Difference between revisions of "Talk:2016 Group Project 3"

From Embryology
Line 79: Line 79:
  
 
Overall great work guys !
 
Overall great work guys !
 +
 +
 +
===Peer Assessment: Project 3: Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor (FGFR) Pathway===
 +
====1. The key points relating to the topic are clearly described.====
 +
The key points related to the topic are clearly described however the introduction is a little limited and further information is needed with examples.
 +
 +
====2.The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area. ====
 +
The fibroblast growth factor receptor pathway wiki does overall seem to have a very extensive list of contents, which demonstrate that the topic is divided into clear interesting sections.  This wiki has a good use of a table to demonstrate history (be it small) and subtypes of FGFR pathways.
 +
In the history section it is not clear if they first discovered FGFR in human pituitary or pig or mouse. Please be more explicit. The history table does not seem to be finished as from 1999 to present there is no information at all added. Also there is no reference to the History information and this needs to be referenced.
 +
 +
====3. Content correctly cited. ====
 +
The content is cited correctly. However as mentioned there are some sections which are not referenced at all: History, Bone Development (there is a large paragraph which says a lot of what is known but it is not referenced.
 +
Some of the references are repeated in the reference list: see below in wiki guidelines.
 +
 +
====4. The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations. ====
 +
There 2 small tables  and two diagrams which are educational.  I am very impressed that one of the members of the group re drew the first diagram. It is quite artistic but it is a bit confusing as to what each abbreviation in the figure means. If this sort of figure is added I think that some abbreviations or an explanation in the text needs  to be added to allow the reader to understand what is actually happening . If not it looks like a figure with some sort of pathway but not very clear as to what It represents.
 +
 +
====5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities. ====
 +
This is evident that the students have done a lot of research in this topic.
 +
 +
====6.Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology. ====
 +
Yes there are some headings which relate to the learning aims of embryology such as limb bud formation and bone formation. But there are some sections which are not finished at all  Kidney development, External Genitalia development, Inner Ear Development and Animal Models.
 +
 +
====7. Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki. ====
 +
It does seem that that the members of the group have had some communication and worked together well.  It does seem that they have learnt to edit a wiki, making a online quiz, making tables, adding figures and content. Well done!
 +
 +
====8. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
 +
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. ====
 +
This is a very interesting and well-researched wiki. There is still information lacking and more figures are needed as well as explanations for the figures. It is clear that a lot of effort has been carried out with the quiz, the figure that was re drawn from a publication.
 +
 +
====9. The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning. ====
 +
The key areas on this wiki have been  researched adequately. There is still information missing.
 +
 +
====10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines. ====
 +
Yes this wiki is in accordance with the guidelines. In terms of the reference list, some references have been re cited and added as new references, please see editing guidelines to avoid this- as so the reference is only listed once in the reference list and not  multiple times.
 +
  
 
==<u><font size="4.5">Comments by Group 3</font></u>==
 
==<u><font size="4.5">Comments by Group 3</font></u>==

Revision as of 07:37, 7 October 2016

Group Assessment Criteria  
Mark Hill.jpg Science Student Projects
  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.
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
  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.
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
  6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.
  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.
  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.
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.
More Information on Assessment Criteria | Science Student Projects
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.

Contents

Peer Review

Group 3 Peer Review

Positive Factors

Overall Group 3 has made a really comprehensive effort at addressing the assessment criteria so far. The flow and amount of information covered by this Group is really impressive, showing that they have begun to cover criteria 1, 2, 3 and 5. The range of tools used to convey information (tables, diagrams, the quiz) make this Group’s page a lot more engaging, particularly for a student audience (covering criteria 4). The use of in-text links to wiki pages describing certain terms is also a positive aspect, which lets the readers gain a better understanding of relevant areas of embryology (covering criteria 6).

Points for Improvement

Some improvements that could be made to this page include: the use of in-text links directly to the glossary to better aid students’ understanding of specific terms used throughout the explanations (this would better address criteria 4); using more succinct headings in some areas such as that under the ‘New and Emerging Research Into FGF’ section; and also a more extensive timeline could be used.

