Talk:GADD45G

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article was part of an assignment from Saint Louis University in Spring 2014 (see the course page for more details).

.

More information needed on[edit]

We would like to add information regarding: function,related diseases and interactions. Rraju2 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • The article could benefit from adding more links. For example, adding links to some of the diseases mentioned or common gene structures or functions that you talk about, etc. RegOH (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. We will add links to more pages. Rraju2 (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes the gene is referred to in all capital letters (GADD45G) and sometimes with lowercase letters (Gadd45g). I suggest choosing one notation or the other to use throughout the article because switching back and forth is a little confusing to the reader. RegOH (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, All caps is the nomenclature used for the human gene; first letter only capitalized is used for mouse and some other species. Biolprof (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! We will change to Gadd45g when we refer to the mouse and other species.Rraju2 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User: Rglastet[edit]

  • Alternating between using uppercase GADD45G and lowercase Gadd45G makes the article more difficult to understand. If you are referring to the proteins versus the gene it may be helpful to state this. Rglastet (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, we changed it to uppercase where necessary. Mjurgens369 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph under the heading "Structure and function" says "This gene...". Since the article is about the protein, maybe say something like "The gene that encodes this protein (or GADD45G)...".Rglastet (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for catching that! Changed it. Rraju2 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding links to other wikipedia pages (like p53/JNK pathway or MTK1/MEKK1 kinase) would be helpful for understanding the GADD45G protein. Rglastet (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section should either be expanded or possibly incorporated elsewhere. Rglastet (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A figure demonstrating the tissue distribution of GADD45G would be helpful if you can find or make one. Rglastet (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the suggestion. We were unable to find one that would accurately show the distribution.Rraju2 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the interactions section be reworked as a table or separate, short paragraphs? It might be helpful to know in what way GADD45G interacts with the things listed. Rglastet (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good suggestion, we expanded this because more information could be given on some of these interactions. Mjurgens369 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User: Emileemagnusen[edit]

  • The tissue distribution section could be combined with the clinical significance section since it is fairly short. If not, I think more information needs to be added to it for it to be in its own section
  • WP prefers relatively short chunks of text and future editors may expand the section when more is known, so I would differ on this suggestion.Biolprof (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any other diseases or illnesses besides cancer in which GADD45G could play a role?
  • We did not find much on clinical significance outside of cancer, but it is being further researched so it may play a role in other diseases or illness. If we find anything else we will add it to the article.Rraju2 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • History could be moved to the beginning of your article
  • We moved around the sections, so hopefully it flows better. Thank you for the suggestion!Rraju2 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interactions could be a subheading under structure and function
  • For the reason indicated above, I think this stands as a separate section.Biolprof (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how much of this you can help, but the structure and function section might seem slightly technical to the average reader in the first few paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.209.230 (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Biolprof[edit]

This article is being reviewed for this class.

  • any references cited in the text should be deleted from “Further reading.”
  • “…highly expressed in the placenta” should be moved from Structure and function section to Tissue distribution.
  • The last paragraph of the Structure and function section should be rephrased to refer to the “Xenopus homolog of GADD45G”.
  • Very nice job of adding wikilinks. You may want to check to make sure each is used only once at the first use. Cdk1 popped out at me as an exception (1st appearance in Structure and function paragraph 3, but linked near the end).
  • Add a statement that the protein is coded by a gene on chromosome 9 and delete the stub message below Further reading.

Biolprof (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the comments. We have gone through and fixed or edited what you mentioned.Rraju2 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Primary Sources[edit]

We are aware that there are many primary sources cited in this article. There are not many secondary source review articles available on this gene. We posted a question about it on this page. Rraju2 (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there. I hope that helps. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps as a consequence of using primary sources, this article has a fair amount of one-sentence or short paragraphs. In general, a more "mature" article will have paragraphs of prose that are of decent length—ones that have a sense of cohesion and flow. If we used primary sources as secondary sources, might this be article have a bit more readability? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that was helpful! We were mainly using the introductions of those articles for information. We will try making the article flow more. Thank you for your help and comments, we greatly appreciate it.Rraju2 (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Ecapelle[edit]

  • Could more wikilinks be added? Coming up with a rough list while reading, I thought maybe the following could be linked if there are good associated articles: tumor suppression, cellular stress response, Beadling, IL-2, T lymphocytes.
  • Thanks for the suggestion will do!Rraju2 (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any available pictures you have access to that show GADD45G's tissue distribution? I was thinking maybe a visualization one that showed its expression may be helpful if it is available. I really like how you have a picture of the gene at the top of your article!

Ecapelle (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • We looked for a good visualization and couldnt really come up with one. Thanks for the suggestion though!Rraju2 (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User: Jfriend2[edit]

  • Try and avoid having one sentence paragraphs, either expand them to at least three sentences or add them to a different pre-existing paragraph
  • For future editors, a table or section on the mutations and effects/diseases involving this gene might provide a more simplistic and concise way for readers to gain information

Jfriend2 (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Estephe9[edit]

  • History section is oddly worded. I found it somewhat difficult to understand.
  • You should also expand the history section - I know it's a relatively new field of study, but perhaps a more chronologically organized list of developments would better this section

Estephe9 (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from iamwillthinnes[edit]

  • I think you need a comma or something in the opening sentence, or possibly put (GADD45G) in parenthesis to let the reader know that the first text is what GADD45G stands for.
  • Who is Beadling in the history section? I think that adding the names in there is confusing because I do not know those people. Maybe edit it to not include anyone's name at all?
  • Is there any more information available about homologs?

Iamwillthinnes (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GADD45G&oldid=1199997986"