Talk:2016 Group Project 1
|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 1 peer assessment
- 2.2 Group 1 Peer Review
- 2.3 Peer Review - Group 1
- 2.4 Group 1 Peer Review
- 2.5 Group 1
- 2.6 Group 1 Critical Assessment
- 2.7 Group 1 Peer Assessment
- 2.8 Group 1 – Wnt Signalling Pathway
- 2.9 Group 1 Peer Assessment
- 2.10 Peer Assessment: Project 1: WnT Signaling Pathway in skin of fetus
- 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.
- 3 Notes
|Group Assessment Criteria|
| Science Student Projects
|More Information on Assessment Criteria | Science Student Projects|
- Project does not have a clearly identifiable title.
- Tables are useful summaries of information.
- History timeline is very useful but is unreferenced.
- Pathway identification in separate subheadings very useful. The sub-heading should have been "Planar Cell Polarity pathway" rather than an acronym "PCP Pathway".
- Abnormalities associated with this pathway are well identified. I would have liked to also see links to OMIM database entries. Minor - sub-heading formatting should be consistent.
- Experimental Models was a good topic inclusion and well covered. Note Drosophila Van Gogh is VANGL1.
- Three pathway table is a good way of summarising a lot of information. Referencing?
- Minor - format a space between the acronym in brackets.
- Language seems appropriate for university level student.
- Poor balance between text and other formats of information within the project page.
- Z3439257 - 99
- Z3460148 - 55
- Z3414482 - 48
- Z3417363 - 23 (15 September 2016, 21 October 2016) only 2 blocks this is not an "ongoing contribution" to the group project.
This project contains only 3 images which is a low representation on an online project page. I had mentioned in several assessments and also from the peer review process that there should be a balance between text and visual elements.
A quick PMC Image search - Wnt Signaling shows over 9,000 available images, of which about 50% cannot be reused and another 50% are probably too specific. this still leaves over 2,000 images related to Wnt.
Diagram of Wnt/β-catenin signalling pathway Z3414482 student image - no source cited for the original information which this drawing is based.
Diagram of PCP pathway leading to gastrulation in embryonic development Z3460148 student image - no source cited for the original information which this drawing is based.
Wnt calcium ion signalling pathway and its main components. Z3439257 student image - sources cited student template included.
- Z3417363 - no media contribution.
Group 1 peer assessment
Overall, you guys have done a great job on the research. Its really comprehensive and seems to cover all the important aspects of the topic. There are some incomplete topics which I’m sure when completed will prove to be a great source of information.
There are a few areas which can be improved. There isn’t much of an introduction to the topic. I think there should be some sort of introduction in layman terms on what your topic is about before diving into the semantics of the Wnt signalling pathway. Another aspect that can be touched upon is a little background on the discovery of the Wnt signalling pathway just for interest. You could also include a little detail on some of the important molecules involved, for example beta catenin, APC, etc. Some of the abbreviations have not been included for example: TCF/LEF family, SWI/SNF complex. The full forms should be written first and the abbreviated forms used thereafter. An easier, professional and more organised way to reference could be to include all the references in the end with footnoting and appropriate in text referencing. Normally, using bullet points is a lot clearer but in areas like the introduction, conclusion it would be ideal to use paragraphs instead. The use of diagrams to explain the Wnt signalling pathway is a good idea as well and there are some great images online. It makes it easier to understand the concept. Another thing I noticed was the formatting for each student was different. The formatting, use of headings, use of bullet points or use of paragraphs should be consistent throughout the page. For example: The Wnt-Calcium Ion pathway has paragraphs and is structure as all points under various articles, but the previous subheading is in bullet points and is quite vague with less detail. The non canonical pathway studies can be elaborated slightly more. This is quite an interesting topic and has a lot of potential for discussion as well as there isn’t much research done on it.
in Conclusion, this topic seems very interesting and you guys are off to a great start. I’m sure taking all these and the other peer review points into consideration will help you to produce an enlightening resource for this topic.
Group 1 Peer Review
Great job on all the content you’ve produced as a group so far. It’s clear you guys have done a lot of research into the topic and you’ve identified key aspects of Wnt signalling. The information you have is all relevant, everything is referenced, and all your abbreviations are defined. It’s really good that you have included some specific studies and explained the findings and what they discovered about Wnt signalling. It’s great you’ve also started to look into the abnormalities so if you put some more info into that I think it presents a really interesting topic for the reader to read about.
