5. In my opinion, a "overall difference" title can be the title for the big section and then include morphological differences and cellular differences. I think morphology should be first to give a overall structural introduction and then going into pathway section next. The molecular and biochemical mechanism can make more sense for readers to relate to the morphological changes.Luyao Kevin Xu (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully my classmates changes to the lead were what you were thinking in your suggestion #3, if not, please let us know :) I think your #4 suggest was a great one, honestly one I hadn't thought of, but it does make sense. I will certainly keep it in mind for the final article. Jhayes21 (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead, hopefully it's now more of a concise overview. I tried to hit the main points without going into too much detail, leaving that for the body of the article. Switching the order of the morphology and pathway sections is a good idea, I'll definitely consider that. Lisawisa (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The lead section is pretty good, but I would suggest you guys to talk more about the characteristics of Paraptosis before going into the differences. This is the way your first sentence was structured and your subsequent explanation should also follow that order. Very good improvement overall since last review. Keep up the good work guys!Luyao Kevin Xu (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Crandel5425

Great start! Looks like you guys have a solid base. I have some notes to point out, do as you see fit.

• A more descriptive lead instead of one sentence, try to expand on it as much as you can.
• The format could be similar to other diseases like necrosis. Like "Classification", "Causes", and "Pathogenesis" could have their own heading (level 2) and ordered similarly to flow smoother.

Since its early, I know that there hasn't been much time to expand past one or two sentences, however those do need to be expanded on. Links you provided can help thicken each section to have more depth.

• Wiki Linking or describing large or unusual words/terminology like "ischemic damage" will help understand the article better/faster.
• Moving some of the history section into the lead will help describe the article
• lots of expanding of ideas - which I'm guessing is a starting point for you till you read more of your citations to help explain the subheadings.

Good start, best of luck! Crandel5425 (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I expanded the lead, hopefully it now gives a more of an overview without going into too much detail. I didn't put anything from the history section in the lead though; I think the history section has background information that's interesting, but not essential enough to be in the lead. I'm pretty open to changing the layout, I've already been looking at apoptosis to get ideas for the final structure. Once we have the sections more fleshed out, I'll definitely think about changing the structure and moving the info around to get the best flow possible. Lisawisa (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Rmiller587

Great article! I had never heard this term before. Here are some things I can think of that might help.

• Intro - I'm fairly sure you do not need to cite anything in the intro paragraph. It's meant to be a summary of main points and easy to understand. There's a typo in this paragraph; independence should be independent.
• I can't find anything in the article that mentions why this process would be beneficial to a cell or organism. Am I just missing it?
• The IGF-1R wikilink is broken. I think it's because the 1 is an I.
• I'm having trouble understanding the Pathways section of the article. How does paraptosis use IGF at the receptor level? Is this supposed to mean that IGF signaling can trigger paraptosis through downstream MAPK and JNK signaling? Are MAPK and JNK the kinases that need to be inhibited to prevent cell death? I think could probably benefit from a cell signaling picture to show the pathways you're referring to. I also don't understand the AIP1/Alix part. If this molecule contributes to vacuole formation and paraptosis is characterized by vacuoles, how is it an inhibitor of paraptosis?
• What apoptosis inhibitors don't stop paraptosis? What are some reasons for these signaling pathways to be kept separate?
• I think it might be helpful if you could find a picture that describes the morphology better. The picture at the top is cool but probably not useful for someone who isn't familiar with looking at cells under high magnification. Maybe something more cartoon like? This is probably hard to find but maybe it's out there somewhere.
• Is the metabolic proteins section supposed to be there still?
• Good job with the medical significance paragraph. There's a lot of useful info in there.

