Talk:2016 Group Project 3
|Signalling: 1 Wnt | 2 Notch | 3 FGF Receptor | 4 Hedgehog | 5 T-box | 6 TGF-Beta|
|Here are some starting places for the topic. Can be patterning, differentiation, etc. as long as a developmental signal process/pathway.||
- 1 Assessment
- 2 Peer Review
- 2.1 Group 3 peer assessment
- 2.2 Group 3 Peer Review
- 2.3 Group 3 Peer Review
- 2.4 Group 3 Peer Review
- 2.5 Group 3
- 2.6 Group 3 Critical Assessment
- 2.7 Group 3 Peer Assessment
- 2.8 Group 3 Peer Assessment
- 2.9 Group 3 Peer Assessment
- 2.10 Peer Assessment: Project 3: Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor (FGFR) Pathway
- 2.10.1 1. The key points relating to the topic are clearly described.
- 2.10.2 2.The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
- 2.10.3 3. Content correctly cited.
- 2.10.4 4. The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations.
- 2.10.5 5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
- 2.10.6 6.Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.
- 2.10.7 7. Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki.
- 2.10.8 8. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
- 2.10.9 9. The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning.
- 2.10.10 10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.
- 2.11 Group 3
- 2.12 Group 3 Peer Review
- 2.13 Peer Review
- 2.14 Group 3 Peer Review
- 2.15 GP3 peer review
- 2.16 Group 3 Peer Assessment
- 3 Comments by Group 3
|Group Assessment Criteria|
| Science Student Projects
|More Information on Assessment Criteria | Science Student Projects|
- This is a well organised and clearly structured project page.
- Use of table and quizzes add to the user experience and content understanding.
- There is some coding issue on your project page that prevents it loading? Coding errors required fixing in - Subtypes of FGFR, Also had to delete last quiz for page to load. These are just technical issues.
- Good peer feedback and group response to feedback.
- Z5015544 - 133
- Z5015686 - 79
- Z5017002 - 46 (21, 26, 27 October 2016)
- Z5015337 - 8 (17, 22, 27 October 2016) this is not an "ongoing contribution" to the group project.
External genitalia development Z5015544 Reference and student template included. Wrong copyright statement APS not for Development. Development does allow "Use for bona fide teaching is allowed on the condition that it is non-commercial." http://dev.biologists.org/content/rights-permissions so I will allow this ion the project page unless requested to remove.
- Inner ear development.jpg
Inner ear development Z5015544 Reference and student template included. Wrong copyright statement APS not for Cold Spring Harb. Image deleted for copyright - http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/site/misc/terms.xhtml
Mice model and limb development Z5015544 Image deleted for copyright - http://mcb.asm.org/site/misc/terms.xhtml.
- Bone signalling pathway1.gif
Signals regulating bone growth Z5015544 Image deleted for copyright - © 2014 Society for Endocrinology
Group 3 peer assessment
On browsing through your page for the first time, I was extremely impressed with the organisation and the headings and subheadings. It made it extremely easy to comprehend the well researched information provided in an efficient manner. I thought the incorporation of an overview of the pathway was really good but could be included in the introduction maybe? The hand drawn diagram was very informative and showed good understanding of the topic. The quiz at the end is a different and useful element to add to the page as well and helps to improve our understanding on the topic. Incorporating tables and diagrams is always a great idea so well done on that! The referencing has also been done in an organised and appropriate format. The flow of the page is great as well.
Some points of improvement include making sure all the abbreviations have been written in their full form when used for the first time on the page. For example, EWSR1. I think another thing that can be included is a small description on the important molecules of the pathway. For the quiz a link could be attached to the ‘submit’ option taking you to a page with the correct answers and explanations as well. The abnormalities could maybe include a sentence on the current treatment procedures for the same. Or this could be a separate heading all together. This could be included to get a wholesome idea of the abnormality from pathogenesis to treatment.
Overall, I think this is an amazing start to the project and you guys have done a great job covering all aspects of the assessment criteria. I’m sure this is going to be an awesome page!