The first things I would point out is mostly for the structure/layout of your page. Make sure you use the correct wiki formatting so the page looks uniform and clean. You should separate your references out from the main body of info and collate them properly at the end of the page. Also make sure that you have in-text referencing so the reader knows exactly where the information is from. And for your content, I think it would look more professional to present it in structured paragraphs instead of bullet points. I would suggest having a proper introduction paragraph so that the reader gets an immediate overview of Wnt signalling and which aspects you’ll be exploring, rather than going straight into explanation of the pathway. Also, while you do have good headings for each section I think putting in more specific subheadings will help both you and the reader to organise the information better. In terms of the info you have so far, I would just make a point that you should try and get most of the content from primary sources instead of review articles. Additionally, because you are focusing on Wnt signalling in skin development I don’t think you have enough explanation in that area. Since it’s your focal aspect then I think you should explore a lot more of the research and the related abnormalities that have been found. You could also just include some links to papers that describe Wnt signalling in other embryonic roles since you aren’t investigating those. Finally I would suggest making the page more interesting by including images, diagrams, tables, timeline, etc. so it’s not just paragraphs of text one after the other (and to fulfill the assessment criteria). But overall you guys have made great progress - I hope these comments will help you improve!
Peer Review - Group 1
You guys have done really well to accumulate a lot of relevant information so far on your wiki page which is definitely a positive for your team. In the context of criterion 1 of the assessment criteria, I am not certain that the key points are clearly described as of yet, there is just a lot of information that is not presented to the reader in a targeted manner, so this definitely needs some work. As I have stated previously the choice of content appears to be adequate to address your topic however you guys need to work on increasing the number of subheadings as well as providing an introduction as the project aims remain unclear. Content is not completely correctly referenced yet, presumably due to the fact that you guys are still making your project page up but referencing is very easy to do correctly on this wiki and I implore you to make sure it is done correctly when it is time to submit the assignment.
As I have alluded to previously, elements of teaching at a peer level were completely missing in this and these definitely need to be addressed, probably by putting entries into your glossary as well as creating a well structured introduction. It would also help if you guys drew some representations of information, such as sketches of pathways. There is certainly evidence of going above and beyond the formal learning activities, which is a major positive for your project. In the context of learning objectives of the course, you guys are addressing the aspect of embryological development but have not addressed the relevance of new technologies in the WnT Pathway.
Overall, there is a lot of potential for you guys to put out a very good wiki page if you clean up your page so that it is more coherent and insert some information that is lacking so that a relatively uneducated reader could understand the WnT signalling pathway from the wiki page. Well done!
Group 1 Peer Review
Group 1 have a clear allocation of sub topics between members of their group which is shown under the subheadings. The pathways (e.g. canonical pathway) are all described clearly, I was able to follow easily despite not having extensive knowledge on the subject. I think this could be even more improved with some diagrams or flow charts to support the written explanations. Another positive aspect of this Group’s page is how they have included information from studies under a separate heading to emphasise their findings in regards to Wnt. Moreover, there is a subsection that directly and clearly relates Wnt to the developing fetus.
Points for Improvement
Some improvements I would suggest would be: the formatting on Group 1’s page be tidied a little but since this is a draft it is still in early stages (more specifically, Group 1 could use uniform subheading sizes and uniform subsections/subtopics for each pathway described); also it would be great if the references were sorted under one heading at the bottom of the page; and a short generalised introduction could be added to inform readers of the general role of the pathway and some information about relevant molecules.
Overall the main strength of Group 1’s page is the clear explanations they have provided, which I think is really important for meeting the assessment criteria for this project. More specifically, criteria 1, 5 and 6 have been addressed so far by this Group. With a few improvements to formatting and layout this page will provide a great resource for understanding the Wnt signalling pathway.
Positive aspects of the project and suggested improvements:
Upon assessment of this project, it appears that the authors have devised a variety of subheadings related to the signalling pathway of the Wnt receptor in embryonic development which is excellent. The group has also began investigating the involvement of Wnt in numerous aspects of embryonic development such as skin formation. The use of subheadings and headings related to the Wnt receptor partially meets criteria 1 and 2 assessment. It also appears that the group has cited and referenced sources for some of the information utilised, particularly when describing the “Caronical Pathway”. This also partially meets criteria 3 for this assessment. The group has also attempted to explore abnormalities in the Wnt pathway by describing interruptions in the pathway and its relation to cancer which is very interesting. They have therefore attempted to research ideas related to this receptor that extend beyond formal teaching activities, by explaining the link between Wnt abnormalities and disease (criteria 5).
