Talk:RNA therapeutics

.

RNA therapeutics Peer Review
First of all, nice work! I think the article is of good organization and very clear! Yet there are only a few points I am a little bit confused about.

In the siRNA part, is it a typo in the first sentence "siRNA are short. double stranded pieces of RNA "? I guess you mean short and double-stranded. Also, the sentences in this paragraph seem to end in double ".". In addition, I am wondering if it is necessary to cite the same paper in every sentence in this paragraph. It should be fine to cite at the end of this paragraph.

Again in siRNA part, it is mentioned that several diseases can be treated with siRNA. Would you list some examples? This paragraph emphasizes the problems in drug delivery but the target of siRNA is not indicated. Is that RNA/DNA/protein? Or more specifically, which protein it is? I believe writing about this will help people understand this paragraph! Also, it will be very interesting if you could introduce the mechanism of which siRNA cure the disease.

In the miRNA part, I personally suggest it is better to introduce the full name "microRNA" at least once, so that it is easier for the public audience to understand.

Thank you! Please let me know how you think!

YihuaL (talk)

RNA Therapeutics Peer Review 1
Great work so far. The page has a logical order and is clearly written! Below are some remarks to further elevate the page:

It might be more useful to the reader to describe RNA as something other than the second product of the Central Dogma. The Central Dogma is really just a schematic and so perhaps writing what RNA stands for or what it's biological significance is without referring to the Central Dogma model would fare better. You can of course elaborate on the Central Dogma model later, however for an introduction it would have more impact and get straight to the point by describing RNA for what it is without referring to the Central Dogma theory. Also, the first sentence uses "and" a lot. It would be good to word the first part in a concise and clear way while placing emphasis on the key points. Eliminating "and" would help do this. This would apply to the second sentence as well which is a little difficult to read and decipher. Overall, the last sentence is clear and points the reader to more information.

I don't think you need to link RNA every time it is used (or any other terms as well). It might be distracting. Also under mRNA, you could elaborate on why mRNA "is translated instantly". I also don't think having a metaphor to drug factories aligns with the overall professional tone of wiki pages. Lastly, this section would benefit from having one main point per paragraph. I think you all did a nice job in providing current research efforts to develop mRNA therapeutics.

For the antisense RNA, you could also separate the paragraphs by points you want to emphasize. Also, it would be nice to have the sentences written straightforwardly.

For RNAi you could discuss if/why there is limited research on their therapeutic effects.

Perhaps, you could include the size of each of these RNAs in the first sentence.

Nice work.

Hoorayforrna (talk)Hoorayforrna (talk)