Talk:2011 Group Project 4

From Embryology

Group 4: User:z3389806 | User:z3290270 | User:z3290379 | User:z3290558


--Mark Hill 07:35, 30 September 2011 (EST) Currently all students originally assigned to each group are listed as equal authors/contributors to their project. If you have not contributed the content you had originally agreed to, nor participated in the group work process, then you should contact the course coordinator immediately and either discuss your contribution or request removal from the group author list. Remember that all student online contributions are recorded by date, time and the actual contributed content. A similar email reminder will be sent to all current students.

Please note the Universities Policy regarding Plagiarism

In particular this example:

"Claiming credit for a proportion of work contributed to a group assessment item that is greater than that actually contributed;"

Academic Misconduct carries penalties. If a student is found guilty of academic misconduct, the penalties include warnings, remedial educative action, being failed in an assignment or excluded from the University for two years.

2011 Projects: Turner Syndrome | DiGeorge Syndrome | Klinefelter's Syndrome | Huntington's Disease | Fragile X Syndrome | Tetralogy of Fallot | Angelman Syndrome | Friedreich's Ataxia | Williams-Beuren Syndrome | Duchenne Muscular Dystrolphy | Cleft Palate and Lip

Group Assessment Criteria

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
    1. Headings and sub-headings appropriate for topic. 1.1 Introduction 1.2 History 1.3 Epidemiology 1.4 Genetics 1.4.1 Inheritance 1.4.2 Huntingtin Gene 1.5 Molecular Mechanisms & Pathogenesis 1.5.1 Destruction of Striatal cells 1.5.2 Aggregate formation 1.5.3 Abnormal protein-protein interaction 1.5.4 Calcium Signalling 1.5.5 Role in transcription inhibition 1.6 Clinical Manifestations 1.7 Diagnostic Tests 1.7.1 Differential Diagnosis 1.7.2 Neuropathology 1.7.3 Imaging 1.7.4 Genetic testing and prenatal diagnosis 1.8 Treatment 1.8.1 Medications Tetrabenazine Other drugs 1.8.2 Therapies 1.9 Current/Future Research 1.10 Related Links 1.11 Glossary 1.12 References
    2. Tables are well-structured and clearly organised with colour coding.
    3. Figure range was reasonable. The weakest component were some of the student drawn images that were uploaded.
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
    1. Large number and range of citations included in project, including historic and current reviews/articles.
    2. Figure - citations and copyright included.
  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.
    1. Figures covered many of the issues associated with this disorder, needed better associated information.
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
    1. Large number and range of citations included in project, including historic and current reviews/articles.
    2. Most sub-headings show good research. The only exception would be 1.9 Current/Future Research which seemed very weak.
  6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.
    1. You chose a topic which did not closely relate to development except for prenatal diagnosis. This criteria is therefore harder for your group to achieve.
  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.
    1. Several peer assessments referred to the size of the therapy table. I would have to agree, though clearly structured and well organised I wonder whether such an extensive section was required here.
  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.
  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.
    1. Figures covered many of the issues associated with this disorder. I would have liked to have seen more descriptions that could have an element of peer teaching in many of the files.
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.

Figure Assessment

Page Edits 30 Sep

Link to Group 4 facebook discussion page

Note: This link requires the viewer to have a facebook account.

An example of one of our discussions are:

Maeda Sadeghpour:

Guys we need to pick... If Huntington is too complex there's Fragile X syndrome. Vote on what you want here... and it's the final decision so we're sticking to it after this. :) LikeUnlike · · Unfollow PostFollow Post · August 19 at 4:54pm

Lisa Minjoo Lee :

Okay sure. I don't mind either. But group 5 is already doing fragile x. So i guess we have to stick with huntingtons.. Is everyone okay with that? August 19 at 5:16pm · Like

Elizabeth Blanchard:

Well if there's another group doing Fragile X, i'm fine with just sticking with HD. Sharalyn, let us know what you want and then we can split up each section. August 19 at 5:37pm · Like

Nur Sharalyn Abdullah:

Yup, HD is good (: I don't mind taking the genetic and pathogenesis part! August 19 at 6:25pm · Like Unlike

Maeda Sadeghpour:

I was thinking about having a meeting sometime this week and discussing what we want done, by when it should be done and who is doing it.. if everyone's cool with that. :) August 19 at 7:23pm · Like

Post-Peer review discussion

Thanks heaps Nur! :) - Maeda Sadeghpour

I've fixed the reference, thanks for the heads-up, Maeda!. I've added the "Related Links" section so I think we are done! Yay! See you girls (:

--Nur Sharalyn Abdullah 15:50, 12 October 2011 (EST)

Took me while but I linked all the words in my section to the glossary. :) --Maeda Sadeghpour 19:34, 10 October 2011 (EST)

Good job girls- page is looking good! Sharalyn, thanks for fixing the references and glossary. See you all on thursday

--Elizabeth Blanchard 14:44, 10 October 2011 (EST)

Thanks for that Nur, one problem, reference 1 and 63 are citing the same reference. Would you be able to fix that? :) --Maeda Sadeghpour 07:00, 10 October 2011 (EST)

Hey girls, I've done the linkage for the glossary. So if you wanna add new words to the glossary, refer to the words that are already linked for the format kay? If you aren't able to do it, do tell me and i will fix it up. Have a great weekend! :) --Nur Sharalyn Abdullah 12:14, 9 October 2011 (EST)

Yup, I've fixed the references all up (: --Nur Sharalyn Abdullah 13:15, 7 October 2011 (EST)

Hey guys, good job on the intro image I really like it. Also, Nur are you still okay with fixing the references? :) --Maeda Sadeghpour 00:20, 2 October 2011 (EST)

Hey guys, I made our facebook page public because Mark said he needs to be able to access the page to show that we have had substantial discussion amongst the group. --Maeda Sadeghpour 11:19, 6 October 2011 (EST)

Also, Mark said we can delete the comments he made on the page from previous weeks so that's gone.

--Maeda Sadeghpour 11:20, 6 October 2011 (EST)

Peer Review

Group 4: Truly amazing work on this page. The balance between the images and text is phenomenal. It seems quite simple but easy to read well referenced. I like how you used tables to illustrate the epidemiology Nicely drawn images in Genetics Section. I really don’t see many things wrong with the page… It is well done.. the tables and images all speak up for the quality of the page. However, pay closer attention to the references because some of them are repeated or empty when you look at the list. Great work. --z3284061 11:55, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 4

  • Overall the project is good
  • An image could be good in the introduction
  • History and Timeline are good
  • In the History section it might be useful to have the years in bold
  • Well researched
  • Image for "Role in Transciption inhibition" needs to be fixed
  • Good table in treatment
  • Image in Pathogenesis needs copyright info
  • Good use of text/tables/images

--z3292953 11:10, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Huntington’s Disease (Group 4) Peer Review:

Introduction: Good content. Possibly include a picture to get the reader interested from the beginning.