Whilst there are the positive aspects of the page, improvements can still be made to ensure that the group satisfies the first five points of the marking criteria. Firstly, although there appears to be subheadings, there only appear to be few and therefore it would be excellent to add more subheadings. Subheadings may relate to the history of the Wnt signalling pathway or even subtypes of the receptor as well as their respective functions. In addition, whilst the group appear to have cited some of their sources, it is important to cite all sources, particularly when gathering data under the “Non-canonical pathway” subheading. Although a series of articles have been referred to, it is vital that the group includes in-text citations in order for the audience to determine the source for each segment of information. A suggestion would be to investigate more examples of diseases caused by abnormalities in the Wnt signalling pathway
Negative aspects of the project and suggested improvements:
The group appeared to provide a general description of the abnormalities associated with disruption of the Wnt pathway; however they did not talk about abnormalities in the context of embryonic development. A suggestion would be to discuss Wnt abnormalities to the effect it has on embryonic development. It was also noticed that the group failed to include diagrams, tables or figures to reinforce the information. The use of diagrams would assist the audience in developing a visual understanding of the information presented and also makes the wiki page more appealing too. Therefore, a suggestion would be to use diagrams and figures. For example, a diagram of the signalling pathway would be a suggestion. It was noticed that the page appears to have no introduction or history describing the Wnt receptor. Therefore, a possible improvement would be to include a brief introduction and history at the beginning of the page as well as a few diagrams to provide the audience with an insight into what the receptor’s purpose is before exploring its function in embryonic developing.
In addition, it appears that the group has focused on the role of Wnt in skin development of the embryo only. A possible improvement would be to investigate the involvement of Wnt in other areas of embryonic development, perhaps the development of specific organ systems or other structures.
To all group members:
- More info on pathway focusing on fetus development, and which pathway it is majorly part of - focus research on those body parts
- Make your section presentable
- At least one picture per section
You guys have made significant progress on your project, managing to touch briefly on each section of your assignment. There have been some good choices of subheadings but I think some improvement can be made. For example, I think it would be useful to breakdown the general heading of ‘introduction’ into smaller subheadings so readers are made aware of what will be discussed in this section. It would also be useful to touch upon the importance of this pathway and thus, highlighting its significance in embryological development.
In terms of the content of the project, being only in the draft stage a considerable amount of editing is required. For example, there has been mention of the TCF/LEF family and though the use of this abbreviations is useful, I think it would be appropriate to initially include the full name and explain this term in brief detail. In addition, there has been discussion of the ‘canonical’ and ‘non-canonical’ pathways of WnT Signalling Pathway but you could consider discussing the significance of having these two separate pathways. Comparing and contrasting these two pathways may also assist in aiding one’s understanding of the topic.
Though it is great that you have made progress, I think more detail is required in each section, particularly in linking the effect of these pathways on embryological development. Also, greater attention needs to paid to referencing and utilisation of studies that have dissected this signalling pathway. For example, greater emphasis can be placed on studies performed on ‘embryos of Xenopus laevis’ or the in vitro experiments on mice. Instead of saying ‘a study’ or ‘another study’ acknowledge the researchers of this study as it will increase the validity of your argument while providing readers with the opportunity to refer back to these papers for more information if required or interested. More detail is also required on the effect of this pathway on skin formation. One way this could be done is by expanding on the information already provided, for example, explain how ‘WnT signalling inhibits the ectoderm’s responsiveness to FGFs’ and provide a detailed explanation of the feedback mechanism. Though your topic is focusing on ‘WnT Signalling pathway in the skin of fetus’ It would be beneficial to explore the roles of Wnt signalling in other areas of embryological development as this could provide insight into the abnormalities caused by mutations in this pathway. In terms of the ‘what can go wrong’ section, try breaking this segment into the various embryological deficiencies that can develop through disruption of the WnT pathway and try and make it relevant by providing statistics.
Overall, you guys have done a fantastic job! It was good to see that all group members had contributed to the project. The main thing that requires improvement is the lack of detail. Through editing and inclusion of appropriate references and citations you can significantly improve the quality of your work. It would be useful to add some diagrams or images to help explain the pathway. In addition, try utilising your discussion page and communicating with your other team members. By providing feedback and suggestions you can assist in efficiently producing an excellent project. I hope this helps!!