Group 3 Peer Review
Good Job Group 3! Very Well organised page with amazing contents. The signalling pathway is well illustrated with your hand drawing. A lot of articles were reviewed although some more citations may be required for some sentences on the page. The history section is really good making the page very interesting. Developmental effects and abnormalities are also described. Some sections need to be filled in. Seems that you guys are trying to make a few quiz questions in the end, that's a really good idea. Quizzes can definitely improve our understanding about the signalling pathway.
About the introduction part, it may be better if you can combine the introduction, history and overview together. Those three sections posses similar function--provide background information and attract the reader, therefore, i think it would be good to put them together, at least, make history and overview two subsections of introduction. Moreover, the format of the table for FGFR subtypes can be adjusted. Thirdly, I understand that some theories are well studied or well proved, however, it would be better if you can find more recent articles.
Overall, this web page is really good. It is well structured and only some sections need to be completed. I really recommend using of more recent articles because our understanding about the pathway will improve over time. Maybe read through some related articles, they will usually validate the previous results first before they start their own experiments.
Group 3 Peer Review
At first glance, your page looks well structured with lots of information present so well done! Your introduction is concise but effective and it provides a good outline of the topic. It’s also good that you’ve started to explain the history - I think the timeline will be really helpful once it’s finished. All your referencing looks to be correct and most of the abbreviations are all defined. The table of subtypes of FGFR is a great way to present this info briefly and clearly, and I really like that you’ve also listed the associated abnormalities. Also, your hand-drawn image is a great effort but it would be better to clearly explain all the abbreviations (at least on the actual image summary page, or maybe in the glossary) since it’s not all defined in the text. You guys have done a really great job so far in explaining the different roles in embryonic development and it’s especially good that you’ve included descriptions of primary research. And your image for bone development is a really helpful addition to your info.
Obviously your group still has some research and info to fill out in your sections but you’ve done really well so far. For your abnormalities section, I think it would be good if you can find some related pictures to include. In general I think you should add more content and explain your sections in some more detail - particularly the overview of the pathway and the signal transduction section. At the moment it’s more of a description/listing of the components and factors, rather than a full explanation of how they interact and the responses they induce. So as long as you guys get fill out your content a bit more and make sure to finish off your quiz, history, animal models, and new/current research sections then I think you will have a great page by the end.
Group 3 Peer Review
Overall Group 3 has made a really comprehensive effort at addressing the assessment criteria so far. The flow and amount of information covered by this Group is really impressive, showing that they have begun to cover criteria 1, 2, 3 and 5. The range of tools used to convey information (tables, diagrams, the quiz) make this Group’s page a lot more engaging, particularly for a student audience (covering criteria 4). The use of in-text links to wiki pages describing certain terms is also a positive aspect, which lets the readers gain a better understanding of relevant areas of embryology (covering criteria 6).
Points for Improvement
Some improvements that could be made to this page include: the use of in-text links directly to the glossary to better aid students’ understanding of specific terms used throughout the explanations (this would better address criteria 4); using more succinct headings in some areas such as that under the ‘New and Emerging Research Into FGF’ section; and also a more extensive timeline could be used.
In conclusion, Group 3 have a lot of strengths in their work so far, particularly the volume of information they have provided that is formatted in an engaging and logical way. Only a few improvements are necessary for this Group’s project as it seems they have already begun to address most of the assessment criteria.
You guys have made a good start on your project! I particularly liked how the headings were subdivided appropriately into smaller subheadings as it effectively broke down the FGFR pathway and made the page easy to navigate. Though you have included a short and succinct introduction, I think it should address all the sections being discussed to give the reader a better overview of your project. In addition, the use of a table to explore the timeline of research of the FGF pathway was an excellent idea but I think the text above the table could be incorporated into the table itself and a more extensive timeline could be provided.