History: Great section! Many references which shows you have done your research. Possibly make the dates bold so that they stand out more. Good use of quote. Image needs to be referenced properly and lacks a student template.

Epidemiology: Extensive! Great use of tables and explanation of the tables! Well done.

Genetics: Great detail in this section. Images are well drawn and relevant to the information. Remember to include a student template in these images.

Molecular Mechanisms and Pathogenesis: Great use of subheadings to organize the text. Image is good, just try to format the reference better and once again, include the student template.

Clinical Manifestations: Image is slightly too small as a thumbnail. Good information, however, I think this section would benefit with a table to help better organize the information.

Diagnostic Tests: Very extensive section. Good use of images, however maybe their placement needs to be more thought out. Also, delete the subheading for the video as this is irrelevant. Great use of video- stimulates the viewer!

Treatment: Table is very extensive and well done. This section is impressive! Images need to have a student template and correct referencing.

Current/ Future Research: Good information in this section. Image on right needs a label at the bottom.

Glossary: Heading needs to be to the left – it is slightly distorted by the image above it. Extensive glossary.

References: Well done, a lot of research has been done.

Overall, impressive page! --z3290808 10:43, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Huntingtons – Group 4

  • This page looks very good and highly detailed. Some of the images do not have correct referencing information and could also contain a little more of a description.
  • Excellent use of referencing. This seems highly detailed and looks like a lot of work has been done to get the page to this standard.
  • Some formatting issues such as the image in future research and in diagnostic tests headings.
  • Video of Huntington’s patient doesn’t need such a big heading, ruins the flow of the page in my opinion.
  • Timeline could give a bit more information, and the importance of these events explained better.
  • Overall was very good work of a high standard

--Z3288196 10:41, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 4:

Glossary and reference take up half the page because the glossary has terms which should probably be explained in the text instead of being an item in the glossary. The references section should also be checked, for example 56, 57,60, 69 all reference Zuccato, C, 2009. There is an excessive amount of references. Not every sentence needs to be referenced.

Title “video of Huntington’s disease patient” should probably go as a subheading not a heading coz then all of the information that should be refering to diagnostic test becomes a subheading of the video. But its a good idea to have the links to videos for extra information.

Apart from that, good assignment. Good use of pictures and written text. And tables.

z3332178 =]

Peer review:

  • intro is a bit wordy e.g polyglutamate
  • history: indent the quotes, maybe italcis too. timeline can be bolded to make it more readable.
  • epidemiology: could have verbose words simplified and explained (the ones that are not in the glossary)
  • genetics could have a picture about where the gene is located abnd also be simplified into tables.
  • the picture in pathogenesis could have alot less writing or have it simplified, spaced and bolded.
  • clinical manifestations is well written and succinct
  • picture in diagnosis could be explained better so we can see the link to HD
  • expand glossary and recheck the references

--Jasjit Walia 10:14, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 4 peer review

History: I love the idea of the quote. Is 'On Chorea' a book, article or report? Clarifying this would be nice.

Epidemiology: I like how you have elaborate on table one. I found the paragraph on Warby et al paper hard to understand. I think it may become easier to understand if you linked terminologies (like HTT and Halotypes) to the glossary, even if a particular terminology has been linked before in other sections because some readers might be just reading your section.

Clinical manifestations: It was an interesting read. :) But one suggestion ( this is what I got suggested for my section and I thought it was a good idea) is to enlarge the image so that the writing can be seen clearly. I understand that you may think that readers can click on it and see the enlarged picture but some readers may not be bothered and would prefer being able to read it on the main page. Plus, you have unlimited space and with a large image the webpage may look more interesting.

Treatment: In the clinical manifestation, the symptoms are divided into three classes: motor, cognitive and behaviour. It may be more consistant if you reorganise the classes of medication so that it falls into the three classes described in clinical manifestation. I know, this may sound like a huge task, if so, why don't you just ask the clinical manifestation person to change their classes to two, motor and psychiatric.

--z3289301 09:44, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 4 Peer Assessment

  • Good introduction: concise and easy to understand. It might be a good idea to hyperlink some words in this section with the glossary.
  • History and time line; well written and researched. I really like how you inserted one the original quotes in the text. I suggest you putting the timeline into a table so it looks better.
  • Epidemiology; Good use of tables to summarize the figures/numbers. The placement of the tables between paragraphs also break up the text nicely.
  • I strongly suggest hyperlinking words to the glossary. Makes the page more user friendly.
  • Small typo in "Hungtingtin" title in the genetics section, but that's just a minor fix up. The section was well written. Good us of student drawn images to explain the concepts. I like how the genetics was sub-sectioned into the normal and diseased parts, makes it easier to understand.
  • Other sections were also well done. Maybe include a table in the 'clinical manifestations' section. Also I'm not sure if this is beyond the scope of the course but have they been able to link the five specific features of this disease to specific genetic abnormalities or pathways that happens due to this disease? What causes these features? (This is just out of my curiosity).
  • Maybe it would look neater if the "imaging" heading was also placed on the most left hand side of the page so it aligns with other headings such as 'neuropathy'. It seems a bit messy atm. Same goes for genetic testing and prenatal diagnosis.
  • Excellent table in the treatment section. Is there a specific reason only the actions of 'Tetrabenazine' was explained below the table? if so, what are the reasons?
  • Overall, good job :)

--z3291622 09:19, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 4 Peer evaluation