Group 1 Critical Assessment
In terms of the topic of WnT signalling pathway, the page is beginning to come together with a great amount of information. What I particularly like is how the different concepts introduced in the page have been explained, for e.g. the different WnT pathways. However the content for each pathway does not seem to be consistent. While the canonical pathway addresses the mechanism, the non-canonical one doesn’t. I would suggest constructing a table to compare the similarities and differences between the various pathways, and adding images or shorts clips with audio to represent the elements of the pathways in a different form. This would not only enhance the look of your page but also make it more interactive for the audience.
A great positive is to see links to research articles have been provided for the audience to access if they are interested to read on further. The links are short and easy to see, and direct you straight to the article on Pubmed, a reliable source. An effort has also been made to summarise the article, however the summary should be available as a simple breakdown so the audience can refer to it if they struggle to understand. The summaries include some jargon that can be further simplified.
In relation to criteria 1, the key points have definitely been highlighted and the signalling pathway has been associated with the fetal development, however to make it more interesting and satisfy criteria 5, possibly construct a table or briefly outline how WnT signalling is involved in other areas such as Type 2 Diabetes and Cancer. Furthermore, to relate the topic back to embryological development explore the pathway in other areas such as gastrulation, rather than limiting discussion to skin development.
Lastly to satisfy criteria 3, attempt to include in text citations within the paragraphs, instead of displaying references towards the end of the page. Overall, great job in gathering and highlighting key features, and backing up your information with relevant articles!
Group 1 Peer Assessment
The start you have made on your project appears to be quite decent. There seems to be a clear overview and scaffold of how your page will look and what it will discuss in the end. For the most part the usage of dot points has made understanding your points with regards to the signaling pathways (Canonical pathway section) a lot easier as opposed to having a wall of text. I would recommend possibly adopting dot points when explaining the pathway regarding the Wnt-Calcium Ion pathway to make it easier to digest. That being said though, there are areas within your wiki page that would most likely benefit from having complete paragraphs such as your sub sections labeled under the non-canonical pathway. It appears that each individual point in the sub section role appears to represent individual points that could be substantially elaborated on. In way I feel that it would make the ideas in the section less disjoint and more clear, given that writing in a paragraph format would be suitable for longer passages. Also for the part where there are there are research articles linked, and descriptions of such articles, it might be better to try integrate such ideas into other main components of your wiki page, because they seem quite out of context and out of nowhere. That being said you could also just put this under a current research heading and talk about it with respect to the current findings of the Wnt pathway.
Another main aspect that should be corrected is that in some sections, there is the assumption in your wiki page that the reader fully understands all your abbreviations. I know it sounds silly but it is probably best that your group coordinates or finds where you first use an abbreviation such as CaMKII in your non canonical pathway section and change it to the unabbreviated name, with the abbreviated name in brackets, where from there you can just use the abbreviated name. Also maybe just providing a glossary of the abbreviated terms and their unabbreviated terms at the end of your page will do as well. Also its good to keep in mind that you may have already done this for some terms, so look out for that as well.
With regards to your referencing, I see that it is quite extensive, but there seems to be a lack of in text citations. As a result, its quite hard for those who read your page to quickly find the appropriate citation with regards to the sentences or dot point being read. For the sections such as “Canonical Pathway: How it works” this isn’t too bad, as there is only one reference, but for the “Non-Canonical Pathway section” there are way too many for it to be easy to tell where the citations are associated to. So overall for this I recommend your group to use in-text citations. Also I’ve noticed that you have used a review to cite your whole “Canonical pathway: How it works” section, which for the most part most likely contains all your information you have stated, but doesn’t give credit to the specific or individual authors included in the review and also requires the reader to go and find the specific sections in the review that you have used to cite your text. It is such that it would be better to use research articles to site your individual points, maybe extracting such research articles from the review article itself.
Overall the start made on your project is appearing to take shape, where I see that there are many subheadings yet to be filled below the “Wnt-Calcium Ion pathway” section. I’m sure if your groups keep up the quality of the work, your page should turn out fine with the addition of incorporating the feedback I have provided.
Group 1 – Wnt Signalling Pathway
Positive aspects of the project include that fact that this group has included detailed information of the different WnT signaling pathways. It does seem however, that this information would perhaps be better conveyed to the audience if it were accompanied with images (either sourced from the internet or hand drawn) and/or videos/animations, as well as some information on the role of each signaling molecule/receptor subtype (perhaps in a table) just to provide a more thorough explanation of this pathway. Furthermore, this group has made a conscious decision to include a glossary, although they have not yet started this, it is going to be something the group can add to whilst finishing the project and will help the reader better understand the concepts they discuss. This group has included a large amount of references throughout their project, including a significant amount of recent primary articles, which shows the reader that their information is well researched and very current. However, the only criticism here is that they aren't appropriately formatted for the purpose of this assignment. I would suggest that in text citations would be more appropriate, so the reader can clearly identify where this specific information is from and then go directly to said source if need be.