Though it was good that you provided a brief overview of the FGFR pathway, you’ve only discussed the components of the pathway rather than the pathway itself. Furthermore, when discussing signal transduction, I think you should be more specific when explaining the process, for example when you mentioned ‘which leads to changes in gene transcription through interactions with DNA’, it causes changes in transcription in which genes and through interactions with which DNA? In saying this, it was wonderful to see the inclusion of a hand-drawn diagram which represents not only your understanding of the pathway but also aids readers understanding of the FGFR pathway.
A good overview has been provided to explain the role of FGFs in embryonic development. The only suggestion I can make is to provide explanations or full names of the abbreviations to aid understanding of the concepts explored. For example, what is ETV1 and EWSR1? By explaining what these abbreviations are the reader will gain better understanding on how they function to help maintain FGF10 expression. In terms of the section on abnormalities, a succinct and coherent introduction was provided. There was a good description of the morphological changes produced by these mutations along with the cause of these abnormalities. There isn’t much I would change in this section except for maybe explaining FGFR2 mutation.
Overall, you guys have done a fantastic job! I thought the inclusion of a quiz was particularly innovative as it makes your project interactive and thus, aids the learning process. Everything was well cited and referenced and it was wonderful to see the use of an original diagram. It was also good to see all groups members contributing to the discussion page which indicates effective communication within the team.
Group 3 Critical Assessment
A great introduction to the topic, allowing the reader to slowly transition into the more in-depth points! I particularly like how you have broken down the different constituents of the pathway such as the receptors and protein subtypes and provided a succinct table outlining their function and clinical significance before moving onto the mechanism. Although the ‘FGF Subtype’ table has proven to be effective and helpful, the table on ‘History’ does not seem to be thorough and is very limited. Possibly extending the table by researching more developments in the field of FGF Signalling could make it appear more complete.
Effort has been made to include a hand drawn image of the signalling pathway, which serves as a great source of aid in understanding how the pathway works whilst reading the text beside it. In saying that, effort should be further made to include a complete glossary and ensure terms such as ‘receptor dimerization’ ‘morphogenesis’ are broken down for the reader in order to satisfy criteria 4. This is not only seen in the ‘Signal Transduction’ section but also throughout the other sections. As you have included a fantastic image on bone development to represent the information visually, it would also be a good idea to post up images covering the other areas of embryonic development, such as kidney and inner ear development! You could even consider including short clips explaining these processes to make the page more interactive.
It is clear a decision has been made to talk about ‘Animal Models’. As well as including text on the topic, a possible option could be including a table briefly outlining which animal model has contributed to what knowledge in relation to the pathway in order to simplify the information.
A particular highlight of the Wiki page is the use of a quiz. It is great to see viewers can test their understanding of the topic towards the end and challenge themselves! For the correct option to each question a link to a supporting article or particular section of the page can be provided so the viewer can revisit the information should they have answered the question incorrectly. Overall a great use of tables, images and interactive components!
Group 3 Peer Assessment
With regards to your project I have noticed there are many forms of educational tools employed or being planned other than text, which to me is a big plus with regards to your project. The usage of the table to summarises the different FGFR sub-types is really easy to read and understand, and presents the information in a better way than you could’ve with just a wall of text. Your planned multiple choice section seems like it would be a nice addition to your page where it should help solidify the knowledge of the reader, allowing to check what they know. When doing the quiz section not only would it be good if you added explanations for the correct answers, but maybe also if possible explanations of why the other answers are wrong. There seems to be no issues with your citations given that all of them are in-text and multiple. Also the link between signal transduction, embryonic development and abnormalities is quite smooth and within context of their respective preceding parts, making the page read very well.
With regards to your usage of images, it seems mostly good and compliments the passages well, but I feel that it would benefit with adding more information to the legend, possibly by moving some of the description when clicking into the image into the legend. Also since your first image contains mainly abbreviations, maybe it would be good to collate all abbreviations and add it to the glossary such that the reader can easily refer to what the abbreviations mean.