Overall

In conclusion, Group 3 have a lot of strengths in their work so far, particularly the volume of information they have provided that is formatted in an engaging and logical way. Only a few improvements are necessary for this Group’s project as it seems they have already begun to address most of the assessment criteria.

Group 3

You guys have made a good start on your project! I particularly liked how the headings were subdivided appropriately into smaller subheadings as it effectively broke down the FGFR pathway and made the page easy to navigate. Though you have included a short and succinct introduction, I think it should address all the sections being discussed to give the reader a better overview of your project. In addition, the use of a table to explore the timeline of research of the FGF pathway was an excellent idea but I think the text above the table could be incorporated into the table itself and a more extensive timeline could be provided.

Though it was good that you provided a brief overview of the FGFR pathway, you’ve only discussed the components of the pathway rather than the pathway itself. Furthermore, when discussing signal transduction, I think you should be more specific when explaining the process, for example when you mentioned ‘which leads to changes in gene transcription through interactions with DNA’, it causes changes in transcription in which genes and through interactions with which DNA? In saying this, it was wonderful to see the inclusion of a hand-drawn diagram which represents not only your understanding of the pathway but also aids readers understanding of the FGFR pathway.

A good overview has been provided to explain the role of FGFs in embryonic development. The only suggestion I can make is to provide explanations or full names of the abbreviations to aid understanding of the concepts explored. For example, what is ETV1 and EWSR1? By explaining what these abbreviations are the reader will gain better understanding on how they function to help maintain FGF10 expression. In terms of the section on abnormalities, a succinct and coherent introduction was provided. There was a good description of the morphological changes produced by these mutations along with the cause of these abnormalities. There isn’t much I would change in this section except for maybe explaining FGFR2 mutation.

Overall, you guys have done a fantastic job! I thought the inclusion of a quiz was particularly innovative as it makes your project interactive and thus, aids the learning process. Everything was well cited and referenced and it was wonderful to see the use of an original diagram. It was also good to see all groups members contributing to the discussion page which indicates effective communication within the team.

Group 3 Critical Assessment

A great introduction to the topic, allowing the reader to slowly transition into the more in-depth points! I particularly like how you have broken down the different constituents of the pathway such as the receptors and protein subtypes and provided a succinct table outlining their function and clinical significance before moving onto the mechanism. Although the ‘FGF Subtype’ table has proven to be effective and helpful, the table on ‘History’ does not seem to be thorough and is very limited. Possibly extending the table by researching more developments in the field of FGF Signalling could make it appear more complete.

Effort has been made to include a hand drawn image of the signalling pathway, which serves as a great source of aid in understanding how the pathway works whilst reading the text beside it. In saying that, effort should be further made to include a complete glossary and ensure terms such as ‘receptor dimerization’ ‘morphogenesis’ are broken down for the reader in order to satisfy criteria 4. This is not only seen in the ‘Signal Transduction’ section but also throughout the other sections. As you have included a fantastic image on bone development to represent the information visually, it would also be a good idea to post up images covering the other areas of embryonic development, such as kidney and inner ear development! You could even consider including short clips explaining these processes to make the page more interactive.

It is clear a decision has been made to talk about ‘Animal Models’. As well as including text on the topic, a possible option could be including a table briefly outlining which animal model has contributed to what knowledge in relation to the pathway in order to simplify the information.

A particular highlight of the Wiki page is the use of a quiz. It is great to see viewers can test their understanding of the topic towards the end and challenge themselves! For the correct option to each question a link to a supporting article or particular section of the page can be provided so the viewer can revisit the information should they have answered the question incorrectly. Overall a great use of tables, images and interactive components!