Again, great job! You've definitely improved the article a ton! Rmiller587 (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Just fixed the minor independent edit - thanks, can never have too much help in editing. In the research I have seen thus far there are lots of "proposed" reasons for the importance of this signaling pathway but nothing certain. It clearly is involved in a lot, and has a lot of potential applications. I agree with that the article should have a more summarizing "big picture" to provide clarity for the reader. A such, I will hopefully be able to summarize the pathway section better as we wrap up reading, understanding, and trying to connect the research. At least in my experience, thus far, this seems to be such an " all over topic" that we don't understand why this is connected to this or why the cell does this instead of that, but even so, I will try and summarize this better for the reader so they are able to understand, why researchers don't quite have the bigger picture just yet. Jhayes21 (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good! I look forward to reading your changes :) Rmiller587 (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Great job with the updates! I especially like the table that summarizes cellular changes and allows the reader to quickly compare them with other forms of cell death. I can't think of anything to add. If this were my article, I would be very pleased with it.Rmiller587 (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Love the new picture. It's always nice to have a picture that helps explain cell fate. I think you've done a great job responding to comments and correcting the article with additions/removal of content. It's definitely a great article! Rmiller587 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Review by Catwell99

• Really nice job! Although still being developed, this article is well-written and easy to understand. I also really like the picture at the top showing paraptosis.
• As I understand it, you don't need to cite sources in the lead section. This is a summary of what you will cover in the rest of the article.
• Perhaps you could combine the medical significance and potential applications sections? Unless there are other applications beyond medical.
• I know that you are still working on the "Differences from other pathways section; however, perhaps you could include Type 3 cell death here as well? It shows up in the next section after you've described Type 1 and Type 2 cell death. Perhaps this could be made into a table comparing the various types of cell death?
• I'm curious to hear more about paraptosis and neurodegenerative cell death. Perhaps you'll tell us more about this as you further develop the article?
• Wikilinking and references were good. You used open sources which is always helpful when reviewing. Can you create a link to the online dictionary reference?
• Overall, I think it is well-organized and well-written. It just needs a bit more content in some of the sections such as "Differences from other pathways", but I know that we have a few more contribution sessions ahead of us.

--Catwell99 (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I've seen conflicting info on whether to cite things in the lead, so I put them in there to be safe. I'll take them out for now. I believe paraptosis is a form of type 3 cell death, so maybe that's not very clear the way we have it right now. I agree, a table is a good idea to show the differences. I agree about needing more about the neurodegenerative relation, the problem is a lot of the papers mention this, but then don't explain any more, and the articles they cite don't seem to have much to do with that topic, it's pretty frustrating. I've been trying to find better sources, but if I can't find anything else supporting it I may end up taking it out. I know the dictionary reference used to have a link, it seems to have disappeared somehow. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll put it back in. Lisawisa (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Review by Keilana

Hi guys, great job so far. Here are some comments and suggestions for you as you finish out the semester, let me know if you have any questions!

• Nice job paraphrasing from your sources; I didn't find any plagiarism or close paraphrasing.
• The pathway sections and proteome sections definitely need some more filling in. In general, if you don't have much to write for a section, you can often combine them into a more decently-sized paragraph.
• Some of your citations are older. That's mostly okay, except for in the section about medicine. We have a guideline called WP:MEDRS (medical reliable sources) that says that you should have articles from the past 5 years, and they should be review articles. The medcine section is good on the date thing (just don't add any older articles and you'll be food) but you should try to include review articles instead. Check out the articles that cite the ones you used and see if there's any review articles in there.
• You may want to include more links to help the reader understand specific proteins and such.

All the best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Your comments were super helpful. We will continue to fill in sections, and certainly combine sections if necessary as the semester closes. Thanks for the information on medical reliable sources, I did not know/think about it but will go through and check for reviews and current articles. Thanks again. Jhayes21 (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Review from Tmo32

Content Coverage

• Nice job on the content. Overall, the article goes into necessary detail without over doing it with extraneous info.
• The intro states that "gene expression is required". I'm not sure what is meant by that. Perhaps rewording to make it clearer would be helpful. Is gene expression required for the cell to start programmed cell death? Are you trying to say that paraptosis is controlled by gene expression?
• I agree with Rmiller587's previous review that the pathway section is a difficult read - it's hard to follow. Additional wikilinking may help (see below).
• In the last sentence of the Morphology section, you mention that morphology changes are similar to nervous system development, but you don't say how. Consider elaborating here, or at least including a wikilink to nervous system development for context.

