Talk:Pre-Bötzinger complex

Additional Sources Planning to be Used:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684023/

Ramirez JM, Doi A, Garcia AJ, Elsen FP, Koch H, Wei AD. The Cellular Building Blocks of Breathing. Comprehensive Physiology 2012;2(4):2683-2731. doi:10.1002/cphy.c110033.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3652403/

Garcia AJ, Zanella S, Koch H, Doi A, Ramirez J-M. Networks within networks: The neuronal control of breathing. Progress in brain research 2011;188:31-50. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-53825-3.00008-5.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1683005

^ Richter DW, Smith JC (2014). "Respiratory rhythm generation in vivo.". Physiology (Bethesda) 29 (1): 58–71. doi:10.1152/physiol.00035.2013. . → from the Botzinger Complex Wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2456ambrosa (talk • contribs) 01:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797888/

Stafstrom CE. Persistent Sodium Current and Its Role in Epilepsy. Epilepsy Currents. 2007;7(1):15-22. doi:10.1111/j.1535-7511.2007.00156.x. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.236.201 (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

One article too many
Looks like Pre-Botzinger Complex is a recently created "competitor" to the present article, Pre-Botzinger complex, and that the two should be merged. I know absolutely nothing about the subject matter, so experts are invited/pressganged. Favonian (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support merge. Looks like they're about the same topic. APerson (talk!) 16:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Marquette University Neurobiology
Our goal in editing this article was to give readers a little more information and depth about the Pre-Botzinger Complex. Since this is a complex group of neurons, we aimed to clear up some confusion by providing more explanations and resources within this Wikipedia article. While there is not much literature on the actual complex itself, there is quite a bit of literature on how the complex assists in respiration as well as its regulation. BMRmed1392 (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

First Review
At first glance it seems like pictures or diagrams of any kind are missing. I would recommend adding both, whether that be the location of these Pre-Botzinger Complexes in the brain or a diagram of what they look like in general. I also think that the sentence "Several ampakine drugs, such as CX-546,[11] CX-717 and CX-1739, also stimulate this area, and some of these are being developed for use alongside opioids in human medicine.[12][13]" could be modified to sound better written. I am not sure what the exact problem is but while reading it does not seem to flow. Also under "Important Connections..." that section ends w/ a fragment that says "types of neurons" and nothing else. Just make sure to either finish that sentence or delete it before the deadline hits! Additionally, you have many links that are highlighted in red which indicate a page does not exist for those links. Good start! Just make sure to read everything thoroughly to make sure it all flows nicely. Maddyshea3 (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Second Review
This is a good start to the article. Great job on expanding it! I would add a few images as this is part of the requirements and currently none are included. Also, I would recommended rereading through the article as there are some sentences that need to be cleaned up to provide for better understanding and flow of the content. I would also go through the links as some do not exist. Make sure the headings are clear and concise as to what that section explains (ex. electric currents is clearer than currents). Overall, great start just make sure to reread through to make sure the context flows and is understandable to the general public. Vickimu2015 (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Third Review
This article overall looks like its had a lot of detail put into explaining the concept, which is always a great sign! Despite the fact that there is a lot of detail, it appears as if the content has just been listed and a lot of information has been described. On one hand, that is great and definitely will help explain a lot; however, too much detail and summarizing might confuse the reader. For example, in the subheading "Current", there is a lot of detail that explains the currents involved with the complex; however, the goal of the article would be to be more concise rather than explain the concepts with dense details. Other than that, I think that this is a really strong article and it has the most information of all the articles i've read so far. Keep it up! ReteshGSW94 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Fourth Review
After reading this article, I really liked the organization of it and I think the topic was well represented by the vast amount of information that was covered in this article. However, I also think that is a weak point for this article as well. Many of the sections could be summarized further because I feel like the reader could be overwhelmed by the amount of information that was covered. I also agree with the other reviewers that adding some pictures and figures would make it easy on the eyes for the reader and help give a visual aid on the Pre-Botzinger Complex. Overall though this article was very strong and it is off to a great start. Keep up the good work! Morzelek (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Fifth Review
This article is very well-written and covers the topic in a great amount of depth. Very informative! Some of it is a little wordy though and could be more concise. There are a couple of awkward sentences and general grammar slips that could be fixed as well. Also, the article could definitely use some pictures to help complete it (they are required!) so you should try to find something that would work in that respect. The links on the page that are red also lead to pages that don't exist, so those should be cleaned up and possibly replaced with others. Finally, you may want to add some information into the "Associated Diseases" section describing the role of the complex in these diseases - that section seems awfully bare compared to the rest. Nice work on this article! Yayneuro (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2015