With respect to your signal transduction section, all the components of the pathway seem to have been included, but for the most part how each factor interacts with one another has been left out. Elaborating on how each factor interacts and activates one another such as how FRS2 recruits GRB2 and SHP2, and how those events actually promote activation of RAS. I feel adding this will really improve the depth of this section, and make it less about a bunch of different components and more about how the work together in the context of their individual functions. Also I feel that the history section could be expanded on, maybe to include more time points or critical areas of discovery for the FGFR pathway.
Overall I think your project is shaping up quite well, and that with the addition of the suggestions made above, would make your project quite good. Having used many images, a table, and including the quiz has really made your page quite interactive and engaging which has really benefited your page. Also your subheadings and included passages have appeared to cover most important topics within your signalling pathway.
Group 3 Peer Assessment
Positive aspects of the project and improvements:
The group project looks terrific at the initial glance. You can clearly see all the headings and subheadings. In particular, it is great to see a range of subheadings such as “limb bud formation”, “bone development”, “kidney development”. This shows that there was a lot of research put into this project. Also by doing so you have made it clear that your project is about the Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Pathway (FGFR). The page is also very easy to navigate as well which was nice to see. It is also great to see that there is addition of tables, images, and diagrams as it kept the read a lot more interesting and captivating. This allowed you to successfully satisfy criteria 2. It is also good to see correct in text citations and references as this allowed the reader to search for additional information if interested or necessary. Although you haven’t made up any multiple choice questions it is excellent to see a MCQ section. This is a great way to test the readers’ knowledge and in turn you can reflect if you have provided accurate and sufficient information to answer these questions.
It was great to see that you added an abnormalities section and in particular different types of syndromes and disorders. This meant that you went over the minimum information required and put in extra effort to create a coherent project. This satisfied criteria 5 and thus a better project. Overall there are many positives in this report and with minor amendments such as adding information to sections such as “Apert syndrome”, “Animal models”, “Kidney development”, “external genitalia development” etc, a very articulate and well rounded project will be created.
Negative aspects of the project and improvements:
Although there are many positives in the project, there should be some amendments to the project just to ensure all bases are covered. Firstly, it would be advised to increase the amount of information to the introduction and history sections. As these sections are lacking information, the reader may not have enough information to carry on reading as their base on this topic isn’t really strong and lacks information. This can easily turn off new readers and inhibit further exploration of the topic/ project. By adding additional dates in the history section, a better overall knowledge and background of the signalling pathway can be developed which can only enhance learning.
Overall, there are not many negatives and I believe as a reader your project was a great example of progress so far and with the aforementioned minor tweaks, your group is well on their way to achieving extremely high marks.
Group 3 Peer Assessment
Wow this is a very professional looking page and one that I was immediately drawn to. The introduction is very clear and simple and I was able to understand the basic of FGFR straight away which made it so much easier for me to try to understand the rest of the information. I absolutely love the use of the tables to introduce the sub-types of FGFR as this is so much easier to read than blobs of information. The dot points are concise and to the point and introduce each sub-type along with its abnormality.
The signal transduction in any signalling pathway is probably the most confusing and hard to understand part. However this part of your project is my favourite and I was surprised as to how quickly I managed to understand the molecular mechanisms of FGFR. The hand drawn diagram is amazing and really clearly displays all the key elements in play for FGFR. What I really like about your page is that it is really user and student friendly. It really invites learning and encourages it. The use of a quiz is a great example of this and really does allow the student to reflect on their knowledge.
The page is absolutely amazing but in my opinion there are a few ways that it could be made even more amazing.
Sometimes the information is a bit overwhelming, in that there is too much of it. For example in the sections Limb Bud formation and Bone development, for information that complicated it would probably be better to employ the use of dot points or tables just to make the information more digestible. Although the hand drawing of the signal induction is extremely useful, I think it could be made even better by being accompanied with some specific step by step commentary which matches with the drawing. As a student this would make learning about FGFR a lot more engaging and easier.
The section on bone development although very informative could be more relevant to embryology and lastly a section outlining the treatments available for the abnormalities would be very interesting.
Overall great work guys !