  • The introduction is very informative and actually introduced most of the subheadings that will be discussed in the page. The downfall of this introduction is the failure to introduce all of the sections of and proof-reading this section it is fine.
  • The history of the disease is very well-done. The quick description or beginning of the history combined with the timeline is utilised well. Only improvement that would make it better is making the dates stand out by putting it I bold or something.
  • I can find no fault in the epidemiology. It is the best one I have seen so far. You have described the demography of the disease and the statistics of other mutations. The tables were used appropriately as well, and the fact that it was described straight after the table is perfect.
  • I like the genetics section of the page. It made sense and easy to understand. The diagrams are all relevant to the page section. Only criticism I can say is the description of the gene could probably be organised in a much simpler or better fashion, like a table, rather than just one whole sentence. Also I don’t know if it is typo or if that’s how you actually spell it, but I would just like to mention “Huntingtin gene”.
  • The pathogenesis section is very informative of the disease. Unfortunately it is very disjointed. One idea was introduced after the other and they did not really connect properly. I think as the reader I am looking for some sort of direction that leads Huntington’s, like a step by step thing.
  • I am assuming that the clinical manifestation is not yet finished, so I won’t say anything else other than change the positioning of the image to the other side because it breaks the page and it does not aid in getting the information across to your readers.
  • The diagnostic test is a bit of a disappointment. I’m pretty sure that since it is a genetic disease there is some form of genetic testing that doctors can use to diagnose the onset of the disease, unless the etiology is still under debate and not sure of, and from what I have read from your page so far it is pretty definite that mutation in a particular gene is already implicated in the disease. So I think this section could probably do a lot more research and work.
  • The video… section of your page is pointless, why isn’t this in the diagnostic section?? I think synthesizing both section is needed, as this section alone is pointless.
  • The really like the table in the treatment section it is a a very good summary. If you could add the actual effect of each drugs to the patient, it would make this table better than what it actually is. The tetrabenzaine part is a bit out of place. If you are elaborating on the entire active chemical ingredients, I believe this is a good idea.
  • I like the current and future research section of the page, as it informs the reader that the page is current and well informed about the recent endeavors on the disease. The only let down is that there is not a single research on finding a cure for the disease or looking for other treatments, which I think is one of the most popular topic on this disease. If you could add this in this section it would make this area much better. You could even add it in the treatment section.
  • Not really a big fan of the glossary, but it is good idea anyway.

--z3290841 10:23, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 4

  • Very clear introduction, seems well researched and easy to understand
  • History – good structure, my only suggestion is to put the timeline into a table and to highlight or bold the years mentioned, it’d look sweet as then.
  • I like the tables in epidemiology, same colour structure could be used for the timeline under history maybe?
  • Genetics – quite possibly the best heading on this page, I’m sure other people have mentioned this but ‘Huntington Gene’ the sub-heading is spelt wrong. Great incorporation of the student drawn image, this heading is very clear and easy to follow.
  • Image under ‘Molecular Mechanisms & Pathogenesis’ is a bit big in my opinion, maybe consider reformatting it so the text is not broken up so suddenly.
  • Image under ‘Clinical Manifestations’ could be better placed on the right hand side of the page so that there is continuity on the page, same with the other images under ‘Video of Huntington's disease patient’ and ‘Treatment’ and ‘Current/Future Research’
  • Overall a well detailed page that is easy to understand and clear in its aims.

--z3331469 06:59, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 4 Peer Review

• Great sub-heading structure, and the overall flow of the page is neat. Although, it would appear more orderly if all images were on the right hand side of the page, in alignment with the text (it looks messy otherwise).

• The introduction is very clear and to the point, I think a picture which portrays the abnormality would look good here.

• History is done really well, I loved the quote and the picture of George Huntington. The only thing in this section would be to make the dates bold or possibly even use a table.

• Nice use of tables in epidemiology, they make the information easy to read and easily accessible.

• Well described genetics component and nice incorporation of the student drawn image. I’m not sure if there’s a need to break down Huntington (misspelt as ‘Huntingtin’ in the heading) gene into more headings.

• Molecular mechanisms and pathogenesis is done well. I actually think the image is a good size, as its side-by-side to the text and clearly explains what most of the text is about.

• I think a table would be helpful in clinical manifestations. Also, the image would look better larger and on the right hand side of the page.

• Treatment section was a little overwhelming. Too much detail in the table, possibly?

• Good glossary and a vast range of references, good work thus far!

--z3289829 02:42, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review

  • Introduction does well in that it briefly addresses each of the facets of the topic that follow.
  • Relevance of each historical point in the timeline is not adequately explained.
  • Use of the table to show epidemiology is very nicely set up.
  • Epidemiology is very much at the level required, delving into specific research details.
  • You misspelled "Huntington" in "Huntingtin Gene". Really?
  • Image error in the Molecular Mechanisms section. Remaining picture is very comprehensive though.
  • Could potentially use more references in the Molecular Mechanisms section; otherwise decently referenced.
  • The Diagnostic tests aren't actually mentioned, only their significance is outlined.
  • "Neuropathology" section is not properly titled - it seems to be a subset of the Video section (which, incidentally, can probably be moved within Clinical Manifestations)
  • Medication table is very nicely set out.
  • Picture in Current/Future research (mouse/person/etc) seems irrelevant, and is not actually explained.
  • Glossary is thorough

--z3290689 00:46, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review for Group 4

  • Introduction is informative but not catchy. You need the reader to feel eager to read on the rest of the page.
  • I like the way the history has a portrait and how there is a blue box around the quote. Maybe In the timeline you should bold the dates so it looks better on the page.
  • Information found in the epidemiology is great, and the use of tables is very good. Just wanted to let yous know that whenever I read HD I always remember High Definition, a little distraction to my reading. Just wanted to make that point.
  • Information in the HTT & normal functions section seems a bit disjointed and doesn’t seem to flow well.
  • The HTT and Huntington’s disease section showed be reformatted so it is one nice flowing informative paragraph.
  • Image found in the molecular mechanisms and pathogenesis section doesn’t show. Please fix it or remove the thumb altogether. However included information in this section is informative
  • In clinical manifestations, it would be really good if you could describe how the clinical manifestations are brought about at a neurological level.
  • It’s not necessary to have a large subheading for’ Video of Huntington's disease patient’
  • Diagnostics has lots of info so formatting it so it’s spread out will be good.
  • The image of Amniocentesis seems not to have the copyright clearance for it to be modified. Please fix it.
  • Table in the treatments section is cool and massive, try to make it a bit smaller?
  • I believe if the tetrabenzine information should come first then the massive medications table it would make the treatments part look and flow better.
  • Current and future research section has information that very informative and portrays a good view on the current research arena for HD. However I don’t understand the relevance of having the brain scans in this section. Maybe have another section as a glossary which you could use for all other miscellaneous pictures.
  • Some parts of the referencing include multiple referencing, just fix that up it will make it much better
  • Overall, page is really well constructed, put a lot of work in and I’m impressed. Good word to picture ratio thus makes the page to be wanted to be read. Good work people of group 4.

--Z3291317 23:50, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 4

Introduction: Introduction is alright but could be more detailed.

History: This section is good but the timeline would be better with more information/ more detailed explanation of the points already there.

Epidemiology: This section seems too concerned with the occurrence of the HD. I think this section could use some more general epidemiological information as well.

Genetics: This section is explained clearly and done quite well. The pictures need to be bigger though.

Pathogenesis: This section is good. The image could be a tiny bit bigger and would be better if it had a caption explaining the different parts of the diagram.

Clinical manifestations: This section could be longer/more detailed. You could explain some of the symptoms. Eg.what is chorea? Also, the picture is good but needs to be much bigger.

Diagnosis: This section doesn’t seem to actually explain how HD is diagnosed. Where is the diagnosis? Also, the picture is good but needs a more detailed caption.

Treatment: This table is not very nice to read and seems a bit complicated. I think it would work better simplified and put into paragraphs.

