Talk:Induced pluripotent stem-cell therapy

=Class Review=

Major concerns:
Consider re-wording the title of this article to sound more like an entry in an encyclopedia. From the title, it sounds like I’m reading an article in a newspaper or medical journal rather than an encyclopedia article. Perhaps orient the article toward what Induced Pluripotent Cells are and include a section of how they can cure diseases, or reword the title so that it is specific to Sickle Cell Anemia, which seems to be the main focus. I also noticed that the article provide heavy emphasis on Sickle Cell Anemia, more so than the curing process itself. Consider more detail on the subject of the article rather than the background information, especially how the cells are correcting the diseased blood cells. Provide more information on what is happening on a molecular level, such as how the DNA is restructured. The very first sentence of the article should be about the topic, not background information of related topics. With that said, this article needs a summary describing the basics of how the pluripotent cells cure the disease as well as a brief preview of what will be found in the article. This way, people who are reading your article can skim the summary to find out what it is about instead of perusing the entire article to find out what’s going on. I would further organize the structure of the article into several topics and subtopics; your different sections were quite long compared to those of other Wikipedia articles. There are no correct citations; you cannot merely list the URL’s of the websites that were used. There was one attempt at a citation, but it did not follow the standard of Wikipedia citation procedures. If you look at a Wikipedia article, they have superscripts after sentences/ paragraphs that contain information from an outside source. These numbers, when clicked on, will redirect you to the bottom of the page where all the citations are listed. Follow this format for citing.

username: dnov92 Dnov92 (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor Concerns:
The first paragraph of the article contains a few instances where there is an inconsistency of the idea being discussed in addition to compound sentences that are confusing to read. The second and fourth sentences both begin with "Sickle cell anemia is a" and then state different things, consider revising this. Consider revising the third and fourth sentences of the fourth paragraph by combining them in some fashion. Under the "Methodology" subtopic, sentence 2 contains the word "in" which should be "which". Sentence 8 contains the word "by" which does not belong. Under the "Results" subtopic, there are two quotes which do not have the proper citation following them. In the first paragraph of the "Conclusions and Criticisms" section, the first sentence could use revision so that it is in a logical order. In sentence 6, the word "they" should be changed to "the". In sentence 7, the quotation is not properly cited. In the final paragraph, the first sentence should specify who "they" is. All the quotations in this paragraph are not properly cited. In sentence 4 there is an unneeded "be". Consider revising the last few sentences of this paragraph in order to avoid repetition and insure coherent thought/ideas.Cschuchart (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracy or accuracy of randomly selected references:
All of the citations were done incorrectly. By listing the URL of the source used, you are not citing the source. There is one citation that is different from the others but it still done incorrectly. You should check Wikipedia's citing instructions and follow them since the way you have the work cited now could be seen as plagiarism.Cschuchart (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Summary:
This article discusses the potential benefits of induced pluripotent cells. The article begins by providing some basic information regarding sickle cell anemia and it's effects on the human body. The article next utilizes a case study performed on mice which were infected by sickle cell anemia. Through the use of the induced pluripotent cells, the mice were deemed as being cured and the experiment was said to be successful, thus proving the benefits of the iPS cells. The article concludes by examining the results of the experiment and providing further implications as to the use of the iPS cells. Cschuchart (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Summary:
The article discusses the possible use of induce pluripotent cells to cure diseases.

Major Concerns
The lead section should be read as a summary or overview of you topic. The current lead does not really sum up the article well or explain it in general terms. Instead, the current lead talks of the specific experiment about the first use of the pluripotent cells. It would help if you included a couple sentence that described what the cells are.

Reword the title so that is more concise, yet still speaks of the point of your article (i.e. Induce Pluripotent Cells). See previous review for more because the problem still remains.

It would add a lot if you discussed other diseases that this may be used for (if there are any), if not I suggest changing the title of the article because as of now, it focuses almost entirely on Sickle Cell Anemia.

The main change would be to make the article focus on how pluripotent cells are used on Sickle Cell Anemia, not on sickle cell anemia itself as it seems to be at the moment. 129.2.129.218 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC).

Team 14 Review
Summary: Induced pluripotent cells are adult cells that are treated to become unspecialized; they are being researched as a way to cure certain diseases. Sickle cell anemia is a disease that affects how red blood cells are shaped and how well hemoglobin does its job. Induced pluripotent cells were first discovered in mice through genetic engineering and are viewed as a potential future cure for diseases such as sickle cell anemia.

Major concerns:

A major concern is that the original letter of intent was “'Stem Cells Potential in Cell Replacement Therapy' An experiment was conducted on mice to treat a strand of sickle cell anemia. Can this therapy be applied to other cellular diseases such as cancer?” However, the article was focused heavily on induced pluripotent cells, which differ from stem cells (as said in the article). Also, pluripotent and induced pluripotent are used interchangeably in the article, but it isn’t clear whether or not they should be.

The article also goes too in depth on what sickle cell anemia is. The main topic of the article, at least based of the title, should be about what a pluripotent cell is and how it can be used to cure sickle cell anemia (or any other disease for that matter). However, it looks like 40% of the actual page goes in depth as to what sickle cell anemia is. While background information is definitely useful to describe possible uses of these cells, the amount of background provided is unnecessary.

A summary should be added to the beginning article that briefly talks about both the disease and the cells (pluripotent cells). While there were plenty of sources, none of them were cited in the paper (meaning no in text citations). It didn’t appear as though everything was paraphrased and direct quotations were used, so citing is important.