Peer Assessment: Project 3: Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor (FGFR) Pathway
1. The key points relating to the topic are clearly described.
The key points related to the topic are clearly described however the introduction is a little limited and further information is needed with examples.
2.The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
The fibroblast growth factor receptor pathway wiki does overall seem to have a very extensive list of contents, which demonstrate that the topic is divided into clear interesting sections. This wiki has a good use of a table to demonstrate history (be it small) and subtypes of FGFR pathways. In the history section it is not clear if they first discovered FGFR in human pituitary or pig or mouse. Please be more explicit. The history table does not seem to be finished as from 1999 to present there is no information at all added. Also there is no reference to the History information and this needs to be referenced.
3. Content correctly cited.
The content is cited correctly. However as mentioned there are some sections which are not referenced at all: History, Bone Development (there is a large paragraph which says a lot of what is known but it is not referenced. Some of the references are repeated in the reference list: see below in wiki guidelines.
4. The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations.
There 2 small tables and two diagrams which are educational. I am very impressed that one of the members of the group re drew the first diagram. It is quite artistic but it is a bit confusing as to what each abbreviation in the figure means. If this sort of figure is added I think that some abbreviations or an explanation in the text needs to be added to allow the reader to understand what is actually happening . If not it looks like a figure with some sort of pathway but not very clear as to what It represents.
5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
This is evident that the students have done a lot of research in this topic.
6.Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.
Yes there are some headings which relate to the learning aims of embryology such as limb bud formation and bone formation. But there are some sections which are not finished at all Kidney development, External Genitalia development, Inner Ear Development and Animal Models.
7. Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki.
It does seem that that the members of the group have had some communication and worked together well. It does seem that they have learnt to edit a wiki, making a online quiz, making tables, adding figures and content. Well done!
8. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
This is a very interesting and well-researched wiki. There is still information lacking and more figures are needed as well as explanations for the figures. It is clear that a lot of effort has been carried out with the quiz, the figure that was re drawn from a publication.
9. The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning.
The key areas on this wiki have been researched adequately. There is still information missing.
10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.
Yes this wiki is in accordance with the guidelines. In terms of the reference list, some references have been re cited and added as new references, please see editing guidelines to avoid this- as so the reference is only listed once in the reference list and not multiple times.
This page is developing well, as extensive headings have been well organised, with substantial written and visual information. A fantastic student produced image has been included, showing the different steps in the signalling pathway in a flowchart. It is very clear and neat, and the group is highly commended for this. An interesting and potentially humorous image can be included at the beginning of the web page to attract the reader’s attention and add interest to the page. Another image showing the ‘FGF and FGFR expression patterns during endochondral and intramembranous bone development’ has been included and is very clear and relevant. Another flowchart in the “Limb Bud formation” section would also help the reader summarise the different processes and the FGFR subtypes involved in each step. Adding short animations or movies would also be very helpful in aiding the reader understand these processes, particularly in the ‘Patterning Of The Embryonic Axis’ subheading. Images in the abnormalities sections, such as what the hands, broad thumbs, feet and medially deviated broad great toes of those with Pfeiffer Syndrome look like would also add depth to the web page.
Extensive and well organised headings have been included in this project, although some headings are still incomplete. A history section has been included in this web page. The timeline in this section requires more information as only two years, 1973 and 1999, have been included. More information is needed on the research carried out over the last decade, as well as gaps in this research, where future studies are heading and what is currently being researched in relation to this signalling process. The naming of researchers and where this research took place would also show depth of knowledge and extensive research, as required in the criteria. A heading at the bottom of the web page has been included titled “New and Emerging Research Into FG” and needs more information added to it. A summary of the current findings and research should also be added to the timeline higher up on the page when this section is further worked on.
Other sections including the glossary and “Animal models” sections have been started. Further terms to define in the glossary should include full names of terms such as RAS and AER included in the web page. The “Animal models” section is a comprehensive addition to the web page but is empty and requires further research. Ensure images of the animal models being explored are included in this section to enhance the textual information and to improve the readers’ understanding of these animal models. A table of the FGFR Subtypes has been included which is commended, however, needs much more elaboration as it is still quite bare. Images of these different FGFR Subtypes would also add depth to this web page.