Sixth Review
The article was very well expanded upon. It was very odd to see an article without pictures though. A picture that adds some clarity to the anatomical descriptions in the "structure" section would be helpful. Also, in the "current" section a picture of action potential graphs might be informative. Other than a lack of illustration the article was well written and sheds a lot of light on the disease.Medstudentleigh (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Seventh Review
Your article is extremely informative. Although this may confuse some readers, I think that it is necessary and all of the confusing topics are explained clearly and in great detail. The lack of visuals is concerning, however. I also noticed that some of the subsections in the Function section, namely Types of Breathing and Control, the second half of Homeostatic Changes, and Oxygen Sensing, do not have sources cited where it seems like outside resources might be necessary to cite. Other than that, terrific job!Zneuro (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

First Review
Firstly, there are many sentences throughout which could be modified to flow better or provide easier understanding. For example the first sentence “The Pre-Bötzinger Complex (preBötC) is a cluster of interneurons in the ventrolateral medulla of the brainstem, which is essential to the generation of respiratory rhythm in mammals” could be changed to “The Pre-Bötzinger Complex (preBötC) is a cluster of interneurons in the ventrolateral medulla of the brainstem. This complex is proven to be essential to the generation of respiratory rhythm in mammals”. “One such novel compound that acts on this area of the brain, called BIMU8, has been discovered” could also be edited because fragments are not necessary in understanding and there are better possibilities for starting off this paragraph. In addition, the sourcing at the bottom is inconsistent, but should be an easy fix to make it uniform. Another note is that there are many linked terms that do not exist. These should be unlinked in order to not confuse the reader. They are red. Other than this, the formatting looks good. Some of the titles could be cleaned up for more clear communication on what they focus on, for example “Interneurons-pacemaker/non pacemaker neurons” is confusing with the punctuation used. In regards to being broad in coverage, the article covers a range of main concepts associated with the topic. Although, some things can be taken out of the lead and placed into their respective sections because they are too specific for a brief introduction into the article. Your article remains neutral and informative. It is stable in content and does not contradict other areas of the article. The page lacks images and diagrams, which could be helpful in understanding, especially with structure and function. Overall, I would focus on the writing and how to communicate what you want to say in the most efficient way possible without taking out essential points of understanding. Verified source: The first source, "Pre-Bötzinger complex: a brainstem region that may generate respiratory rhythm in mammals" was assessed. It was used and cited correctly in accordance with what was written in the secondary source itself. But, overall, there was a lack of appropriate citations with entire sections of the wikipage lacking citing, make sure to cite all the information you got from other sources to give credit to the appropriate source. Sfiore315 Sfiore315 (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

First Review Response
First of all, thank you for your review of our article. You bring up a lot of great points that were of great use to us as we edited our article for the general public.

For the first point you brought up, we decided as a group that your suggestion to break the sentence into two separate sentences was easier to read and flowed better.

The suggestion about the sentence “one such novel compound that acts…” would have been edited, however, we were unable to locate the sentence. Each of us read through the entire article multiple times and could not find it. It may have been in one of the paragraphs we deleted due to redundancy.

As for the inconsistency in our references, the last 3 sources (15-17), were not references, but rather links to help explain some of the red links. We removed those to eliminate confusion for readers. We also removed the remainder of our red links as this also could have been very confusing.

Thank you for the suggestion to fix the “Interneuron and Pacemaker/Non-pacemaker” heading. We did realize upon reading your review that it was quite a complicated title and we therefore changed it to “Types of Neurons.”

When you said that our introduction was too specific for a basic intro, we did fix that by deleting one of the paragraphs that was too descriptive to be placed in the general introduction. This was the work of the original creator of the page, so we made sure to keep other parts of their work throughout where we felt it fit in nicely to the edited article.

We made sure to add various images to our article to make it more appealing to viewers. Thank you, and other viewers, for pointing this out.

We did also add in more citations so that we gave appropriate credit to those authors whom we drew information from.

Thank you again for your review, and I hope you find our edits have enhanced the article!

Second Review
Overall a great deal of information has been added to this article. Nice job. In regards to the good article criteria from Wikipedia, I believe this meets most of the requirements. The writing is consistent throughout but there are some sentences that should be reworded so that they can be understood better. Simply rereading through your page should help with that. You have an extensive amount of sources and all of the ones I was able to locate seemed appropriate. The only problem is that some of the higher number sources are not cited correctly and only have a hyperlink. Also, your entire page is lacking citations; there are whole sections that have no inline citations. The coverage is consistent with what was said to be your goal and the information is neutral. One problem is that your article is lacking in pictures and that is one of guidelines given by Wikipedia. An easy place to fit in a picture would be in the structure section, it could show the location of the Pre-Botzinger complex.

