From Embryology
    2017 Project Groups
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6































Mark Hill - Lab 1 page

Here is the Student Page demonstration page I showed in the Practical class.

Use this page to practice editing and don't forget to add a topic to the 2017 Group Project 6 page.

Student Page

Chicken embryo E-cad and P-cad gastrulation.png Chicken embryo E-cadherin and P-cadherin in gastrulation[1]

Search Databases

[ embryo


 2017 ANAT2341 - Timetable | Course Outline | Group Projects | Moodle | Tutorial 1 | Tutorial 2 | Tutorial 3

Labs: 1 Fertility and IVF | 2 ES Cells to Genome Editing | 3 Preimplantation and Early Implantation | 4 Reproductive Technology Revolution | 5 Cardiac and Vascular Development | 6 CRISPR-Cas9 | 7 Somitogenesis and Vertebral Malformation | 8 Organogenesis | 9 Genetic Disorders | 10 Melanocytes | 11 Stem Cells | 12 Group

Lectures: 1 Introduction | 2 Fertilization | 3 Week 1/2 | 4 Week 3 | 5 Ectoderm | 6 Placenta | 7 Mesoderm | 8 Endoderm | 9 Research Technology | 10 Cardiovascular | 11 Respiratory | 12 Neural crest | 13 Head | 14 Musculoskeletal | 15 Limb | 16 Renal | 17 Genital | 18 Endocrine | 19 Sensory | 20 Fetal | 21 Integumentary | 22 Birth | 23 Stem cells | 24 Revision

 Student Projects: 1 Cortex | 2 Kidney | 3 Heart | 4 Eye | 5 Lung | 6 Cerebellum

Peer Review

Group 1: Overall, the page is has nice structuring making it relatively easy to follow. But they are missing major topics necessary including historical discoveries, developmental signalling processes, current research and animal models. The introduction was short and concise, which provided a relevant amount of background knowledge. The anatomy and functions of the cerebral cortex could be put before the development so that it ties in with the introduction. The images and videos were relevant to the topic, which aided in understanding the content. However, labelling, adding a description and citing is necessary for images and videos which has not been done. A table would be a great feature for the timeline because right now its annoying to read and has a messy, unfinished look. References need fixing.

Group 2: The page flows very well and is easy to read. However, there is incorrect citing or no citing at all for images and texts which can trigger copyright issues, in some sections (mostly the beginning) of the page. The structure and anatomical position is extremely easy to read and comprehend, as well as the use of a table for development. Id advise to insert more images for development and the remaining sections to help the reader visualise the process instead of being overwhelmed by the information. Developmental abnormalities seem to contain information not necessarily needed. Maybe add the 5 paragraphs above "Kidney developmental abnormalities are diverse and they correspond to defects at different stages of kidney development" statement in a separate research topic. Good use of images for abnormalities though. Overall, the page is quite informative and has been researched effectively. It could be improved by slight tweaks in format aforementioned and correct referencing.

Group 3:Overall, this page had a finished feel because the page is so heavily packed with information, there are some sections that were not completed. There is however, a lot of information that may leave the reader feeling a bit overwhelmed. Some sections are also hard to understand and comprehend especially due to the heavy use of biotechnological jargon (ie. SMAD-dependent, SMAD-independent pathways, β-catenin). A terminology/glossary section would be extremely helpful for this issue. I'd advise using more images in "Abnormal Development" (ie. x-rays or physical observations of sufferers) to help the reader visualise such abnormalities. Referencing under images should be moved to the references section and should be referenced using the < ref > < / ref > if in text. Overall, there is a lot of information, some of which is not necessarily important. I'd advise to cut down, make paragraphs more simple and straight to the point, and use images to help the reader visually understand and comprehend.

Group 4: The page has an unfinished feel to it due to the lack of introduction, empty subheadings towards the end of the page and "this section is not done yet" written. Abnormalities is spelt incorrectly. Clever use of self drawn diagrams to avoid copyright issues, however I think it's better to use actual images from journals because some images are hard to understand, hard to read and don't look accurate- i was unaware the sclera, choroid and retina took up so much space in the vitreous humour. Id also advise to add images to show the developments of the embryonic eye, making it more appealing for the reader. Also adding images to the "Development of the eye components" section.

Group 5: The page is quite informative, however there are incomplete sections including the introduction and the last few topics towards the end. There is a clever use of self drawn images to avoid any copyright issues, but the lung histology image can be a bit hard to read due to the lack of contrast (the grey outline and font being a bit light to read) and the image itself is bit unclear (Is it a lateral view? cross sectional? towards the apex of the lung?). The bolding of main terms at the start of the page is a nice touch, it would work better if there was a glossary at the end of the page stating the bolded terms and their meaning. It would also be better if the rest of the page had their main terms bolded as well and added to the glossary. The movies section seemed a bit out of place and did not flow from the previous and next topics, it would be better to move them into the "developmental" topics. In the abnormal development and animal models sections, more images that correlate to each subheading would be advised to help the reader visualise the abnormalities or results instead of reading chunks of words. Such images could include x-rays, images of physical observations of sufferers, graphs and figures. Development of the lungs topics were easy to: follow, read and understand, which is extremely important. Ref 22 isn't stated properly.

  1. <pubmed>27097030</pubmed>