Future research: Good pictures and text. I think the images need more explaining. Eg. where is the caudate located in the brain. Maybe arrows could show this. --z3291324 23:21, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 4

Hey, this is a nicely structured page with interesting content that is presented well. There is a nice balance of text and image

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
    • Introduction: good, to the point
    • History: Nice section, perhaps bold the years?
    • Epidemiology: I really liked this section, both visually and content wise. The table is easy to read and I liked your explanations for the HD prevalence, well done
    • Genetics: Perhaps you could have the 'CAG (cytosine-adenine-glutamine)' in the introduction when you first refer to it? Referencing is required in i'HTT and normal functions'. I really liked your subheadings, made it very easy to understand and follow
    • Pathogenesis: Image is too big, good subheadings, I suggest that if you write in purple to highlight some words, maybe you could do that for the whole page?
    • Clinical: liked the motor impairment explanations, how about explaining the cognitive and behaviour impairments as well? (it'll be worth it!)
    • Diagnosis: Nice content, but it just feels a bit too crowded, maybe rearrange the images and decrease image size
    • Treatment: Very nice section with nice images and good format!
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
    • Good balance of images and text, though some rearrangement of images would make this page look better. Very good use of subheadings to make the content more easy to digest
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
    • overall referencing was well done
  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.
  • good range of tables, images and self drawn images
  1. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
    • Nice range of references used
  2. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.
  3. 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.
  4. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
  5. 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.
  6. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines

"What would improve this project...."

  • just minor changes such as resizing some of the images, making the sections consistent in format

--z3291643 22:32, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 4:

•Formatting of the page seems well done, I like the inclusion of the quote in the history section, maybe put the timeline into a table as this would make it more visually appealing

•The file Healthy Huntingtin protein and Huntingtin gene mutated by Huntington's Disease.jpg, does not have the correct copyright information for the student drawn images

•I like the inclusion of the video, but am not sure about the subheading choice for this section. Does the video need its own separate heading?

•Good balance of text and images

•A couple of the references seem to be missing some of the information, but you have a large number of references so it looks like a lot of research has gone into this, good work so far.

--z3332183 21:26, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 4: Peer Assessment

  • Your page has a good balance of text, images and tables
  • I like that your introduction is brief and to the point
  • You history section is the best one have seen so far, it looks good and it easy to read
  • The image in the pathogenesis has no copyright information
  • In clinical manifestations are quite important I think and your section seems a little weak in comparison to the rest
  • Treatment: I'm sure the table was a lot of work but it is quite complex ad all the drug names make me a bid dizzy. May be you can shorten it to the most relevant?
  • Overall the page has a good content and it's fun to read. The diagrams and drawings are great --z3279511 17:09, 28 September 2011 (EST)

GROUP 4: Huntington's Disease

  • Intro has good summary of the disease, however the first paragraph is a little too technical, could you maybe simplify it a little so you don't lose the reader right at the start (reference 5 is missing though)
  • History is succinct and summarised well, i like the quote included, could you have gone a little further with the timeline? (maybe include some of the more recent developments), maybe the timeline could be better formatted in a table
  • Good info from a variety of sources in epidemiology, good use of tables, I like how prevalence has been compared and how the table is explained (one little thing: could you maybe find more statistics for Australia?)
  • Inheritance image needs student template added and maybe made a little bigger so detail can be seen
  • Genetics section is informative but could use an image of the gene maybe
  • Molecular Mechanisms & Pathogenesis section is well researched and good summary is provided. I like how key words have been highlighted. images need fixing (more descriptive legend is needed for the first image and what happened to the second image?
  • I don't think you need to explain what the disease is again in the clinical manifestation segment (don't want to sound repetitive), image in this section isn't very clear, I feel that this section is a tad incomplete-maybe some expansion is needed e.g. classes 2 and 3 could be expanded on more
  • I feel that diagnosis section could go further up? This section is very informative, but could be summarised a little more Some of the images in this section need better explaining, good balance of text and images in this section
  • good use of table in treatment section, however more info could be provided as to how these drugs help the disorder
  • Current/Future Research is very up to date, images here again need more description


  • it is evident that this project has been extensively researched
  • good use of subheadings and headings
  • maybe include the acronyms in the glossary and it would be good if glossary words were linked to text
  • make sure all images include the student template required and legends of some images need to be expanded (more info on what the image is about)
  • fix repetitive sentences
  • good balance of images and text, good use of tables

--z3331556 15:27, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Assessment Group 4

  • Second sentence of intro is WAY too detailed for the intro, it means very little as the disease has not yet been explained to us and is too technical – OR, keep it but explain it in a more general way.
  • What do you mean by familially or sporadical development? Define what you mean by this (intro)
  • Timeline – events need to be explained. E.g. Venezuela Project – what is this? Why is it significant? (this is needed for most of the history entries)
  • HTT and normal functions – can you explain what some of the processes are? E.g. dynactin complex, clathrin-mediated endocytosis are?
  • Calcium signalling in pathogenesis – maybe explain why the calcium signalling pathway is important?
  • The video file – make sure you write a little para about it. It has a new headings – shouldn’t it be a subheading?
  • The paragraph of ‘Imaging’ in diagnostic tests needs to be pushed so its under the pics from neuropathology
  • Tetrabenazine – I think have an intro sentence about it to highlight that this is the most commonly used one, as you only discuss it in depth (as a drug treatment) – unless you are going to add in explanations of other drugs?
  • In Current/future research, refer to the pics on the RHS if they are relevant, otherwise I think they need to go somewhere else
  • Overall comment: its good, lots of research, but even as someone who has a background in bio, we still don’t know everything about everything, so I think as you go, explain some of the more complicated processes so you can really understand what is going on.

--z3332824 11:48, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 4: Huntington’s Disease

Group 4 Peer Review

  • Good introduction, history seems adequate - although the timeline stops at 2002? Is there anything after this?
  • Nice table for epidemiology; although some terms require explaining
  • Excellent student-drawn diagrams and genetics section with a good balance between the text, bullet points and images. One image has been removed so be sure that that is re-uploaded!
  • Video section: Formatting is a bit of a pain to read when the left hand margin keeps shifting with the images being placed here. Fix this please so that it is easier to track the page with our eyes.
  • Treatment section is overwhelming, whilst some might have said that it looks great (and it really does), to suddenly be hit with such a huge table is exhausting. Perhaps shorten this section by mentioning that there is only treatment available for the symptoms, list them, and then link to an image containing the table in its entirety.
  • Current/Future research section seems a bit short.
  • Overall, it looks like an excellent project that has had a lot of thought put into it. Well done guys :)

--Leonard Tiong 10:25, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Initial thoughts, was wow! Clearly immense time and effort was put into this! Loved the structure of the headings and sub-headings.

