Difference between revisions of "User:Z5178463"

From Embryology
Line 95: Line 95:
{| border='0px'
{| border='0px'
| valign="bottom"|<html5media height="720" width="560">File:Heart_folding_001.mp4</html5media>
| valign="bottom"|{{<html5media height="720" width="560">File:Heart_folding_001.mp4</html5media>}}

Revision as of 15:23, 13 October 2017

Peer Reviews

Group 1(Cerebral Cortex)

Overall, the page has a good structure and flow with good headings and subheadings. The information provided was concise and easy to comprehend. The introduction provides a brief overview and sufficient background knowledge about the cerebral cortex. I like how the team thought of mentioning about the early development of the brain before narrowing it down to the cerebral cortex. However these two sections do not seem to flow well. Maybe you could have 2-3 sentences that could help ease into the development of the cerebral cortex. I really love the timeline of corticogenesis. This part has been done really well. One minor improvement that could be made is to add images under each embryonic stage instead of just the last stage to better aid the reader into understanding the development. Also, a brief description of what corticogenesis is could be included before the table. For these two sections, there were a good amount of references.

For the anatomy of the cerebral cortex, it seems a little messy and hard to understand as its written in point forms. Perhaps, the dot points could be changed to proper sentences with histological images to tie it together. For the functions of the cerebral cortex, I think you could use a table to list down the areas and then provide a brief description of the functions of that particular part. The video is a good addition to the page. These two sections are lacking citations and references.The abnormalities section was well done. However, the citations should be added within the text instead of at the top of the page. Since there are a lot of abnormalities, maybe the team could list in a few sentences about all the abnormalities that they are going to discuss to have a better start to the section. For the images that are used on this page, the images should be labelled as “figure 1” or “table 1”. Maybe, sections on the “animal models” and “current research” could be added to wrap the page up.

Group 2(Kidney)

Overall, this project page is easy to read. Most of the information provided is very concise and specific. For the anatomical position and kidney structure, do remember to add in the references in the text. Before using the short form, do include the full name. For example Thoracic 12 (T12) instead of T12. I really appreciate the timeline of development table as it provides a brief overview before moving onto the details. The section of kidney development is well done with good subheadings to help with the flow of the content. However, more images or videos can be included for better understanding. Again, for the “nephrogenesis” and “ascension” and “genes expressed” section, its lacking references. For the developmental abnormalities, maybe a subheading could be used to categorise the first few paragraphs of information as it was hard to understand the flow of the content. Since it was mentioned that “there are defects in different stages of kidney development”, the team could use this as a basis in arranging the information. Perhaps, the team could assign one abnormality for each stage of the kidney development. I think that would help the section have a better flow. The team have also stated that the information for blood supply and current research is still ongoing. For the images, some images are lacking referencing, the copyright statement and also a brief description explaining the image. This team has kept their page simple and easy to understand. With a few more added information and slight tweaks, It would be a really good page.

Group 4(Eye)

Overall the page looks neat in the arrangement of the information. Before the anatomy of the eye, maybe a short paragraph on the general information of the eye could be included to have a good introduction to the project page. For the anatomy of the eye, there is a fair amount of information and good images to support the information. If the group wants to take this section a little further, they could include histological images. For the images that were drawn, perhaps a brief description could be included. For the overview of the eye development, I really like how there was a general table foe the different weeks of development and then another following table with the carniage stages. This helped the reader to have a broad overview before narrowing down to the specifics. However, I think images re needed to understand the stages better because its hard to picture the development without any pictorial aid. Also, I think the headings and subheadings for this part may need to be modified. Maybe you can start off with “Development of the Eye”. and instead of “short overview”, you can change it to “An overview of Eye Development”. Also, all the information was taken from only one source so maybe more articles could be sourced in order to have more credibility.

For the development of the eye components, the content is sufficient and concise but more images are necessary as some parts gets a little confusing. There is a good amount of references for this section. For the congenital abnormalities, the table is a good way to present the information. However, more information about the abnormalities is needed under the description column. As for the images, I think maybe you could create another column and add the image to that row for each abnormality. This would give the table a more complete look and the section will be really good. There is also good amount of references and the images are correctly referenced and the copyright statements are included so that’s well done.

