Wikipedia:Peer review/Toxin-antitoxin system/archive1
Toxin-antitoxin system[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is about a fairly newly discovered and increasingly documented prokaryotic system of enforced heritability. I would like to prepare this article for a GA nomination. Any comments and criticisms would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Jebus989✰ 11:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments - mainly on the Lead section
This should serve as a gentle introduction but it's too technical from the outset. Plasmid needs to be linked or defined and that the mechanism is a means of maintaining the presence of parasitic DNA in bacteria and their progeny—what you have described as "enforced heritability" above—made clear. (Although this is term I haven't seen before, but I have seen "plasmid addiction", which is helpful). The chromosomal versions are introduced too early and would be better placed nearer the end of the section.
- Agree: I will work on a simpler couple of opening sentences in my userspace Jebus989✰ 11:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I might help to say that their are at least three types but all rely on an unstable, short-lived antitoxin repressing a toxic protein that is more stable, and then briefly describe the types. Messenger RNA needs to be linked or defined since many readers will not understand the difference between the types where (presumably) one stops the toxin from being produced in the first place but the other inactivates it.
- Agree: it was written in a confusing way, I've changed to attempt to explain that type II sytems are post-transcriptional but have therefore added more of what could be considered technical jargon! Your points about simplifying the introduction and reducing the jargon are really useful and will be the focus of my efforts on improving this article Jebus989✰ 11:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Although you write, "The function of chromosomal toxin-antitoxin systems is still being debated", it would be interesting to have one or two theories here. Clearly, the role of this mechanism in the context of a "selfish gene" viewpoint is very attractive.
Also, the exploitation of this mechanism in biotechnology deserves a mention in the Lead.
Done: well pointed out, I have not adapted the lead since this section was added Jebus989✰ 11:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the section on evolutionary advantages would be better placed straight after the Lead section?
The article is generally well-written—and excellently referenced—but I would recommend reducing some of the technical jargon wherever possible. I think this is the major remaining issue in an otherwise excellent contribution that is worthy of GA status. Thank you for the invitation to comment on it here. Graham Colm (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)