Peer Reviews (Lab 10)
Mark Hill (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2018 (AEDT) You have provided a balanced feedback for each project peer assessment and have also identified aspects of each project that could be improved. In particular I appreciated you identifying content that is not appropriately written for university level student use. This suggests direct use from the original research article without interpreting for the project audience. Hopefully the groups will collate this feedback along with others to improve their own final projects. You should now consider how your own project page matches the assessment criteria you have applied here. Well done.
Group 1 (Adrenal Medulla): Perhaps describe the neural crest as a “structure” instead of a term. Great use of the student-drawn image as a guide! Overall, good simplified history.
In the normal structure and function region; good but rather brief discussion of the physiology and structure. perhaps a little bit more, and maybe an image- unless you merge it with the related anatomy component. Really love the adult adrenal gland and the effort behind it. Only complaint would be that perhaps it would have been good to have the regions of the kidney (medulla, cortex etc).
The description of the role of the adrenal medulla is very well-written; concise and seemingly accurate. Perhaps include the proper dot point structure instead of the >. The image drawn illustrating the cascade of catecholamine synthesis is also very good and I personally found it to be a helpful guide. However, it needs to be edited and correctly formatted for the webpage.
The first two sentences of the animal models section may be combined into one. Proof-reading required eg. as explained above ‘nueral’! Who is Ahonen- Is an in-text reference needed here? Perhaps this paragraph belongs in the current research section as the animal used hasn’t been mentioned. Please review this bit as the information provided is good and relevant but maybe in the wrong section.
In the current research section, the second sentence says ‘we generated’ … who are you referring to? The information here seems correct but was also quite advanced with numerous terms that I couldn’t understand- however it shows great research so well done!
Overall, great work guys! Keep it up and move along with the project consistently! Perhaps include some images from the experiments you’ve described and some more high-tech images- although the ones you have drawn are also excellent!
Group 4 (Cardiac): Some editing required for the formatting (introduction, development of the cardiovascular system etc) Good use of the video- excellent aid for later understanding of what you guys discuss!
Great research exhibited in the cardiac neural crest cells section; an image to go beside it would be great. References need to be formatted correctly so that they are’t displayed in the written information.
I like how early development has been broken down. However, how come they’re numbered here but not in later development? Clear and concise information presented in induction. In the neural crest to circumpharangeal ridge section, perhaps bold/underline the signalling factors so it’s clear. The formation of pharyngeal arches … section also has good information! An image for this section especially would be beneficial.
As a whole, the later development section is also good. Mostly clear and concise information. Some proof-reading would be good.
Some more information about the signaling molecules would be good- perhaps tie to back to what was mentioned in the circumpharangeal section?
The time course is also good! I like the selection of heart diseases and how they’ve been discussed. Perhaps some additional information about symptoms, epidemiology etc would be good but that’s just a suggestion.
Overall, great work guys! Keep it up and move along with the project consistently! Perhaps include some student-drawn images. I like the planning- if you keep at it you’ll have an awesome project!
Group 5 (Dorsal Root Ganglion): Embryonic origins has been well-written. Proof-read for typing errors. Neural crest migration section shows good research and use of terminology. Neuronal and glial development has nice concise information though it might be wise to add some more content. Also if the heading will be Glial dev, then neuron dev should be changed to Neuronal dev- for consistency. Adult function of ? However, this section is well-written! Concise and relevant- great work guys! Tissue Structure is starting to look good however needs more content. Really good student drawn image!! Though it might be good to be the image higher up on the page.
Molecular mechanisms/factors/genes has overall been well written. Perhaps a brief statement about what transcription factors are? Interesting image in abnormalities. I would personally appreciate an explanation of what I am seeing in the image. More discussion of a wider variety of abnormalities might be beneficial. Excellent coverage of animals models so far!! May be one more? Also, great use of images! Current research seems to be coming along well! Some formatting edits so that the video appears on the page would be good!
Overall, great work guys! Keep it up and move along with the project consistently!
In vitro maturation recent article
Adding an image
Neuropore cell shape changes
- Walls ML & Hart RJ. (2018). In vitro maturation. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol , , . PMID: 30056110 DOI.
- Shinotsuka N, Yamaguchi Y, Nakazato K, Matsumoto Y, Mochizuki A & Miura M. (2018). Caspases and matrix metalloproteases facilitate collective behavior of non-neural ectoderm after hindbrain neuropore closure. BMC Dev. Biol. , 18, 17. PMID: 30064364 DOI.