  • Introduction: Top notch, just needs an image to complete it.
  • History: Nice use of the quote box, this section was done very well, except BOLD the years. Personally, I would have liked it more if the timeline itself was in a coloured table, no biggie.
  • Epidemiology: Add “(Australia)” After Tasmania? Or just listing countries would be better? Overall, nicely done.
  • Genetics: “Inheritance” part feels a little too short. Preferred if the image had black text over a white background. Everything else was great!
  • Molecular Mechanisms & Pathogenesis: The space between the purple words and commas could be removed. The purple colour, made me think they were hyperlinks, maybe chose either to bold or colour the words, as having both is a bit much.
  • Clinical Manifestations: The features would look better in a table, in my opinion. I like the image, very nice indeed! Good summary.
  • Diagnostic Tests: Done well, though compared to the rest of the webpage, it looks very insignificant. I suggest adding more information!
  • Video: Fix the formatting please!
  • Treatment: Nice table, informative. The “Tetrabenzine” section, the text needs some formatting, sentences are cut off to the next line for some reason, to be honest Medications and Therapies seem to be most important part, so they should maybe be expanded on?
  • Glossary: Looks good, just a few full stops missing!

--Lisa Xiao 01:24, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 4

  • Very good introduction
  • History: looks very nice, but the layout of the quote disrupts the page. I think it would be better to use bold letters, good idea though.
  • Epidemiology: nice section, useful tables
  • Genetics: good detailed content and drawings
  • Pathogenesis: do not bold words in only one section, it disrupts the whole picture, good use of sub- headings.
  • Clinical manifestations: good summary of the symptoms in the drawing, the classes and the five specific features would look better in a table, otherwise good section
  • Diagnostic tests: the video subheading needs to be fixed, really irritating. Very detailed, I would put all images to the same side
  • Treadment: mechanism of tetrabenazine inhibition image could have been done with more effort
  • Research: very nice clear section

--Z3387190 21:27, 27 September 2011 (EST)

group peer assessment

  • Introduction is well structured though image of the Huntington gene protein would be more beneficial to where I’m looking relating to genetics
  • Genetics could expand more on the inheritance and the Huntington gene
  • Role in transcription sub heading image removed
  • Diagnostic test image needs to placed in correct section and the video should be placed at the end of the section, placement of the video cause confusion of the other diagnosis tests
  • Treatment should have an introduction which introduces the drug used to manage diseases and therapies, better layout where most commonly used drug form management and therapies following the table to show alternative treatment.
  • Current/future research should have some future research and images placed have no description which research project image belongs to
  • References contain mistakes with repetitions and blanks also some done incorrectly such as reference “3” where not properly inputted on the wiki page
  • Glossary was not linked to the web page as well while reading was lost without referring to a dictionary due to no indications definition is in the glossary

z3332250 23:46, 26 September 2011 (EST)

Group 4 Peer Review

  • Punchy introduction-well done
  • Timeline under history was excellent
  • Seemed very scientific and wordy at times-a lot of detail is unnecessary; “less is more”
  • Great balance of text and images-very readable
  • Page flowed well in a logical manner
  • Diagnosis section is very well done however there seems to be too much content/focus relative to the rest of the page. Perhaps add some more to other sections or make this section more concise?
  • An extensive glossary and reference list-thorough research
  • I learnt a lot from this page so well done!
  • Overall, an impressive page. A few more things to tweak to make it excellent.

--Fleur McGregor 19:13, 26 September 2011 (EST)

Group 4 Critique

  1. • Introduction was quite good
  2. • History was good. I liked the timeline
  3. • Tables in the epidemiology were good
  4. • The genetics was clearly explained
  5. • Pathogenesis was really good. I quite liked it
  6. • Clinical manifestations is good
  7. • Diagnostic tests could be more detailed
  8. • Overall, quite a well written project. Well done. Maybe add a little more about the medications.

--Robert Klein 18:47, 24 September 2011 (EST)

Huntington's Disease

  • The intro and history look really good, I like the timeline and the quote box
  • What year was the information in the table in 'Epidemiology' sourced? Because from looking at the references, it seems to be within a 20yr period. Is this enitrely accurate to compare these?
  • What are HTT and HD halotypes (in 'Epidemiology')? You've only put 'halotypes' in the glossary, you also need to a give a brief definition within the text, not just glossary
  • Nice image in 'Genetics', lots of good easy to understand information there as well
  • You need to fix the file under 'Role in Transcription Inhibition'
  • The diagnosis section looks really good, make sure you get rid of that subheading for the video though
  • Interesting table in 'Treatment', however the section on 'Tetrabenazine' does not has complete sentences and seems a bit unnecessary. Honestly I don't really care how the drug works (ie receptors) I'm more interesting in it's implications regarding HD
  • The 'Therapies' section was good and succinct
  • Current/Future Research looks really good
  • Overall the page isn't bad, just need to confirm some details to improve it ie dates and definitions

Group 4

  • On first looking at the project it looks like there is a good text/image ratio. However an image in the introduction would work well
  • The content of the introduction is very clear and introduces the reader to the topic well
  • I really like the history section. The story makes me a little excited about the condition in a way. I am left feeling keen to know more and there is an extensive list of discoveries. There needs to be more after 2002 though. I find it difficult to believe that nothing has been found in the last 9 years.
  • The epidemiology table is a nice way of showing the data. But maybe you should put the Australian states in bold and at the top- also maybe include all of the states or Australia as a whole, not just NSW and TAS
  • There is a file in the pathogenesis that is not accessible- either get the file up or remove the link
  • The image in the pathogenesis has no copyright information
  • A couple of grammar problems in the pathogenesis that could be fixed up- full stops mid sentence for example
  • The clinical manifestations sections outlines the types of classes of manifestations but it is difficult to actually access the information on what the manifestations are. It would work well in a table with a little more detail on what the patient experiences
  • The video is put as a new subheading within diagnosis. It needs to be made into the smaller subheading because I thought diagnosis section was over but it continues underneath
  • The diagnosis section is in great detail, somewhat more detail than other sections. This is very interesting and shows that this team member worked hard on their section.
  • Good work on the project, just a little editing and formatting to make it a finished product!

Group 4

  • Nice structure of headings and subheadings, it breaks up the text and makes it a readable page. Extremely interesting topic!
  • I found the history very interesting and enjoyed the quote from Huntington.
  • maybe bold the dates in the timeline, just to make the page easy to follow. Or maybe a table could be appropriate.
  • I liked the structure of the epidemiology section and the tabulated prevalences! good work!
  • Molecular Mechanisms & Pathogenesis: unsure as to why some sentences were bolded.
  • Differential Diagnosis: very interesting I liked that you added this in.
  • Treatments table very succinct easy to understand and follow! Great!
  • Good to see that most of your references were grouped. only a few that were doubled.
  • Maybe have a continuos colour scheme for the page and type of table used.
  • Good use of tables and I like that you explained what they were about.
  • Make sure all acronyms and scientific language is in the glossary
  • good student illustrations
  • overall great ratio of text and pictures!