Wikilinking

• You've got some solid wikilinks now, but the article would benefit from a few more links. Since it's nearing the end of the semester and we don't have a ton of time, I included a list, by section, so you can add them more quickly. There may be others I missed, but adding these links would be a good start. When considering others, you should link to proteins or processes mentioned in the article, especially if understanding what they are is essential to understanding the article's content. Crandel5425's review also had some good tips on where you should include wikilinks.

• Pathway section

• De novo
• actinomycin D
• Cycloheximide
• IGF-IR link needs to be fixed or removed here (you have it linked correctly already in the history section)

• Differences from other cell death pathways section

• BAX
• p53
• BAF
• XIAP
• Bcl-xL
• HMGB1
• Autophagy

• Morphology section

• As mentioned in the content coverage section above, consider linking nervous system development to help provide context. I suggest linking to Nervous system or Neural development, whichever you think is more appropriate.

• Major structural rearrangement section

• osmotic lysis
• Heat shock protein

• Proteome Profile section

• α-Tubulin
• β-Tubulin
• Tropomyosin
• You provide a link to prohibitin in the last sentence of the last paragraph, but prohibitin is first mentioned in the proceeding paragraph. Move the link to the 1st use of the word.

• Cancer section

• Ginseng
• Protopanaxodiol
• NF-κB

Referencing

• Overall, good job of referencing. You have a good number of references cited and you cite them appropriately throughout.
• I'm not sure if mentioning the authors in the text is necessary, e.g. "...Sperandio et al. (2000), additionally found that caspase inhibitors (zVAD.fmk, p53, BAF)..." especially if you are citing it; it seems redundant. Consider removing and rewording the sentence to something like "Additional research revealed that caspase inhibitors..."

Writing categories

• Under the "Differences from other cell death pathways" section, 2nd sentence, change "proapopt" to "proapoptotic"
• In the "Proteome Profile" section, the description of α - tubulin is hard to read and the tenses do not match. I suggest changing to the following to correct the tense and make the sentence more balanced, "...is more concentrated in endosomes and Golgi (the light membrane) and is less abundant..."
• In the "Cancer" section, match the tense of the quoted part in the opening sentence of the 4th paragraph ("Steamed American ginseng extract has been reported to "potently killed colorectal cancer cells""); i.e., change kill to killed or match the tense of the sentence you wrote.

Illustrations

• The illustration you have is great. As Rmiller587 mentioned in his review, it would be helpful to add any illustrations you can find on the pathways and morphology if you have time.

Again, overall, great job adding content for this topic. I hope you can find the time to add the wikilinks as I think it will help readers better understand some of the more complex concepts you describe. Good luck on the final product! Tmo32 (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help with linking! I think I have incorporated all of them. your other editing suggestions have also been insightful and very helpful as well. I agree with the illustrations, I have been working with inkjet etc. unfortunately, there are very few images we are able to use or that can be found under the term "paraptosis". Thanks again! Jhayes21 (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Just added an image to the morphology section, thanks for the suggestions again! Jhayes21 (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Klortho

Hi, You guys have done a really good job; it's a very nice article. Here are a couple of suggestions, most are pretty minor. I think you could continue to polish the writing and organization a bit during the last week of the semester, but it is looking pretty good.

• endophilins is a red link.
• The "Pathway" section is written at too high of a technical level. It reads like a scientific journal article. The lead is just right in this regard -- very comprehensible. You could give the rest of the article a once-over, to make sure that you rewrite other sections, as needed, to get them down to the same level.
• Rather than write, "Sperandio et al. (2000), additionally found ...", you should just state the finding (unless it is controversial) and then source it with a footnote (a <ref> tag).
• In the "Morphology" section, (suggestion) rather than, "Somewhere on a spectrum ... lies paraptosis ...", how about "Paraptosis lies on the spectrum ..."?
• In both "Pathway" and "Morphology", I question the need to have a single subsection. In my opinion, most of the time, it would be better to remove the
• Similarly, under "Proteome profile", I would remove the header "Protein changes", and promote all the subheadings of that up one level.

Klortho (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I did my best to make the pathway section sound a little less technical, and changed wording in some sections to make it flow better. I removed the protein changes header in favor of a brief introduction to the section. Lisawisa (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)