The second source from the wordnet website shouldn’t be a source. It’s not used during the paper, and seeing as it’s just a definition for a word used once during the article, it would be best to drop it as a source and just say what the word means in the article. Minor concerns:

The title shows that the article will describe the use of pluripotent cells to cure disease. This is only a small fraction of the paper; the title should be switched to “Use of iPS cells to cure sickle cell anemia” since that is what the main bulk of the article is talking about. In other words, the title should be switched so that it matches the information provided in the paper (or the information in the paper be switched so that it matches the title).

Some of the terminology underneath the conclusions and criticisms paragraph was rough for the reader. Either expanding on some of the ideas as to explain what they mean or using different vocabulary would be advised. For instance, “iPSCs also demonstrates high telomerase activity and express human telomerase reverse transcriptase, a necessary component in the telomerase protein complex. Also, PSC’s expressed cell surface antigenic markers expressed on ESCs. Also, doubling time and mitotic activity are cornerstones of ESCs, as stem cells must self-renew as part of their definition” should be rewritten as to make it less confusing for the reader, and terms that were not mentioned before (such as telomerase reverse transcriptase) should either be left out or explained.

Grammar could use a touch up. Certain sentences are extremely choppy, words appear in the middle of a sentence when they shouldn’t be there, use of the wrong tense etc. This is especially true during the ‘Methodology’ paragraph, and is present in others.

Dweglein (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Jpokodne (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Team 14 Review 2
On the positive side, it seems as if the citation issues have been cleared up and are much more effective in allowing the reader to determine where the information is coming from. The title is more appropriate to the content of the article, however the article is much less concerned with the use of IPCs for disease, and more specifically for only sickle cell anemia. If it exists elaborating on other experiments for other diseases, or on other test subjects, could add more credibility to the article. Anemia still makes up a significant portion of the article (About 30%) but the information is concise and doesn't seem to be overboard. I don't think treatments for sickle cell anemia outside of IPC's should be included, they don't offer any insight towards what the article is intended to convey. Near the end, concepts such as the testing of RDWs to determine the success of the experiments are mentioned, however the results of these tests are not mentioned, and elaborating would be a good idea. in the first review it was mentioned that concepts such as telomerase activity being mentioned but not explained to relate to the article, and it seems as if these problems have persisted, as it was hard to figure out why they were mentioned. Minor revisions include possibly moving the last paragraph of methodology to results, as it talks about the results of the experiment. (They examined the DNA through gel electrophoresis, checking for bands that display a sickle cell-causing allele. Also, compared to the untreated mice, which they had as a control, “the treated animals had marked increases in RBC counts, hemoglobin, and packed cell volume levels”.[4]) The paragraph on inheritance is quite confusing as it states that inheritance is both autosomal dominant, and autosomal recessive, and much of the content is worded in a way where i cannot determine if sickle cell trait and sickle cell anemia are various levels of the same trait, the same thing, or different traits corresponding to different alleles altogether.

129.2.129.223 (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to log in before the review, that was me

Gsneck (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

=Article Talk=

Requested move
Induced Pluripotent Cells Cure Disease → Induced pluripotent cell therapy – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC) This is a project for a college Bioengineering class and is peer reviewed. Many reviews felt there was a disconnect between the current title and the subject of the article. We agree with our reviewers and believe a title change will more effectively convey the topic of our article. Mahill104 (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's going in the wrong direction. Rather than broaden your scope and folding this article into induced pluripotent cell, you want to make this article hyperspecialized? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we're thinking of combining this with the induced pluripotent cell article. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say making this article "hyperspecialized". What do you suggest? Mahill104 (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You should create a redirect at that title to Induced pluripotent stem cell, Wikipedia's iPSC article. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this type of treatment standard for sickle cell anemia? Then it should be described at sickle cell anemia with mention at induced pluripotent stem cell. If it's not, then it should not be a standalone article on a single case study. The last line of the article is particularly bothering - is this article written in a neutral, detached style? Or is it meant to push a certain point of view? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, the last line of the article were unnecessary and made it somewhat of a persuasive argument, which is something we definitely do not want. The article is just meant to give a background on the case study, its connections with sickle cell anemia, and a brief explanation on how the particular case can be applied in the future. Would Sickle Cell Anemia (cure by induced pluripotent cells), as the user below me suggests, be the right direction? Mahill104 (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to Sickle cell anaemia (cure by induced pluripotent stem cells)? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to Induced pluripotent cells in treatment of sickle cell anemia, or Treatment of sickle cell anemia with induced pluripotent cells. A title containing "Cure" as a finite verb would be appropriate only if the article were about a seminal paper with that title. —Tamfang (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I proposed induced pluripotent cell therapy to the instructor of the course some time back. Haven't gotten a reply on that. If this subject is notable, I don't think it should be a case study on sickle cell anemia only. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Induced Pluripotent Cell Therapy is a more suitable title and we will probably just go with that. Should we even attempt to re-title the article at this point, or just delete this particular article and create a new one under the new name? Mahill104 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Induced pluripotent cell therapy, or induced pluripotent stem cell therapy? Capitalization is unnecessary according to WP:MOS. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the move discussion's gone stale, I've gone ahead and moved it to induced pluripotent stem cell therapy. This choice (instead of omitting "stem") is to align it with the other article (induced pluripotent stem cell. I don't anticipate objections, but if there are any, we can discuss again. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)