Alternatively negative aspects of the project, which may need some revising before submitting the final version of this assignment, would be the formatting of the project as it appears relatively incomplete. Although there are some subheadings, which are helpful, it may be useful to add additional ones to these to make it a little clear for the reader. For example perhaps use a similar scaffold to the other group projects, which have included ones such as introduction, history, outline of the signaling pathway, its specific roles in embryonic development and then abnormalities specifically relating to embryonic development, as this would help break up the information better and make the projects more consistent for readers. Most of the work on this project seems to focus on explaining the signaling pathway so I assume its more the case of the group hasn’t got around to it yet, but I think more information on the role this signaling pathway specifically has in embryonic development is required, like the paragraph on early stages of skin formation, in order to tie in the assignment with what we have been learning in the labs and lectures. As mentioned I think the subheadings may need some revision, and the current ‘What can go wrong’ may be better described as ‘abnormalities’ that way you could also include a discussion of abnormalities to Wnt that specifically influence normal embryonic development, as well as still include the paragraphs on its influence on tumor cells which could perhaps be found using the ‘omim’ site searching by a receptor subtype or pathway. Also, although you have included more of a discussion of abnormalities that occur later in development, it is interesting for the reader and does go beyond our understanding from class, but the main focus probably should be on abnormalities in embryonic development.
In conclusion this project is definitely on its way to being really good, the information on the signaling pathways appears to be well research. The major criticisms were mostly focused on presentational aspects of the project like subheadings, references and the inclusion of images/tables. With some more research on its role in early embryonic development and abnormalities this will be very successful.
Group 1 Peer Assessment
Positive aspects of the project and improvements:
Upon initially glancing over the project you can clearly see a range on headings and subheadings and it is evident by these that the project is about the WnT signalling pathway in skin of fetus. This is sufficient for assessment criteria 1 and 2 as you can see the aspect of research they are targeting such as skin formation during embryonic development. Throughout the text you can see citations relating to the topic and a range of references at the end of the project. This satisfies the requirements for criteria 3 but just a small critique would be to put these references in the references section just to clear out the unnecessary area. It can also be commended that the group project goes above and beyond the curriculum of informing us about the background information of WnT signalling pathway in skin of fetus but also includes the complications and diseases arising due to abnormalities in the WnT pathway. This is excellent and satisfies the requirements for criteria 5
There can be some improvements in the project but they are not necessarily of the utmost importance. Firstly, the group can add other specific subheadings and the relevant information under them such as the history or background of the signalling pathway. This is just so the reader has a more rounded knowledge of the pathway and can increase the interest and keep them engaged. It would also be good to see in the text and not just at the end of a paragraph. Such as, in the canonical and non canonical pathway heading it would be recommended to have in text citation and not just at the end just to show the reader where the information was gathered from.
Negative aspects of the project and improvements:
Although the project has a fair amount of positives there are some areas that are lacking. Firstly, the report requires additional information in each section and how this information can be linked to pathways in embryological development. It would also be recommended to put in diagrams, images, tables etc. This would engage the reader and make the read more interesting since at the moment there are no images or tables. Also doing so will satisfy one aspect of criteria 2. This way the audience can develop a visual understanding of the topic. It would be advisable to put tables in the history section in the form of relevant dates/years and the information corresponding to the year.
Also, it would be good to see the role of WnT signalling pathway in something other than skin, for eg: an organ or tissue or cell. This would aid in achieving a higher mark for criteria 5 as you go above the required information. Overall it was great to see all group members contributing to the project but minor edits such as citations, images, tables, and adding additional information to sections would really captivate the reader and make it an enjoyable read.
Peer Assessment: Project 1: WnT Signaling Pathway in skin of fetus
1. The key points relating to the topic are clearly described
There are headings for key points but the information for these key points has not been added so far.
2.The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
The WnT Signaling pathway wiki does have a list of contents, which demonstrate that the topic is divided into different section. However it is clear some thought has gone into this. However this is not finished, there are not tables, diagrams, graphs and a lot of work is needed. There are sub headings but there is no clear concise information under these headings. There is no introduction on what the topic is about and this makes the reader a little confused. There are a lot of parts missing and not filled out.