A few other things to consider would be: In the second sentence of the ‘Description’ section you should have VRG in parenthesis. The information in the second paragraph of the ‘Description’ section is very similar to the information in ‘Types of breathing rhythms controlled’. I would suggest taking that information out of the ‘Description’ section. There seems to be a random phrase at the end of the ‘Important connections with other parts of the brain/body’ section that you may want to delete. The ‘Neuromodulation’ and ‘Neurotransmitters’ sections are also similar. The content isn’t exactly the same but the concepts are similar so I would suggest combining the material and only having one of those sections. Throughout the page you have wikilinks that do not actually work. I would either fix them so that they do lead somewhere or just remove the link. The titles of your sections are a little wordy and could be simplified.

Due to the lack of inline citation, verifying a source was a little difficult. I reviewed the ‘Networks within networks: The neuronal control of breathing’ article. Overall you did a nice job of using the information from this article throughout the page, you just need to cite the places that it was used in the text. Mprosser17 (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Second Review Response
Thank you for all of your suggestions; they were very helpful. We have removed the hyperlinks that were not cited correctly in our references list. They were actually external links that explained some of the terms used in the article that did not have a wikipedia page, but we decided it was best to remove them as well as the red wikilinks that don’t work. We also added an image of the Pre-Botzinger Complex under the structure section, as you suggested, and a few more to other sections of the article to help clarify some of the most important concepts. As to the repeated information in the “Description” and “Types of breathing rhythms controlled” we decided to remove a couple of sentences from the paragraph in “Types of breathing rhythms controlled” section. Those sentences were the only ones repeating information. The rest of the paragraph in that section provided relevant details not mentioned before in the “Description” section that we want to keep in our article. We also decided to keep the last sentence in the “Important connections” section since it’s an example of how the Pre-Botzinger Complex interacts with other parts of the brain. We agree that “Neuromodulation” and “Neurotransmitters” sections are similar so we decided to combine both sections into one. We also changed a couple of the titled that were too wordy. Thank you for your feedback, it was very helpful! BiologyGF (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Third Review
To begin with, this was an interesting read it really grabbed my attention. I think that you did a good job with writing it and the organization/layout of the article. I would recommend that you go back and re-read it just to make some of the sentences flow better. The introduction seemed a little choppy meaning that it did not flow together all that well. To fix this I would re-read it and see if there is a better way of writing some of it because it will help the content flow better. This could be irrelevant but I feel it may be better to be consistent throughout the article with using either pre-Botzinger complex or pre-BotC throughout the entire article, instead of constantly switching off throughout the article. Also I would see if you could add in pictures since it is a requirement in writing a good article for Wikipedia, it maybe easiest to place a picture in the structure section. Also note that if the links are red that they do not exist so I would recommend going through your article and if you see any red undo the link since it means that it does not have one. Another thing is there are not a lot of citations throughout your article so I would suggest adding more citations throughout your article from the sources that were used.

In regards to reading over a source and evaluating it with your article, it was harder to do since there were not a lot of sources cited throughout the article. I looked at “ Acute intermittent hypoxia induced neural plasticity in respiratory motor control” it was listed as number 20 on your references. Reading over the article and the source you did a good job using it but it does not seem to be cited correctly under your references section. I would look into that just because it doesn’t show the information (the author, title, etc), just the hyperlink for the source. Also towards the end of your references section I’m not sure if you are using the hyperlinks that are below reference 22 or not but if you are not I would delete them just so you do not confuse your audience. Overall, I feel that you did a good job in expanding on this topic since it was mentioned in your goal that you wanted to give the readers more information and depth about the Pre-Botzinger Complex and I think you did that very well. Buchaly15 (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Third Review Response
Thank you for the comments! We found them helpful and went back and made some edits. For the consistency between pre-Botzinger complex and pre-BotC throughout our article, we specifically added in parentheses in the first paragraph that we would be using the two terms interchangeably. Our reviews often used the terms interchangeably and we did as well based on the flow of the paragraph. As far as pictures go, we added in a few in order to fulfill the requirements as well as to give our readers a visual reference. In relation to adding pictures, we could not fix all of the red links so that they linked to a useful description of our term; however, we did add in pictures where there were some red links in hopes of helping our readers understand terms by seeing a visual aid. We have gone through our citations and added a few where there were some missing. We did not have a number 20, actually when we went back for edits, we only had 17 references in our reference section; however, we did take out the extra sources at the bottom as they were no longer relevant. Thank you for the feedback and we hope that our edits have improved our article! BMRmed1392 (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Fourth Review
The writers gave a comprehensive overview of the structure and function of the Pre-Bötzinger Complex complete with many details. At times however, the page uses details that are too technical for the average reader.

