Wikipedia talk:USEP/Courses/JHU MolBio Ogg FA13/Group 81C

Hello Group 81C! Igenes (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Igenes, I moved this to the Talk page, hope you don't mind!

LutyeusMaximus (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! That is fine with me.Igenes (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Selection[edit]

So just to start the conversation, what are our thoughts on which article to select? LutyeusMaximus (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I noticed that both myself and Harshil reviewed the neutral mutations article, but that one has already been taken by a group. So has extrachromosomal DNA. What about cotransporters?

As far as that article goes, it obviously needs alot of work, but they all do. The article already has a few citations which is nice, but we should probably check them anyway. Not sure if you guys have taken Advanced Cell Bio 1 but I am taking that now and we have covered a great deal of mechanisms in class about cotransporters and the different types. So I have one textbook we can get alot of matieral from. There are also images and animations that we may be able to use from the textbooks webiste (just have to pay attention to copyright stuff obviously). Then we can talk about a few of the common ones found in the body and maybe some disease associated with mutations in the proteins, which we could look up some journal articles for.

I'm not attached to any of the atricles so if you guys feel much stronger or more knowledgeable about something else let me know

LutyeusMaximus (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on board with taking on the cotransporters article. I just had Advanced Cell 1 so probably have the same text you are working from and agree that there is good amount of material from there alone. Unless Harshil has any other thoughts or feels stronger about a different article I say we take this one on. Sridenour (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets take the cotransporter article however, I would have to do a lot of research on this article since its been a while I touched on this topic but I think I would be fine with it. Igenes (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sounds good, I claimed the article for us on the course page. Now we just need to write up a rational on why we choose it. LutyeusMaximus (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I put up a brief rationale on the main page. If you guys can please read it over in case I made any mistakes and add anything else I may have forgotten or you feel is important LutyeusMaximus (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a statement discussing how we will check the references that are already being cited in the article, but otherwise the rationale looks great and thanks for taking care of that.Sridenour (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added one more point to our selection rationale, about usefulness to the high school and college students. I think this article will get lots of hits when we develop the content. Great work everyone.Igenes (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started on our Article[edit]

To get started we have to decide on who's sandbox page the article would be developed. Does anyone have a preference, if not I am happy to develop the article on my sandbox page. I also outlined a list of headings under which we can develop our article. What are your suggestions here, please feel to change or add more headings. I think as we move on we will have a better idea in structuring the article.

1. Introduction

2. Background

3. Structures & Composition

4. Mechanism

5. Malfunction

6. Summary Conclusions

7. Reference

Igenes (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Harshil, I'm good with working out of your sandbox and think that's a good start for the outline. I'm going to go ahead and move the outline into your sandbox under a new section and was thinking that maybe Seth wouldn't mind moving his references into the sandbox with a brief statement of the value each adds. I'm going to spend the next couple days looking for some more references and some pictures or diagrams we can use. Sridenour (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds great. Sorry about my slow response, had a busy weekend. I will be sure to get my references and some explanations over to Harshil's sandbox ASAP! LutyeusMaximus (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got on and added my references. I added a few more. I also started a section for proposed images. I can't remember and need to look it up, but are we able to use images from textbooks etc.. if they are cited properly or no? LutyeusMaximus (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few more references. Do you think we should add a section on 'Different kinds of Cotransporters'?Igenes (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I think we should start a section covering the different types of cotransporters to give our page some good depth and as far as the picture question goes I'm a little unsure about that as well and was going to re-look over some of the criteria this weekend. Anyone have any preferences on sections they would like to cover?Sridenour (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By different types of cotransporters do you guys mean specific examples; like the sodium-potassium pump or do you mean sympoters and antiporters? I was also thinking we should move our outline to the article's talk page so that other editors can see (not that I think there will be many others) LutyeusMaximus (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the rough outline to the articles talk page, we can edit it as we go. As far as parts of the article to cover I have no preference, however you guys want to divide it up is fine with me. LutyeusMaximus (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figure we can give the general definition of the antiporter and symporter but figured it would be good to cover specific ones that fall into those categories. I wouldn't mind starting the article with the first descriptive paragraph then thought that since Seth has the same text as me then perhaps he would want to cover the mechanisms involved and maybe harshil would want to do some of the background or discovery section. I figure we can do defects/diseases and specific ones in later weeks. I think we should maybe just do an Antiporter section and a Symporter section instead of a general mechanism section. Then after we get the general mechanism described we can add an example section to each one of those for specific ones. What do you think?Sridenour (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan! LutyeusMaximus (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I added a intro section. Let me know what you guys think and if you think I need to add more. I didn't want to go to deep into antiporter and symporter since that can be discussed in the mechanism sections for these two. I also went ahead and deleted everything down to the See Also section since no one opposed it on the talk page.Sridenour (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can put something together on the background and malfunctions of cotransporters. I am also going ahead and adding heading to our article page and under each heading we can edit as we go.Igenes (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General Article Talk[edit]

Hey Harshil, I noticed that you have listed uniporters as cotransporters as well and my references tell me that it is a transporter but not a cotransporter since it only moves one molecule (uni) instead of two (co). If you look at the intro I started it actually has this difference explained. I think you need to check you sources and maybe remove the uniporter discussion in the article page.Sridenour (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I would agree. Good catch Sonya. Otherwise after our first additions I think our article already has some shape and is a good start LutyeusMaximus (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what do you guys think about moving the third paragraph under Background to the intro section? Seems a little more of a basic description than actual background.Sridenour (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys, while I was going through the content of the article under 'Symporters' I found the last statement of the first paragraph contradicting to what I read. I am not sure if this statement is right "The SGLT couples the movement of 1 glucose ion with the movement of 1 sodium ion". According to what I came through is 1 glucose ion is coupled with 2 sodium ion. Could any of you please confirm this. For now I am editing this sentence with my source of reference.Igenes (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sonya and Seth, our article looks good so far, I have another header we can add to add more content to our article. I was thinking of having another section called 'Examples of cotransporters' we can add this section under 'Types of cotransporter'. I will start adding content in my sandbox page and you can contribute as we go.Igenes (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could work and I can move the example of the NKCl2 symporter under this section and add more as needed. Do you have an idea of which examples you would like to specifically cover? Sridenour (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]