3. Content correctly cited.
The content is not cited correctly. There is a reference section but there are no publications that have been cited listed.
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 are no graphs, diagrams or tables and these clearly will help the reader have a better understanding of what the wiki is about. There does not seem to be any examples or explanations that show the students own innovation.
5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
This is somewhat evident but there is not enough clear information and it makes it difficult for the reader to follow the topic.
6.Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.
There is a section on foetus skin formation and this will be interesting to read however it is still not finished. Figures and diagrams would aid a lot to visualize this section.
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.
Each section has been divided amongst the group but it seems that the members of the group have not really communicated or finished their own sections. This is not clear at all. The Wiki has a lot of room for improvement, the group needs to meet and decide who will do which section, the participants of the group need to find review publications and summarise this information for each section. Also it is a good idea to see how these projects were edited in the previous years and this will help with the layout.
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 not demonstrated and it seems that the key areas have not yet been researched adequately. There is still a lot of information missing and the overall flow of this wiki is muddled.
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 set up but there is no clear and adequate information that is correctly cited at all. It is a very poor effort thus far in terms of group research.
10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.
This still has not been achieved at all. There is no editing and it seems the group has put little effort in this project.
Just trying to simplify and understand the process and these are some of my notes !(z3417363)
The inactive Wnt Pathway In a normal cell:
In most normal cells the Wnt pathway is inactive. In the cytosol , the destruction complex is formed from the proteins beta catenin, GSK3 beta, Axin,APC, Ck1-alpha. The ubiquitin ligase beta TRCP is able to bind to beta catenin and transfer short ubiquitin peptides to beta-catenin. In other words the beta-catenin is phosphorolated and this beta catenin can then bound and be by a complex of protease (proteasome) . Thus a low level of cellular beta catenin is achieved. Therefore no beta catenin reaches the nucleus and the transcription factor of the TCF LEF family along with other proteins (groucho) binds to DNA and inhibits gene expression. So essentially when WnT is inactive, beta canenin is destroyed and does not reach nucleus and transcription is inhibited.
The Active Wnt Pathway in a normal cell.
Extracellular(outside cell) Wnt binds with the membrane receptor frizzled (FZD). The wnt pathway is activated and activates the cytosolic protein "dishevelled"(DSH) which induces dissociation of the protein destruction complex. Because the protein complex is destroyed beta- catenin is no longer modified by unbiquitin peptides/phosporolated and is not destroyed. Since the supply of beta catenin continues the level of beta catenin rises, first in the cytosol and later in the nucleus. Once the beta catenin reaches the nuclue it binds to the TCF LEF transcription factor which changes them from a transcriptional repressor into an activator. TCF itself activates an RNA polymerase which induces gene transcription. So essentially WnT starts gene transcription by allowing beta catenin to reach the nucleus.
This is actually very similar to a tumour cell where the mutation of the protein complex also inhibits the destruction of beta catenin and allows it to grow in quantity and reach the nucleus and start gene expression. However this is not uncontrolled and can be compared to a car travelling with no brakes. Ultimately this abnormal proliferation leads to malignant adenocarcinoma (cancer).
Use pubmed, biomedcentral journals==you can find it on pubmed just plug in the title and you will get the pubmed number>BMC developmental biology journal, journal of cell biology(cant use last 6months of research), proceeding national academy of science(can only use after 6months), public library of science omim
include research labs, animations use the help tab where the terminlogy came from this is a student drawn image , based upon and give the reference
GROUP 1 A great start to this group project has been made, with a substantial amount of textual information. No images have been included, limiting the visual engagement of the readers. The signalling pathways discussed extensively in the text would be easier to understand if images as well as diagrams and flowcharts were included. These flowcharts could summarise the processes in the Canonical and non-canonical pathways, as well as the Planar cell polarity pathway, the PCP pathway and the Wnt Calcium pathway. Since a range of pathways are described in this web page, it is essential that diagrams are included to simplify these, allowing the audience to consolidate their knowledge of these processes. Another addition could be short movies that would aid in the visualisation of these processes. Student drawn images should also be included to reflect the depth of knowledge of the individuals producing this web page. An interesting and potentially humorous image could also be included at the beginning of the web page to attract the reader’s attention and add interest to the page. One of the criteria to be fulfilled is that 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. Hence, making these additions to the page would satisfy this criteria.