Group 4 Assessment

  • This might be a bit nit-picky, but for the references given throughout the wiki, there isn’t any consistency. The [#] is sometimes right after the sentence, sometimes a space is given between the sentence and citation number, and the end of the sentence (period or comma) is sometimes before or after the reference #...
  • The information within the introduction seems to be substantial. Only suggestion would be to add a picture to add to the overall look.
  • In the history section, it was a good idea to have the single quote stand out in a colored box to itself. First time I’ve seen this. Looks professional. I question though, if all the events within the timeline are absolutely necessary…
  • Epidemiology- Both tables are well organized and look extremely professional. Good information within this section, although it might be a good idea to reference a few more not-so-common terms in the glossary, such as SNP’s and others which may not be common knowledge for all.
  • The Genetics section is well formatted with what I believe is the vital information needed in this section. Only complaint is the first picture (Inheritance Pattern…) doesn’t have the copyright information claiming that it is okay to use this image.
  • The “Key cellular pathogenic mechanisms in HD” image likewise does not have the copyright information to verify its legal usage.
  • Molecular Mechanisms and Pathogenesis section- Very well formatted and aesthetically appeasing. Why are some of the words in purple though? Are they meant to be defined the glossary, or just key points? “The Mutant Huntington gene…” file is also not on the page… Where is it?
  • Diagnostic Tests  Research – I have no complaints. These sections look immaculate.
  • In the glossary, try having a bullet list and also having the words within the wiki page to link to its definition in the glossary.
  • Some of the references are repetitive. Make sure to fix this so they all link to a single reference instead of numerous ones of the same resource.
  • Overall, good content within the page and very appealing visually. Just minor editing needs to be done I think. Good job!

--Z3391078 14:31, 27 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Assessment: Group Project 4

  • The introduction and history sections are concise and well formatted.
  • A few of the points in the timeline would be improved by containing a bit more information such as 'Mendel's work' and 'The Venezuala project'
  • The tables used in the epidemiology section are clear and highly informative.
  • The abbreviation HTT is used throughout the epidemiology section before it is stated what it means in the genetics section. This should be changed.
  • The picture related to transcription factors needs to be fixed so that it can be displayed.
  • The section entitled 'Video of Huntington's disease patient' should have a more appropriate heading to encompass the rest of the written information in that section.
  • Under the information in some of the images you have uploaded, you still need to add {{Template:2011 Student Image}}.
  • Some of the references are duplicated. They can instead be linked together using the 'multiple instances on a page' editing guidelines:
  • Overall the project is highly informative, well written and formatted.

--z3217345 21:34, 27 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3:

  • The introduction is very lengthy, some parts feel as though they would be more appropriate in other sections. The image here fits nicely with the text but it could benefit from a more descriptive legend and needs to include “----
Note - This image was originally uploaded as part of a student project and may contain inaccuracies in either description or acknowledgements. Students have been advised in writing concerning the reuse of content and may accidentally have misunderstood the original terms of use. If image reuse on this non-commercial educational site infringes your existing copyright, please contact the site editor for immediate removal.

Cite this page: Hill, M.A. (2024, May 24) Embryology 2011 Group Project 4. Retrieved from

What Links Here?
© Dr Mark Hill 2024, UNSW Embryology ISBN: 978 0 7334 2609 4 - UNSW CRICOS Provider Code No. 00098G”.
  • In the history, you begin to use the short hand “KS” without an initially stating that this is the abbreviation for “Klinefelters syndrome (KS)”. The dates that are mentioned are very detailed although it ends in 1970, were there any other breakthroughs since then? A picture of Klinefelter would be a nice touch here.
  • Epidemiology requires some proof reading as there are a couple of little mistakes and the images would have more of an impact if they were slightly larger.
  • I like how you have linked figure 1 to the non-disjunction sub-heading under aetiology. The image in this section could benefit from a coloured legend, ie. Instead of saying “Blue circles are male cells”, in a box include an actual blue circle = male cells along with the other descriptions. It also needs to be properly cited.
  • There is too much repetition between pathogenesis and aetiology, maybe discussion between these two students is needed to minimise repetition. Good hand drawn images but you need to include the student template as mentioned previously.
  • Signs and symptoms would look better in a coloured table and with more images. I don’t think it is necessary to repeat the image comparing age and intellect here.
  • Diagnosis; nice use of another form of media – a video. The abbreviation of KS in this section needs to be established first by placing KS after the first time you mention Klinefelters syndrome.
  • Management is very concise and thorough
  • Other similar defects; nice touch, it could look more appealing with the use of colour and larger images though.
  • Current research is formatted nicely and flows well

Group 4:

  • The introduction provides a great overview but remember it needs to be easy to read, even for those who have never heard of Huntington’s disease. If you explain scientific and medical terms (such as neurodegenerative and CAG trinucleotide tract) more generally/broadly, it will solve this problem.
  • History: great use of a quote and image. The timeline would look better and make it easier to read if the dates were bolded or if it were in a table. The explanations could be elaborated more such as “1900: Mendel’s work was rediscovered”. Image needs to include “{{Template:2011 Student Image}}”.
  • Epidemiology: Although you’ve stated that Venezuela and North Ireland have notably high prevalence of this disease, you haven’t stated the actual prevalence of Venezuela. You also need to re-read this section as there are a couple of mistakes eg “There seem to be an increased prevalence of Huntington's disease...” and this sentence doesn’t make sense “Two of the most well-known populations in which high prevalence of HD was notably in the state of Zulia, Venezuela and Northern Ireland”. What are HTTP haplotypes?, overall I found the explanation of the paper by Warby et al hard to understand, maybe another attempt of explaining this paper is needed by spelling out the haplotypes even more so. In saying this, the tables are formatted very nicely.
  • Genetics: Nice student drawn images but just make sure you include the student template as mentioned above. The “Huntingtin Gene” section would benefit from an image of the specific regions on the chromosome as it is hard to follow with just text.
  • Molecular mechanisms and pathogenesis: a lot to take on but is made easier to read through the use of good sub-headings and highlighted words and large image. Make sure you include the student template here as well and there is an image missing in this section though.
  • Clinical manifestations: You have mentioned 3 classes of symptoms but have only gone into detail about one of them; motor movement impairment. What happened to cognitive and behavioural explanations? Nice student drawn image, I like how it is oriented to the left to change it up a bit.
  • Diagnostic test: The table could be formatted with more colour to make it more aesthetically pleasing. I personally don’t understand including an image of another disease, i would stick to images specifically relating to HD.
  • Under neuropathogy there is a little typo “The neuropathological hallmark of Huntington’s disease is now know to be the gradual loss of spiny GABAergic...”, there could be more so i would advise to check this section again.
  • Under genetic testing there is also another little typo “However it wasn’t until the 1993 when...”
  • Treatment and future research: very well researched and I really liked the use of the table and images here, it provides great balance and flow.