Group 3 Peer Assessment

With regards to your project I have noticed there are many forms of educational tools employed or being planned other than text, which to me is a big plus with regards to your project. The usage of the table to summarises the different FGFR sub-types is really easy to read and understand, and presents the information in a better way than you could’ve with just a wall of text. Your planned multiple choice section seems like it would be a nice addition to your page where it should help solidify the knowledge of the reader, allowing to check what they know. When doing the quiz section not only would it be good if you added explanations for the correct answers, but maybe also if possible explanations of why the other answers are wrong. There seems to be no issues with your citations given that all of them are in-text and multiple. Also the link between signal transduction, embryonic development and abnormalities is quite smooth and within context of their respective preceding parts, making the page read very well.

With regards to your usage of images, it seems mostly good and compliments the passages well, but I feel that it would benefit with adding more information to the legend, possibly by moving some of the description when clicking into the image into the legend. Also since your first image contains mainly abbreviations, maybe it would be good to collate all abbreviations and add it to the glossary such that the reader can easily refer to what the abbreviations mean.

With respect to your signal transduction section, all the components of the pathway seem to have been included, but for the most part how each factor interacts with one another has been left out. Elaborating on how each factor interacts and activates one another such as how FRS2 recruits GRB2 and SHP2, and how those events actually promote activation of RAS. I feel adding this will really improve the depth of this section, and make it less about a bunch of different components and more about how the work together in the context of their individual functions. Also I feel that the history section could be expanded on, maybe to include more time points or critical areas of discovery for the FGFR pathway.

Overall I think your project is shaping up quite well, and that with the addition of the suggestions made above, would make your project quite good. Having used many images, a table, and including the quiz has really made your page quite interactive and engaging which has really benefited your page. Also your subheadings and included passages have appeared to cover most important topics within your signalling pathway.


Group 3 Peer Assessment

Positive aspects of the project and improvements:

The group project looks terrific at the initial glance. You can clearly see all the headings and subheadings. In particular, it is great to see a range of subheadings such as “limb bud formation”, “bone development”, “kidney development”. This shows that there was a lot of research put into this project. Also by doing so you have made it clear that your project is about the Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Pathway (FGFR). The page is also very easy to navigate as well which was nice to see. It is also great to see that there is addition of tables, images, and diagrams as it kept the read a lot more interesting and captivating. This allowed you to successfully satisfy criteria 2. It is also good to see correct in text citations and references as this allowed the reader to search for additional information if interested or necessary. Although you haven’t made up any multiple choice questions it is excellent to see a MCQ section. This is a great way to test the readers’ knowledge and in turn you can reflect if you have provided accurate and sufficient information to answer these questions.

It was great to see that you added an abnormalities section and in particular different types of syndromes and disorders. This meant that you went over the minimum information required and put in extra effort to create a coherent project. This satisfied criteria 5 and thus a better project. Overall there are many positives in this report and with minor amendments such as adding information to sections such as “Apert syndrome”, “Animal models”, “Kidney development”, “external genitalia development” etc, a very articulate and well rounded project will be created.

Negative aspects of the project and improvements:

Although there are many positives in the project, there should be some amendments to the project just to ensure all bases are covered. Firstly, it would be advised to increase the amount of information to the introduction and history sections. As these sections are lacking information, the reader may not have enough information to carry on reading as their base on this topic isn’t really strong and lacks information. This can easily turn off new readers and inhibit further exploration of the topic/ project. By adding additional dates in the history section, a better overall knowledge and background of the signalling pathway can be developed which can only enhance learning.

Overall, there are not many negatives and I believe as a reader your project was a great example of progress so far and with the aforementioned minor tweaks, your group is well on their way to achieving extremely high marks.


Group 3 Peer Assessment

Positive Assessment

Wow this is a very professional looking page and one that I was immediately drawn to. The introduction is very clear and simple and I was able to understand the basic of FGFR straight away which made it so much easier for me to try to understand the rest of the information. I absolutely love the use of the tables to introduce the sub-types of FGFR as this is so much easier to read than blobs of information. The dot points are concise and to the point and introduce each sub-type along with its abnormality.