An extensive list of references have been included throughout the paper. However, no in text referencing has been carried out. For example, at the end of Caroline’s sections, references including PMIDs have been included, but the lack of in text referencing means that the specific papers used for each piece of information can not be easily identified by the reader for further reading. Other members of the group have also placed their references at the end of their respective sections, rather than using in-text referencing. Compiling all the references at the end, after in-text referencing has been completed, will improve the cohesiveness of the paper, rather than having a separate list of references for each section. This would also improve the organisation and aestheticism of the page. One member of the group has commented “I’m not sure how to reference things that aren’t from pubmed” on the page. The solution to this problem would be to either ask fellow group members and colleagues from the class, or to ask Dr Hill as to how he would like these references to be made, ie. which style of referencing he would prefer. Other good resources such as OMIM have been identified, which is commended, and looking in places other than PubMed will create an extensive reference list and a range of information from various sources. This would fulfill the criteria that the page should demonstrate that the group has researched adequately on the topic.
Subheadings have been included, organising the web page well. Names of the group members should be removed from subheadings when possible as these are visually distracting and unnecessary. Some subheadings also have not been formatted correctly, such as the “===What can go wrong?===” subheading, which needs to be fixed so that it is formatted in a similar manner to the other headings. More coherent formatting could also created in combining Tony’s “Abnormalities” and Arsalan’s “What can go wrong” sections. Many subheadings need completion with more information, including the “WnT-Calcium Ion Pathway - Tony”. In this section, the dot points “abnormalities”, “main components” and “functions” dot points should be made into subheadings and completed. The “Studies” section should also be elaborated on with more textual information, including specific researchers and dates. This section could be developed into a timeline of the history of the research associated with WnT signalling pathways, presenting this information in an accessible and interesting manner. A wide range of research has taken place, evident in the extensive list of references at the bottom of this section. This section can be enhanced by referencing other studies more specifically by naming the scientists involved, and when this research was carried out. This would be better than referring to research as “a study”. Ensure in-text referencing is carried out effectively in this section so the readers are able to easily find these research papers should they require more information.
The “Things to do/reference” list at the top of the web page should be resolved as soon as possible so that these notes can be removed from the top of the web page so that the page can begin with relevant information. The comments and dates at the top of the web page shows a progression of this project over time as well as group communication, which is commended. The glossary section should also be developed at the bottom of the page to contain definitions for words like glycolipoproteins, the TCF/LEF family, abbreviations like CaMKII, Osteoprogenitor markers such as Alp, Opn, Ocn and Bsp in Tony’s sections and other terminology that may require a brief description to provide the readers with a more comprehensive understanding. Overall, this web page is developing well, but there are still many areas for improvement.
GROUP 1 Through reading through and analysing group 1’s project it is starkly clear they have managed to relay some excellent information and present it in quite an easily digestible manner. That said though, there are some things which they could improve upon as well. I shall be dissecting what they have done well and what they could improve upon. The information they have regarding signalling pathways of the Wnt receptor in embryonic development is complex and intricate so they have done well by creating subheadings to more easily navigate the vastness of information displayed. This relates directly to criteria 2 in the “Group Assessment Criteria”. However, as seen in the criteria there are also other techniques such as diagrams, tables, graphs which could be employed to further add upon the excellence of this project. Moving onto criteria 3 we can see that there has been some referencing and citing, however it was hard to find and not clearly written. The part that was well referenced was under the “Non-Canonical Pathway – Caroline”. It’s starkly clear to me that these group members have truly gone beyond the formal teaching activities, as described in criteria 5, and have done some significant research exploring the abnormalities associated with the Wnt pathway be describing the interruptions in the pathway and its relation to cancer.
Group 1 Peer Review
Good job to Group 1 for putting together what they have so far. It is evident that they have appropriately delegated various sections of the pathway to different people, and each member has put in a good amount of time and effort into this project.
The various signalling pathways: Canonical pathway, Non-Canonical pathway and the WnT-Calcium Ion Pathway are clearly outlined and have a reasonable amount of content each. However, ‘Non-Canonical Pathway’ differs from the other two, as it contains subheadings such as Pathways, Role and Studies. I suggest that there should be a consistency between the three pathways – that is, add the same subheadings for the other two. This refines the project as it makes them easier to understand and compare. In addition, more information should be added on how the pathway is involved in the process of embryology.
Reading through the project and having very limited knowledge of the WnT signalling pathway made it difficult to understand majority of the content. I think it would be very beneficial if a brief introduction of the pathway was added at the beginning of the project, so students like me could grasp some understanding before delving into heavy research. In addition, seeing as the glossary is blank at the moment, it would be very helpful if the definitions of medical jargon such as ‘Gaq/11’, ‘PIP2’ and ‘IP3’ was added. This would definitely aid in my understanding of the components of the pathway.