--z3290815 19:05, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 4:

  • The page had a nice format that was appealing to read.
  • The structuring of the images between and beside the text was perfect because it was not too big and not too small. It was easy to view and nice to see.
  • The table for the treatment heading was nice but the last column is hard to read because the information was listed in a horizontal fashion maybe changing it and putting it into dot point form would be good.
  • The student drawn image was clear!
  • Fixing the formatting/structure of the glossary heading is needed
  • Double referencing can be seen
  • Sub heading for the video would be nice to see. The idea of including a video is quite nice.

--z3330313 19:57, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review

  • Organised well
  • Subheadings in the epidemiology section not in the centre of table
  • images in the current/future research section is disorganised
  • a lot of referencing was done and maybe not necessary
  • choice of pictures were good examples

--z3060621 21:14, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 4

*The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described. Main sections are there, Not sure if 'video of huntington's patient' should be a big heading - maybe put it in an 'external links' section?

*The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area. Content is well done and headings/sub-headings are organised well.

*Content is correctly cited and referenced. Fix up doubling of references. File:Mutant Huntingtin gene and its effects on transcription.jpg is missing. No references in therapies?

*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. Student image well done and explanation works well.

*Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities. Comprehensive research, but maybe more information in glossary as the wiki uses quite a lot of technical language.

*Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology. Any thing else on diagnosis? As mentioned by Mark, since this is a disease that presents complications after birth, more information should be added. Perhaps include some information on diagnostic tests? The imaging section in neuropathy could be added to diagnostic tests if diagnosis is possible by examining neurological changes?

*Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines. Development of wiki page has followed above guidelines, but some minor adjustments can be made.

--z3329495 21:15, 28 September 2011 (EST)

  • Intro: Content is fine, but revise some of your sentences - they are a bit long winded and hard to follow.
  • History: Looks good.
  • Epidemiology: Nice detail.
  • Genetics: Your first sentence doesn't quite make sense. That is not an adequate explanation of autosomal-dominant. Also, in case both parents have the disease, the likelihood of the offspring having the disease is still not 100% - it's 75%.

Also, are you sure there is a mutation that causes the repeat to expand? Repeats in general are susceptible to mutations, especially expansions - that is different from there being another mutation elsewhere in the genome causing the repeat to expand. More terms need to be explained in the glossary. Nice hand-drawn figure though. There's a reasonable amount of information why the disease tends to be inherited in an anticipating pattern, so you could possibly add that information.

  • Molecular Mechanisms & Pathogenesis: Nice detail. Why are some terms in bold and coloured? More terms need to be explained in the glossary.
  • Clinical Manifestations: Good.
  • Diagnostic Tests: Otherwise fine, but you could briefly mention which genetic tests can be used to diagnose the test genetically.
  • Video of Huntington's disease patient: Why is this the main heading for this section? Doesn't quite make sense. Otherwise, the section is good, I like the use of figures to break up the text.
  • Treatment: Nicely comprehensive. Rather few explanations in text form though, maybe expand on this a little bit more?
  • Current/Future Research: Your "Culling out complex traits" figure doesn't have any explanation on the project page. Also, what exactly does it contribute, but a picture? It seems a bit redundant. Otherwise, nice detail.
  • Glossary: Looks good, but some more terms still need explaining.
  • References: Needs fixing, some papers appear multiple times, and some references lead to emptiness.


Hey girls, Found a photo for the introduction. Let me know what you think/feel free to change it if you wish :)

--Elizabeth Blanchard 17:10, 1 October 2011 (EST)

Hey Liz, I posted on the fb page regarding the genetics and pathogenesis part. The student drawn image I'm okay with doing yes. So far I was thinking about doing a picture showing the autosomal dominant nature of the gene. Basically a "tree diagram" of what happens when one parent is affected and the offspring has a 50% chance of inheriting HD. But I'm okay at drawing so if someone else has something better they'd like me to draw I'm okay with it. :) Girls please check fb, bit of a crisis.


--Maeda Sadeghpour 06:00, 14 September 2011 (EST)

hey girls, i think we really need to start hurrying things along with our project. Maedeh, i know you said that peer reviews arnt getting marked, but we need to have our project FINISHED by then because after that we are only making finishing touches based on teh peer reviews. Also, are you still doing the student drawn image? Ta

--Elizabeth Blanchard 12:41, 13 September 2011 (EST)

Genetics + Pathogenesis

Yea I think so, it would make it more relative. If anyone comes across any studies just post the link here or on fb. :)

--z3290270 23:36, 24 August 2011 (EST)

Hmm, are epidemiological studies on HD? If there is, we should add. It will make our webpage more comprehensive. And I don't mind doing that section.

--Nur Sharalyn Abdullah 20:24, 23 August 2011 (EST)

Girls, do you think we need an 'Epidemiology' heading??

--Elizabeth Blanchard 17:25, 23 August 2011 (EST)

Introduction + Clinical Manifestations.

--Lisa Lee 14:42, 23 August 2011 (EST)

Current + Future Research & Diagnostic Tests.

--Elizabeth Blanchard 09:30, 22 August 2011 (EST)

Sharalyn: History & treatment

--Nur Sharalyn Abdullah 20:15, 20 August 2011 (EST)

White blood cell populations from Huntington's Disease patients

--z3290558 23:46, 17 August 2011 (EST)

Establishment of HD hybrid cell line

White blood HD.gif

Establishment of HD hybrid cell line.jpg

(A) First polar body of mature rhesus macaque oocyte was removed by gentle squeezing through a slit of zona pellucida (A-a). Staining of 1st polar body DNA (arrowhead) and oocyte DNA (arrow) (A-b). HD monkey skin cell was placed under the zona pellucida (black arrow) (A-c). Reconstructed oocyte with HD monkey skin cell (A-d; yellow arrow) was placed between two electrodes for electrofusion (A-d). (B) Day 12 hatching blastocyst derived from HD monkey hybrid embryo (B-a; arrow indicated ICM). HD monkey hybrid blastocyst outgrowth at six days after attached onto feeder cells (B-b). High magnification of selected region (inset) of the ICM outgrowth (arrowhead). HD monkey hybrid cell line (TrES1) at passage 10 (B-c). (C) G-banding analysis of TrES1. Cytogenetic analysis of TrES1 demonstrated tetraploid chromosome (84; XXXY). (D) Expression of ES-cell specific markers: Alkaline phosphatase, Oct4, SSEA4 and TRA-1-60.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

--Maeda Sadeghpour 21:30, 17 August 2011 (EST)

Large stem cell-derived neurospheres were generated from 33-week old HD hippocampus, but not WT hippocampus.