Group 5(Lung)

Overall, this page has a good arrangement of information. For the lung anatomy, histology and cardiovasculature, the content is concise and good. The images were all self drawn and a lot of effort has been put to it. Good job to the person who did it. However, for the lung anatomy, histology and cardiovasculature, there are no references at all. Also, for the lung histology, perhaps adding in histological images and referencing it when writing the text would make the section better. The developmental timeline was also very well done. I love how all the information was presented in a table and was easy to follow through. The images had their copyright statements, brief overview and proper referencing. Again, there are no references for the structure of respiratory network and its sub sections and for the developmental signalling sections. Also, the images should be labelled as figure 1 or table 1 and could be mentioned in the text where appropriate. Perhaps a glossary could benefit this page. The abnormalities section was well referenced and there was a fair amount of abnormalities covered. Maybe more images could be added.

Group 6(Cerebellum)

Overall, I think this project page is really good and well done to the team. I think the headings and subheadings flow easily and there is a good arrangement of information. There is a good amount of referencing and the images have copyright statements and brief descriptions. For the “Neural Development” subsection, instead of placing it under the anatomy of the cerebellum, I think you should move it down to the development section as it has more relevance to that. I think the Cerebellum Developmental weeks should be shifted to before the description on cerebellum development. This way, the readers can have a general idea on the development and its stages before going through he description because the description is quite content heavy and if we were to read that first, its quite confusing and hard to understand. For the key historical discoveries, maybe you could use a table with two columns where one column can be the name of the discoverer and the other column could be a brief description. The abnormalities section was done well.



FACTOR Human Embryonic Stem Cells Human Induced Pluripotent Cells
Ethical Issues
  • More ethical issues
  • Need to use a large amount of embryos during derivation as the hESCs are obtained from the inner cell mass of the blastocysts
  • Associated with invasive procedures
  • Lesser ethical issues
  • Obtained from adult cells
  • Need not be associated with invasive procedures as cells can be obtained from hair cells or blood cells
Immune Reactions
  • Cell genome not matching patient’ genome
  • Possible immune rejection against allogenic hESCs
  • Cell genome matching patient’s genome
  • Less likely immune rejection for isogenic hiPSCs
Availability of Cells
  • Only a small amount of hESCs are able to differentiate into cardiac myocytes
  • Only a small amount of hiPSCs are able to differentiate into cardiac myocytes
  • hiPSCs take a very long time for differentiation.

more edits

FACTOR Human Embryonic Stem Cells and Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells
Teratoma formations Both have tendency to form teratomas. Cardiomyocytes thus have to be highly purified. A few methods have been explored to obtain a highly purified culture of stem cells to prevent teratoma formation. The following methods include:

Mitochondrial Based Separation

  • Non-genetic approach
  • Based on the fact that cardiac myocytes that are differentiated contains a high number of mitochondria
  • Mitochondria specific fluorescent dye used to identify differentiated cardiomyocytes from non-differentiated ones. Cells then separated using flow cytometry.
  • ~ 99% purity
  • Furthur research and successful applications in stem cell experiments are required. Technological advancements and improvements are also needed for large-scale use.

Biochemical Differences between Differentiated and Undifferentiated Cardiomyocytes

  • Non-genetic approach
  • Only differentiated cardiomyocytes could survive in a glucose depleted and lactate abundant culture.
  • Simple applications compared to the mitochondrial based separation.
  • ~ 99% purity

However, because both methods do not have a 100% purity, teratomas could still be formed.

Cardiac Maturation

Ultrastructural Analysis

  • The ultrastructural features of both hESCs and hiPSCs were both phenotypically immature, that is it had an abundant amount of lipid droplets and endoplasmic reticulum, elevated glycogen content and different degrees of myofibrillar organization

Electrophysiological Properties

  • Both hESCs and hiPSCs displayed all three action potential phenotypes: nodal, atrial and ventricular-like, generally exhibiting a phenotypically immature cardiomyocytes

Contraction Properties

  • The more mature the sarcoplasmic reticulum, the better the contractile properties of the cardiomyocytes. hESCs had an immature sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR) whereas hiPSCs had a slightly more mature sarcoplasmic reticulum.

Since hESCs and hiPSCs are required to replace damaged cardiomyocytes, their obvious immaturity problem would have to be resolved before it can be utilized for transplantation or therapy.