1 Well written
The writing style is coherent. However some sentences are possibly too wordy and contain jargon that will not be understood by a general audience. The lead paragraph especially, should be more in a summary format. Instead of listing all of the agonists and antagonists that act on the complex, the writers should consider summarizing the molecular and physiological effects of binding agonists compared to that of antagonists. The discussion regarding the many specific ligands should be included under either the function or neurotransmitter section.

The “description” and “structure” headings are well written and relatively general in nature. However many of the subheadings under function go into detail that will not be understood by college-level biology students. It would be ideal for the writers of this article to summarize the details under function in more comprehensible language.

2 Verifiable with no original research
Some terms should be defined and/or explained in the context of the big picture. For example, under description the authors write, “The pre-Botzinger complex (pre-BotC), a projection of the Botzinger complex” and then do not link or define the Botzinger complex. Defining specific terminology is important to reaching a general audience. Additionally, any red links should either be unlinked, linked to an existing related page that defines the term, or a page should be created to define the terms. Leaving the red links in place directs readers to pages that do not exist.

More in-line citations are needed to support much of the information in this article. There are some subheadings (Description, Important connections with other parts of the brain/body, Types of breathing rhythms controlled, Oxygen sensing) that do not contain and in-line citations. There are many sources at the bottom of the page. These sources should be referenced in the article itself more frequently to show where information is coming from.

3 Broad in coverage
The first two paragraphs of the lead section are very broad and the whole lead paragraph could use these two paragraphs as a guide. Some of the information about specific compounds should be put elsewhere in the article and instead the lead paragraph should give a broad overview of everything that is discussed on the page. For example, more discussion could be given to the function of the complex in terms of physiology/ neurobiology.

4 Neutral
The article is neutral in tone. However, as mentioned above, a more general overview would benefit the average reader more than technical details.

5 Illustrated
An illustration of the spatial location of the Pre-Bötzinger Complex in relation to other neural structure would fit nicely under either the description or structure headings.

Verification of Source 2
The review entitled “Spatial organization and state-dependent mechanisms for respiratory rhythm and pattern generation” is indeed a secondary source that discusses generation of respiratory rhythms. This is relevant to the Pre-Bötzinger Complex. Unfortunately, this source is only referenced once—in the lead paragraph. Some information from this source should be used under the function subheading. In fact it appears as though some information from the function subheading (especially about sodium currents and rhythm generation) is discussed in this source. However, the Wikipedia article does not reference this source under function. Information from this source should be properly referenced (with in-line citations). Currently, it appears that the Wikipedia article needs many more in-line citations. Citing this article would be a great way to do this. Btw777 (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Fourth Review Response
Thank you for your feedback on our article. We have taken all of your comments into consideration and have utilized them to improve our article for the public review. In going through the article we attempted to get rid of overly complicated concepts. However, we found that topics within our article are necessary for a fully inclusive understanding of the concept. To help the public better understand we have included more links and included ore references, so they are able to clarify any confusion. In terms of our writing, we have eliminated unnecessary paragraphs in the lead paragraphs. We felt it necessary to include some information about the agonists and antagonists because a major part of our article incorporates clinically relevant diseases. We linked Botxinger complex to help further define the big picture. We resolved our red link situation by either further defining them on our own, in text, or by finding links for them. We have also included more in-line citation to guide our readers more and direct them toward the appropriate research. We have added pictures to aid in the visual learning of the general public and to further define or explain difficult topics.In regards to the verification of our source, you suggested that we should include information from this article under the function subheading. We have already done this in including information about ionic currents, which contains the sodium currents that you are referring to. This will be easier identified after the insertion of our in-line citations, which we have added to help refer our readers to that article. Thanks again for your feedback, it was very helpful to us!6487heffroa (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Eighth Review
This article was pretty well written. At times there were some wording issues that could be proofread. There are some limitations with citing sources properly that could also be improved. I think the article could go intro further detail. There is some solid foundation to continue improving and adding to this article especially in terms of more citations. Organization can also be improved for it to flow a lot better from topic to topic. Overall good work! Pitap (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)