In text referencing has been carried out well so far in this project. The writers often need to use references again when researchers and their research is mentioned again. For example, Mathias et al. (2001) is mentioned in the Subheading “Patterning Of The Embryonic Axis”. This research was referenced in the paragraph before the researchers were specifically mentioned, and thus should be referenced again with the same reference number. In the Limb Bud formation heading, a link to the lecture notes for Limb Development has been included. This is a very good way to allow the readers to easily access more information relevant to the topic.
Overall from analysing through Group 3’s project I can starkly see that they have made a good attempt at addressing the marking criteria. The flow and clarity of the information in this project shows some serious thought and is showing a promising coverage of criteria 1. Not only this, but the group has excellently covered criteria 2 by having a plethora of headings, subheadings, tables and diagrams. Not only this but they have included a quiz which really shows an extra level of understanding and effort. One improvement that I might suggest is that they could extend the table by researching more developments in the field of FGF Signaling. Furthermore, this group has covered criteria 3 quite well as well but having a thorough amount of references and in text citations. Also, I have been able to learn a great amount of information from this project which means they have successfully achieved criteria 4. Overall, this project has done very well in presenting their project.
Group 3 Peer Review
Group 3 has gathered a large amount of information and made good progress on the FGFR pathway, the introduction is well written and helps set the framework for the rest of the article. The organization of the page including the subheadings and formatting was very impressive and needs little work. The history section however should be attended to as there are only two entries, a more substantial history especially recent developments would be very beneficial in understanding the FGFR pathway.
The media usage is very abundant throughout the page and includes student made illustrations which is something many other groups have not yet incorporated thus is a very good sign. Of course more media could be used in the abnormalities section to demonstrate how these appear/how they are occurring..
Overall this group has done very well in addressing the marking guidelines once more content is added underneath the unfilled subheadings and the superfluous links/notes have been removed the article should come out very nicely.
The headings and subheadings on the page is used very effectively to aid the progression of information. Through the sequence of the headings, it allows the reader to build their understanding about FGFR signalling. The FGFR page definitely address the topic of this assessment - signalling in development, and links FGF signalling to a number of developmental events. This reflects the large contributions of FGFR in development which the page successfully portrays.
In the overview section, it states: “As shown in the image, an acidic box…”. Make it clear which image you are referring to because I can’t find it.
The table for the subtypes of FGFR has been acknowledged that it is incomplete but it gives a good snapshot to function and associated abnormalities of the different FGFR subtypes.
The page includes a student drawn image which summarises the FGFR signalling pathway. None of the other groups have included a student drawn image so good job! The images uses colours to distinguish particular molecules and shows the downstream signalling events to affect gene transcription in the cell. To me the image is a bit blurry on the page, so maybe change the pixels of the image to make it larger and easier to see?
The page includes a quiz which is clever and will definitely make the page stand out from the other groups.
Overall, Group 3 has made good progress. Good job!
Group 3: FGFR Pathway Group 3, you have done an excellent job so far. Your page is well organized, with relevant headings of the topic such as ‘Role in Embryonic development’ and ‘Subtypes of FGFR’ that explore different elements of the FGFR pathway. A substantial amount of information is placed under the appropriate subheadings, which is good, however there are still a few where content needs to be added to improve the project. This page has a lot of potential and will be very informative once finished.
The introduction is very effective because it is short and succinct. It states what processes the FGFR pathway is involved in and mentions how it is involved in early development. There has been a good start to the history of the pathway. More dates and significant events, such as discoveries, should also be added here. I like how you have included an ‘Overview’ of the pathway. It is a good reference point for students like me (who don’t know much about FGFR Pathway) to refer back to when content gets too confusing. In addition, the subtypes of FGFR were presented effectively through the use of a table. The organised structure of the table made it simple to understand, quick to read, and easy to compare the different subtypes. Well done!