The references are placed at the end of each signalling pathway, which I understand is helpful because it shows what articles the student used to gain the content. However, a complete reference list at the bottom of the page is standard, and would also make the page look cleaner. A positive aspect of the project is how well researched and clearly presented the research is. I suggest this group add in pictures as visual aid to support the content. It can be a picture of the pathway/s, a timeline of the history, or anything related to how the pathway is involved in embryology. Extra subheadings such as ‘History’ and ‘Current research’ would also be beneficial.
Overall, I think Group 1 has done a great job so far. Once pictures and extra content is added, their project will be even better. All group members have contributed to the project and the information is relevant and neatly displayed.
Group 1 Peer review
This group has covered a substantial amount of content however the beginning of the article requires an introductory paragraph which outlines the basics of WnT signaling, this will prove to be useful for readers with little knowledge of the process and provide a good framework for the rest of the article. In regards to their referencing they have begun to compile a reference list which is an excellent start however they are lacking in text citation as well as numbering of their list.
The group has made a good selection of sub-headings covering the content thoroughly however some of the coding for the headings has not been added properly, “===what can go wrong? ===” which is not a big problem but should be attended to. As well as this the formatting of the headings should be fixed so that they each fall under the correct numbering in the table of contents, examples of this can be found in previous years projects.
This report has a good start however requires further information and media, especially diagrams, tables and student made figures. Specifically since they are describing pathways (non-canonical, PCP etc) and their subdivision, flowcharts will be especially useful when explaining each step to audiences and also a good opportunity to include their own student made figures. These media additions will help strengthen not only the means of information delivery but also aid in keeping readers engaged and presenting them with an alternative perspective on written concepts.
Overall group 1 has made a good effort to begin their project and compiling information on WnT signaling however there are some small aspects which need to be touched up.
Firstly, a proper introduction to the Wnt pathway and its various roles in the developing embryo should be added to the page. Even though the page is focusing on Wnt signalling in fetal skin development I still think the other contributions of Wnt signalling need to be at least mentioned in the intro. Mark also suggested adding a table to show the origins of the pathway and how our knowledge about Wnt signaling has evolved.
The page contains appropriate headings and subheadings to address the different mechanisms of Wnt signalling (canonical, non-canonical and non-canonical Wnt/Ca2+ pathway). The main points for each of these pathways are up on the page which is good. Clearly, these signalling mechanisms are quite complex and adding images could help the reader to visualise how the key molecules in this pathway interact with other molecules to induce downstream effects. But otherwise, the detail in the canonical pathway is adequate for students to understand.
The references included in each section of the page is evidence of research done to support the content on the page. The page also includes up to date information to reflect current research in this area. This information should be integrated into some sort of discussion to show how this contributes to knowledge about the signalling pathway affects developmental events. Also, the references need to be cited correctly which I am sure you guys are aware of and will do.
Don’t forget the topic is ‘Signalling in Development’, therefore the focus should be on Wnt signalling in the developing embryo.
Overall, Group 1 has made good progress. Keep it up!
GP1 peer review
Things are worth to be learnt: - To do list, clear process that need to be done (but seems only one thing, good beginning. -Small summary of each article used ( in "WnT-Calcium Ion Pathway" part) . -Clear point form
Things needed to be improved: - Do not use real names in the page and should be replaced by Zpass, but you guys showed the work divisions. - References part is messy, more detail could be found in editing links. - Add pictures, pictures are easier way to understand the topic. -Table could be used for "WnT-Calcium Ion Pathway" part. -Introduction is missing.
Overall, this group had done quite a lot, the three pathways of this signalling, only needs more formatting, also the to do list actually should be in discussion page, but good. Looking forward for the final product.
Group 1 Peer Assessment
Very good job so far with great content covering the significant aspects of Wnt signalling. The information regarding the subheadings are all relevant and correctly referenced as they should be. Though the content is great, I think the introduction is quite lacking compared to the rest. A little more background and overall knowledge would’ve made it a lot easier to understand for the reader. There are some diagrams utilised that delineate a clearer understanding, however, I still think more detail is required in a lot more sections such as the embryonic development. Also, with regards to the embryonic development, it may be better to include other embryonic areas in order to holistically cover the Wnt signalling and its significance to embryology. Understandably, there are certain areas that need to be improved such as better descriptions for subheadings. Overall, the group project does seem to be making great progress with the only real improvement required being extra detail, so good job!