The signal transduction in any signalling pathway is probably the most confusing and hard to understand part. However this part of your project is my favourite and I was surprised as to how quickly I managed to understand the molecular mechanisms of FGFR. The hand drawn diagram is amazing and really clearly displays all the key elements in play for FGFR. What I really like about your page is that it is really user and student friendly. It really invites learning and encourages it. The use of a quiz is a great example of this and really does allow the student to reflect on their knowledge.

Critical Assessment:

The page is absolutely amazing but in my opinion there are a few ways that it could be made even more amazing.

Sometimes the information is a bit overwhelming, in that there is too much of it. For example in the sections Limb Bud formation and Bone development, for information that complicated it would probably be better to employ the use of dot points or tables just to make the information more digestible. Although the hand drawing of the signal induction is extremely useful, I think it could be made even better by being accompanied with some specific step by step commentary which matches with the drawing. As a student this would make learning about FGFR a lot more engaging and easier.

The section on bone development although very informative could be more relevant to embryology and lastly a section outlining the treatments available for the abnormalities would be very interesting.

Overall great work guys !


Peer Assessment: Project 3: Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor (FGFR) Pathway

1. The key points relating to the topic are clearly described.

The key points related to the topic are clearly described however the introduction is a little limited and further information is needed with examples.

2.The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.

The fibroblast growth factor receptor pathway wiki does overall seem to have a very extensive list of contents, which demonstrate that the topic is divided into clear interesting sections. This wiki has a good use of a table to demonstrate history (be it small) and subtypes of FGFR pathways. In the history section it is not clear if they first discovered FGFR in human pituitary or pig or mouse. Please be more explicit. The history table does not seem to be finished as from 1999 to present there is no information at all added. Also there is no reference to the History information and this needs to be referenced.

3. Content correctly cited.

The content is cited correctly. However as mentioned there are some sections which are not referenced at all: History, Bone Development (there is a large paragraph which says a lot of what is known but it is not referenced. Some of the references are repeated in the reference list: see below in wiki guidelines.

4. The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations.

There 2 small tables and two diagrams which are educational. I am very impressed that one of the members of the group re drew the first diagram. It is quite artistic but it is a bit confusing as to what each abbreviation in the figure means. If this sort of figure is added I think that some abbreviations or an explanation in the text needs to be added to allow the reader to understand what is actually happening . If not it looks like a figure with some sort of pathway but not very clear as to what It represents.

5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.

This is evident that the students have done a lot of research in this topic.

6.Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.

Yes there are some headings which relate to the learning aims of embryology such as limb bud formation and bone formation. But there are some sections which are not finished at all Kidney development, External Genitalia development, Inner Ear Development and Animal Models.

7. Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki.

It does seem that that the members of the group have had some communication and worked together well. It does seem that they have learnt to edit a wiki, making a online quiz, making tables, adding figures and content. Well done!

====8. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement. 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. ==== This is a very interesting and well-researched wiki. There is still information lacking and more figures are needed as well as explanations for the figures. It is clear that a lot of effort has been carried out with the quiz, the figure that was re drawn from a publication.

9. The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning.

The key areas on this wiki have been researched adequately. There is still information missing.

10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.

Yes this wiki is in accordance with the guidelines. In terms of the reference list, some references have been re cited and added as new references, please see editing guidelines to avoid this- as so the reference is only listed once in the reference list and not multiple times.


Comments by Group 3

Z5015686 (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2016 (AEST) I thought looking into how prenatal cannabis exposure influences signalling during development might be interesting

Z5017002 (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2016 (AEST) Ooh cool idea, I agree that looks really interesting, there seems to be a lot of literature about its influence on brain development

Z5015544 (talk)z5015544Z5015544 (talk) Thats excellent, what about the sonic hedgehog pathway?

Z5015544 (talk)Other ideasZ5015544 (talk) WNT Signaling Pathway is another one to look at

How can we harvest stem cells from the embyro for use in later life - z5015337

Z5015544 (talk)z5015544Z5015544 (talk) Ok guys I created a couple of subheadings and provided a brief history. Make sure to use primary research articles that are peer-reviewed because I just spoke to Dr Hill and noticed he stressed that a lot.