Another positive aspect of the project is how you have incorporated pictures that support the content. I especially find the flowchart of the FGFR pathway very useful because it visually shows the process of the pathway. It is correctly citied and balances out the look of the page (instead of blocks of information in long paragraphs). In addition, I love how you guys have added a quiz. It offers something different to the project. A good start has been made to the glossary. The purpose of a glossary is to simplify the meaning so that it is easier to understand. However, the definition was still a bit too complicated for me. Also, I suggest that more words should be added. I was impressed by the use of in-text references throughout the project as it demonstrates that you have done significant research on this topic. The complete reference list at the bottom of the project contains a large number of articles, which is excellent. All articles used in this project have been correctly citied. All in all, Group 3, you have done an amazing job! With a few minor tweaks and adding more information, I am sure that you will receive good marks for this project.
Group 3 Peer Review
Overall, it is a great page to look at with lots of information divided clearly into subheadings. The subtypes of the FGFR in the table is quite useful and clearly explain the differences between them, also the addition of the abnormalities in that table is very useful. The student drawn image is a very nice addition to the page, however some of the writing is slightly difficult to read. The section on the role on embryonic development is quite detailed and very well set out. There are many reference throughout the page, which is very useful to the reader. The abnormalities are discussed very well and you have explored a large range of possible abnormalities.
The history information is lacking a little and doesn’t provide much understanding on the progression of knowledge on this topic. The overview of the pathway is quite simple, so I don’t feel like I have a good enough understanding of what the pathway actually entails. You should probably include a better glossary section as you have a lot of complex terminology within the page that is not explained, so a glossary list will help the reader better understand what is going on. The section on bone development is slightly confusing due to the image used. The image is very complicated and has a lot of detail within it. One change would be to draw the image yourself to simplify it and express only the information required. There are a lot of blank sections within the page that will hopefully be filled in soon.
The addition of the quiz at the end of the page is a very nice idea, however, I was disappointed to see that both the questions and answers were still blank. I do really like the idea of it and I feel that once it has been finalised it will be useful to the reader.
Looking at the page as a whole, I really like the way everything is set out and the content you have covered. Most of the information is very clear to understand and some of the images compliment the writing very well. Some small changes can be made to assist the understanding of the reader.
GP3 peer review
Introduction had explained what does this signalling pathway do and importance and page outlining. Followed by history part but seems more would be added. Pictures and table are used to assist explanations. Detailed content but seems need sub-heading or spacing ( formatting). Some gap parts are found. If the abnormality could be linked to the table above would be better. Quiz part is made but needs questions. Some pending glossary are found. Good references formatting.
Group 3 Peer Assessment
Very impressive page with great organisation and excellent use of headings and subheadings. The content itself is quite detailed despite some parts being incomplete (understandably for now). The hand drawn diagram is quite nice and allows for an easier simplification in understanding the topic. The quiz at the end too is a nice tool that will help ensure understanding the topic. The referencing so far has been appropriately performed as instructed. There are some great images such as the image on bone development, and I would suggest trying to include more images for the other areas of development or even videos. One thing to improve would be explaining the FGFR pathway itself as opposed to the constituents in the pathway as it has been done. Also, a bit more detail on the history can enhance overall background on the topic and aid with the introduction in interesting the reader. Overall, great project so far with only a few minor tweaks to correct.
Comments by Group 3
How can we harvest stem cells from the embyro for use in later life - z5015337
Z5015544 (talk)z5015544Z5015544 (talk) Ok guys I created a couple of subheadings and provided a brief history. Make sure to use primary research articles that are peer-reviewed because I just spoke to Dr Hill and noticed he stressed that a lot.