Stem cells neurospheres drived from Huntingtons Disease hippocampus.png

--Elizabeth Blanchard 15:06, 16 August 2011 (EST)

Melatonin levels in Huntington's disease patients and controls

Melatonin levels in HD patients and controls.jpg

The diurnal melatonin rise was significantly delayed in HD patients by about 01:30 h (p = 0.048). The black bar on the abscissa indicates the dark period (23:00–7:30 h).

--Nur Sharalyn Abdullah 12:21, 16 August 2011 (EST)

We decided on Huntington's Disease, I believe Nur spoke to you at the end of the class. :)

--Maeda Sadeghpour 16:44, 13 August 2011 (EST)

--Mark Hill 18:28, 11 August 2011 (EST) Your group left the lab today without notifying me of your selected group topic.

Group 4 Topic: Neural Tube Defect

Research Article:

Conway S.J., Gosnell M., Rogers R., Simmons O., Snider P., Young R. (2011), Notochordal and foregut abnormalities correlate with elevated neural crest apoptosis in Patch embryos. Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical and Molecular Teratology. doi: 10.1002/bdra.20802. Epub 2011 May 6.

Review Article:

Abdel-Hamed Z., Johnson C.A., Logan C.V. (2011), Molecular genetics and pathogenic mechanisms for the severe ciliopathies: insights into neurodevelopment and pathogenesis of neural tube defects. Molecular Neurobiology

--z3290558 02:07, 11 August 2011 (EST)

Neural Tube Defects

Review: Padmanabhan, R. (2006). Etiology, pathogenesis and prevention of neural tube defects. Congenital Anomalies, 46(2), 55-67.

Research: Joó, J. G., Beke, A., Papp, C., Tóth-Pál, E., Csaba, A., Szigeti, Z., Papp, Z. (2007). Neural tube defects in the sample of genetic counselling. Prenatal Diagnosis, 27(10), 912-21.

--z3290270 02:34, 11 August 2011 (EST)

Review: Bassuk AG, Kibar Z. Genetic basis of neural tube defects. Semin Pediatr Neurol. 2009 Sep;16(3):101-10 [1]

Research: De Marco P, Merello E, Cama A, Kibar Z, Capra V. Human neural tube defects: Genetic causes and prevention. Biofactors. 2011 Jun 14.[2]

--Nur Sharalyn Abdullah 14:24, 10 August 2011 (EST)

We are doing on neural tube defects!

--Nur Sharalyn Abdullah 13:47, 10 August 2011 (EST)

Neural Tube Defects

Article: [1] Review: [2]


  1. <pubmed>19120526</pubmed>
  2. <pubmed>18182339</pubmed>

--Elizabeth Blanchard 22:25, 9 August 2011 (EST)

Hi girls (: I actually managed to find some genetics-related articles on neural tube defects. It has something to do with folate and folate-related genes from what I have read so far. So how about it? Shall our website be based on neural tube defects? (:

--Nur Sharalyn Abdullah 08:12, 9 August 2011 (EST)

Hey girls,

So I've done a bit of research on a few of them. One of the things we need to keep in mind is that it has to relate to the learning outcomes, which I think is the embryological process, and how the genetic disorder relates to it or how its affected by it? (I tried looking it up but couldnt find it).

Here's a list of the topics I've been looking into:

Turner Syndrome: commonly known to have one missing sex chromosome, (or both) - LOTS of info on this. (only thing is, because its such a broad topic, we might have articles that contradict each other, or might not have that many embryology related new articles...?)

Klinefelter's Syndrome: the gigantic disease with the extra chromosome (XXY). there's a decent amount of info on this, but not as much as Turner.

Neural Tube defects: problems happening in the first month of baby formation because of the folate deficiency in the mother. But i'm not too sure where the genetics come into this..

Which topics have you guys been looking at? Let us know! cos we need to have some articles in 2-3days time! :)

Ye it's better to research an area instead of just one disease then, because that will give us more to talk about... especially the genetic components which Mark commented on. So I was thinking Neural Tube Defects instead. That will give us Anencephaly, Encephaloceles, Hydranencephaly, Iniencephaly and Spina bifida.  ?--Maeda Sadeghpour 01:09, 8 August 2011 (EST)

You need to think about what the genetic component will be for the disease you select. --Mark Hill 23:51, 7 August 2011 (EST)

I don't think that having 4 categories will be a problem. I actually think that it will be good to have extra stuff to talk about. Have a look at the other pages from previous years, they are very elaborated so I think it's actually a good thing to have alot of things to talk about. But anyway lets decide on something so that we can post up our articles

--Elizabeth Blanchard 22:00, 7 August 2011 (EST)

Hey! I get what you mean, Maeda. Doing 4 categories can be quite heavy. Hmm, but I was thinking, since this is going to be a wikipage and the elaboration for the 'original' wikipage for spina bifida is not very deep for the 4 categories, maybe we could leverage on this weakness and make ours more detailed? :) But if you guys think it is too much, I don't mind doing the other suggestions too! Anyway, this is just a preliminary decision. It depends on the topics that other groups have chosen too. Would it be possible for us to finalise the topic by tomorrow?

--Nur Sharalyn Abdullah 17:18, 7 August 2011 (EST)

Hello people. I was basically trying to see which diseases had the most current information available online, and cystic fibrosis seems to be very well known. Spina Bifida is very interesting as well, my only concern with it is the 4 categories it's divided into, which I thought might make it a bit more work. What do you guys think? :)

--Maeda Sadeghpour 00:25, 6 August 2011 (EST)

Hey, girls! I'm thinking of spina bifida and hydrocephalus. Cheers!

--Nur Sharalyn Abdullah 20:26, 5 August 2011 (EST)

hey guys, had a quick look and Spina bifida and Turner's Syndrome both seem to have a decent amount of information on them

--Elizabeth Blanchard 14:26, 5 August 2011 (EST)

Peer Assessments

  • Interesting but good use of a quote
  • The introductory paragraph for the “history” section could probably be cut down or eliminated altogether
  • Great inclusion of statistics in regards to epidemiology
  • Student images were excellent, well drawn and were engaging
  • Pathogenesis section could have been placed in a table just to change up the formatting
  • The video inclusion was good and relevant
  • You’re referencing needs to be tidied up; there are multiple entries from the same source that tends to clutter your reference section.

--z3332629 15:24, 22 September 2011 (EST)