User talk:Colieato/sandbox

TopicPeerReview1

To begin with, the introductory paragraph contains many hyperlinked words which is very helpful. Due to the complexity of XPO5 for those who are not familiar with it, the addition of the links allows for easy access in order to obtain further information. Additionally, I found that the resources you used were very reliable. The sources are from publications within the last ten years, which supports the relevance of the information. Adding at least two more sources would help to supplement some of the body paragraphs.

The current structure of the article is well organized and allows for the information to be spread out. Adding in a subtitle for “Function” would be beneficial and help to identify the importance of XPO5. You may also consider changing the last sentence of the introduction so that it keeps a neutral tone. Suggesting that something “is beneficial” could potentially be considered a perspective. With a few additional resources and further organization, your article will be a good resource for those looking to further understand the XPO5 protein. Jacmeier (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

TopicPeerReview1

This article does a good job of linking to other Wikipedia pages in the introduction and it pulls from reputable sources that are cited correctly at the bottom of the page. Additionally, this article is nicely organized, but it would be helpful to add some additional headings for XPO5, such as synthesis, structure, mechanism, function, regulation and clinical significance (if there is a clinical significance). The current headings could probably be grouped into a single heading under “Mechanism”, and then additional information could be added to help the reader better understand XPO5. This will allow the reader to have an easier time following the article. Furthermore, it would be helpful to add a figure of XPO5’s structure and mechanism. After you introduce Exportin-5 as (XPO5), you can refer to it as XPO5 for the rest of the article, you don’t need to keep saying Eportin-5 because it gets redundant. For citations, make sure you’re pulling from a wide range of scientific journals. The entire three sections of content are all cited from the same source, and your Wikipedia article currently only has three citations, which might raise a red flag when you publish your article.

Christina Le's Peer Review

Introduction
For the introduction, I think that you should initially state that the XPO5 is involved in the transport of pre-miRNA and tRNA. From there, I think you should explain its role in metazoa. This order will help readers follow the main idea easier. Also in the next line in the comparison between plants and animals, you should either refer to the animals as metazoa as you did earlier in the article or change the initial mention of metazoa to animal. I would even potentially consider changing the initial mention of the terminology to animal and in parentheses following it (metazoa) with the hyperlink. This will tie together these terms. I really liked how you mentioned the importance of the on-going research! I think it may be even a good idea to consider making a subsection in this Wikipedia page that discusses what the findings are on current therapeutic research.

Transport Mechanism
I would consider hyperlinking the "RanGTP" or "G-protein." This will make your page more accessible and understandable for someone that does not have a heavy scientific background. I also think that what you have for the mechanism is a good start, but you discuss earlier in the introduction that there have been findings of XPO5 in both plants and animals. I think that you should specify in this section if you are referring to the plant or the animal mechanism. Then you should discuss the current findings on the other, whether it be plant or animal. Also your first source discusses its reported role with transporting tRNA. This section is also a good place for you to discuss its role as well. You can use the introduction as a way to outline what you will be discussing in the subsections below.

Binding to pre-miRNA
I thought that this section was very strong and got into the nitty-gritty of the mechanism.

Export out of the nucleus
In this section, you may want to consider renaming this section to something regarding it's structure. It seems that this section focuses more on the structure of the protein, rather than its export. You could also add this information in the introduction and briefly explain how this hydrophobic nature affects its transport in under 1 sentence.
I think that you should make an overall section on this page that says "Mechanism" and include subsections within it that discusses in detail the overview, binding to pre-miRNA, and export. This methodical organization will help readers follow the main idea better.

Overall, I really like what you have going on so far and I think that you all getting into the function of XPO5 well and its relevance. I found that XPO5 has tumor suppressor features and "oncogenic" role as well. It might be a good idea to discuss some of the research on this. The article found is: PMID: 28881308 // DOI: 10.1016/j.neo.2017.07.008. This page would also benefit from some figures and I think that a diagram of the pathway XPO5 as when interacting with Ran-GTP and pre-miRNA would be helpful or a picture of the protein itself. This can be generated on programs used to model proteins in 3D on the computer. Also there are only 3 references cited from journals. A few more references should be added and consider finding information in other secondary or primary source types. Chdle (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

MLibrarian's Peer Review

I like how your hyperlink the words in introduction to other Wiki pages and how you extended this topic and have your paper organized. The initial Wiki page has a nice graphic and you might want to keep it when you publish your page. Here are couple of suggestions:

1. everywhere in the text you use abbreviation XPO5, except in the paragraph following the "XPO5 Ternary Complex Transport Mechanism" section - you use "EXPO5" there;

2. I would recommend referencing "The plant homolog of XPO5 is called HASTY;" - since you mention this concept it would be great to direct people where they can read more about HASTY - open source is always best

3. Using many "it" words makes text very confusing. I suggest rewriting the following sentence: "The plant homolog of XPO5 is called HASTY; although it is known to be required for the miRNA biogenesis pathway, its role in nuclear export is less clear than it is in animals" as "The plant homolog of XPO5 is called HASTY. HASTY is known to be required for the miRNA biogenesis pathway but its role in nuclear export is less clear than that for XPO5 in animals"

4. I suggest removing the following paragraph from Introduction "Much research on XPO5 is ongoing. miRNA in general is a prominent research topic because of its potential use as a therapeutic, with a few miRNA-based drugs already in use[2]. To develop effective therapies, more information about all aspects of miRNA’s pathway of action is beneficial." It seems out of place there but you can potentially make your last section on "Ongoing research" and place it there but obviously omitting the first sentence and changing the last sentence to "To develop effective therapies, research on miRNA’s pathway of action is conducted....." I would not recommend using word "Beneficial" - to keep up with the neutral tone

5. The first sentence in paragraph "Binding to pre-miRNA" starts with "After RanGTP..." - since this is the first time you introduce this abbreviation it shall be spelled out, referenced to some reference book or hyperlinked - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ran_(gene)

6. the paragraph "Export out of the Nucleus" starts with "It has been suggested" and there is no reference at the end of this sentence, so I cannot know who suggested it - please reference

7. Sentence "This would enhance binding capabilities of XPO5 to the nuclear pore complex, allowing for transport of the ternary complex out of the nucleus" - is it a personal opinion or a stated fact? - only facts shall be reported and then it shall be re-written as "This enhances...."

8. I would definitely recommend more references MLibrarian (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Nils' Comments

This is a good start. Keep in mind that this is an article for a broad audience, so start out with a much broader introduction to import/export into the nucleus of eukaryotic cells, and the place that the Exportin-5 has within the realm of exporters and importers. Try to build up from there in a way that you do not lose your audience, adding figures, cross-references and scientific laymen explanations as also the other reviews suggest.

Gillian's Comments

There should be a paragraph introduction that gives a definition, explains the importance, and suggests some applications. Don't forget to add subtopics and links after the beginning. There should be at least 5 references, and I would add more detail to the last section, related to export out of the nucleus. Also, please include figures and related captions.