Z5015337 (talk)I found this giant slab of text regarding the structures of the receptors involved from a journal article and I am working through culling it down for a usable structure definition: FGF receptors and FGF signal transduction. FGFRs are modular proteins comprising 3 immunoglobulin domains (IgI, IgII and IgIII). IgI and IgII are separated by an acidic box (AD). IgII contains a heparin binding domain (HBD). The IgIII domain is followed by a unique transmembrane (TM), a juxtamembrane (JM) and a kinase domain (KD) interrupted by an interkinase domain (IKD). FGF ligands linked to heparin sulfate proteoglycan (HSPG) bind to IgII and IgIII of FGFR. This results in the dimerization and the subsequent transactivation by phosphorylation of specific tyrosine residues. The main two transduction pathways involve the phospholipase C-γ (PLCγ) and the Ras/MAP kinase. The SH2 domain of the PLCγ interacts with the phosphorylated Y766 of the activated receptor. The activated PLCγ hydrolyzes the phosphatidyl-inositol-4,5-diphosphate (PIP2) to inositol-1,4,5-triphophate (IP3) and the diacylglycerol (DAG). IP3 releases Ca2+ while DAG activates the protein kinase C-δ (PKCδ). Activated PKCδ activates Raf by phosphorylating its S338 and stimulates the downstream pathway in a Ras independent manner. The main pathway involves the interaction of the docking protein FRS2α with the amino-acid residues 407–433 (Xu et al., 1998). This protein is activated by phosphorylation on multiple tyrosine residues and subsequently interacts and activates Grb2 linked to Sos, a nucleotide exchange factor involved in the activation of Ras. Activated Ras then activates Raf which stimulates MEK which in turn phosphorylates the MAP kinase ERK. This last activated component translocates to the nucleus and phosphorylates specific transcription factors of the Ets family which in turn activate expression of specific FGF target genes. P: phosphorylation
Z5015686 (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2016 (AEST) Hey guys I've just changed our subheadings so we can better allocate something for each of us to write on this week. More then happy to change them! Just came across these while I was researching. Did everyone maybe want to put their name next to something they are able to research or chuck in new subheadings that interest them?
Z5015544 (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2016 (AEST)Hey guys, here is the link for omim. Type in the name of the gene and it will give you different articles about it: http://www.omim.org/Z5015544 (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2016 (AEST)
Z5015544 (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2016 (AEST)Hey guys, hope you're all enjoying the break. Just thought I would let you know I've added a hand drawn diagram and a table too. If anyone finds more information about specific receptor functions in embryo development please add it to the table.Z5015544 (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2016 (AEST)
Z5015686 (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2016 (AEST) just moved this from our main page Extra Resources Useful review articles that may be worth a read through: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wdev.176/full http://www.nature.com.wwwproxy0.library.unsw.edu.au/nrd/journal/v8/n3/pdf/nrd2792.pdf http://www.sciencedirect.com.wwwproxy0.library.unsw.edu.au/science/article/pii/S0012160605006184 http://www.nature.com.wwwproxy0.library.unsw.edu.au/nrm/journal/v14/n3/full/nrm3528.html http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.wwwproxy0.library.unsw.edu.au/doi/10.1002/jcp.24649/full http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/29/14/1463.full (FGF signalling and skeletogenesis, specifically how mutations to the FGF signalling pathway may be responsible for skeletal diseases)
Z5015544 (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2016 (AEDT)Looking really good guys, I think we should try and expand beyond what has been covered in the lectures. Maybe we can look at new research involving FGF. We can also look at FGF in animals and how it affects limb development. Let me know what you guys think
Z5015544 (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2016 (AEDT)http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925477397006679Z5015544 (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2016 (AEDT)
Z5015686 (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2016 (AEDT) Just fixed up our references so they aren't listed multiple times, and added an automated search on pubmed for extra information. I think the videos and pictures are a nice addition, and agree its a good idea going beyond the information covered in the lectures. I might also add links to omim for further readings into abnormalities. I think animal models is important to include so FGF in limb development is a good idea. I was also thinking of adding some coloured text just to break up the information a little if that sounds okay?
Ignore this for now guys, this is more for external genitalia bits I might want to add Tissue-specific roles of Fgfr2 in development of the external genitalia - Include the glossary definition for hypospadias or explain it within the text.