Z5015337 (talk) I have scoured through the projects of old to get a better idea about what is expected from us for this project - Z5015337 (talk)

Z5015337 (talk)I found this giant slab of text regarding the structures of the receptors involved from a journal article and I am working through culling it down for a usable structure definition: FGF receptors and FGF signal transduction. FGFRs are modular proteins comprising 3 immunoglobulin domains (IgI, IgII and IgIII). IgI and IgII are separated by an acidic box (AD). IgII contains a heparin binding domain (HBD). The IgIII domain is followed by a unique transmembrane (TM), a juxtamembrane (JM) and a kinase domain (KD) interrupted by an interkinase domain (IKD). FGF ligands linked to heparin sulfate proteoglycan (HSPG) bind to IgII and IgIII of FGFR. This results in the dimerization and the subsequent transactivation by phosphorylation of specific tyrosine residues. The main two transduction pathways involve the phospholipase C-γ (PLCγ) and the Ras/MAP kinase. The SH2 domain of the PLCγ interacts with the phosphorylated Y766 of the activated receptor. The activated PLCγ hydrolyzes the phosphatidyl-inositol-4,5-diphosphate (PIP2) to inositol-1,4,5-triphophate (IP3) and the diacylglycerol (DAG). IP3 releases Ca2+ while DAG activates the protein kinase C-δ (PKCδ). Activated PKCδ activates Raf by phosphorylating its S338 and stimulates the downstream pathway in a Ras independent manner. The main pathway involves the interaction of the docking protein FRS2α with the amino-acid residues 407–433 (Xu et al., 1998). This protein is activated by phosphorylation on multiple tyrosine residues and subsequently interacts and activates Grb2 linked to Sos, a nucleotide exchange factor involved in the activation of Ras. Activated Ras then activates Raf which stimulates MEK which in turn phosphorylates the MAP kinase ERK. This last activated component translocates to the nucleus and phosphorylates specific transcription factors of the Ets family which in turn activate expression of specific FGF target genes. P: phosphorylation

Z5015686 (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2016 (AEST) Hey guys I've just changed our subheadings so we can better allocate something for each of us to write on this week. More then happy to change them! Just came across these while I was researching. Did everyone maybe want to put their name next to something they are able to research or chuck in new subheadings that interest them?

Z5015544 (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2016 (AEST)Hey guys, here is the link for omim. Type in the name of the gene and it will give you different articles about it: http://www.omim.org/Z5015544 (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2016 (AEST)

Z5015544 (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2016 (AEST)Things to include: Flow diagram of the FGFR pathway, 3D diagram of the FGF protein (can be hand-drawn)Z5015544 (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2016 (AEST)

Z5015544 (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2016 (AEST)Hey guys, hope you're all enjoying the break. Just thought I would let you know I've added a hand drawn diagram and a table too. If anyone finds more information about specific receptor functions in embryo development please add it to the table.Z5015544 (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2016 (AEST)

Z5015686 (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2016 (AEST) just moved this from our main page Extra Resources Useful review articles that may be worth a read through: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wdev.176/full http://www.nature.com.wwwproxy0.library.unsw.edu.au/nrd/journal/v8/n3/pdf/nrd2792.pdf http://www.sciencedirect.com.wwwproxy0.library.unsw.edu.au/science/article/pii/S0012160605006184 http://www.nature.com.wwwproxy0.library.unsw.edu.au/nrm/journal/v14/n3/full/nrm3528.html http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.wwwproxy0.library.unsw.edu.au/doi/10.1002/jcp.24649/full http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/29/14/1463.full (FGF signalling and skeletogenesis, specifically how mutations to the FGF signalling pathway may be responsible for skeletal diseases)

Z5015544 (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2016 (AEDT)Looking really good guys, I think we should try and expand beyond what has been covered in the lectures. Maybe we can look at new research involving FGF. We can also look at FGF in animals and how it affects limb development. Let me know what you guys think