Talk:Sigma-2 receptor

Contributions from 2015 Neurobiology course

 * We did a total over-haul of the page, the only original work is the "See Also" section and "External links"
 * The article previously was very short and featured a long list of sigma-2 receptors, most of which were engineered for highly specified experimentation. The new list summarizes the ligand catergories and highlights commonly used compounds
 * We reviewed all the tertiary literature in-depth and all our sources are cited (sources from the original article were all primary literature)
 * We uploaded a photo from a sigma-2 experiment and it is now in the "Diagnostic" section. Before wikicommons didn't have an photos of PET scans that utilized the sigma-2 receptor
 * The lead section was greatly expanded from 2 sentences to a complete paragraph
 * We added the following sub-sections to offer a more complete understanding of sigma-2 receptors: Classification, Function (and it's 3 sub-topics), Ligands, Diagnostic use, and Therapeutic use (and it's 2 sub-topics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medstudentleigh (talk • contribs) 22:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary reviewer
Overall this was a good start to an article and easy to read for someone not familiar with the subject. I would recommend each group member going through and reading it with a fine tooth comb to find any grammar mistakes or typos that I missed! My harshest criticism however, is the writing. There are a lot of sentences that need to be rewritten to make more sense and when you are listing things in a sentence make sure to only use "and," before the last list member. I would also look into expanding certain sections. Although being concise is important, there are some sections such as neuronal signaling that would benefit from having more information introduced. In the introductory paragraph, the sentence "though it is now know they have different distributions throughout the brain." be sure to add an N so it reads "though it is now KNOWN they have different distributions throughout the brain.'. Also, I am not sure if you should be adding citations in the middle of sentences? Or whether you should just wait until the end of the sentence to cite all sources necessary, but that is something you should look into. I think this sentence: "It was previously thought to be the same as the NMDA receptor, is non-opioid,[5] does not translocate, and unlike the sigma-1 receptor, has not been cloned." could use some clarification/ rewording seeing as it doesn't flow very well and could use some consistency. For example a better sentence might be "It was previously thought to be the same as the NMDA receptor, however the sigma-2 receptor does not bind opioids, does not translocate, and unlike the sigma-1 receptor, has not been cloned." The first sentence under the function heading should also be reworded. Too many "ands". "Known effects include decrease of expression of effectors in the mTOR pathway, and suppression of cyclin D1 and PARP-1.[6]"--> Known effects include decreased expression of effectors in the mTOR pathway, and suppression of cyclin D1 and PARP-1.[6]". I think the neuronal signaling section could be greatly expanded if you could talk about the mechanisms and what each pathway does. I think some changes to this sentence: "Sigma-2 receptors are highly expressed breast, ovarian, lung cancers, brain, bladder, colon cancers, and melanoma.[3][8] This novelty makes them a valuable biomarker for identifying cancerous tissues. Furthermore, studies have shown that they are more highly expressed in malignant tumors than dormant tumors.[5]" are needed also. For example it would sound better if it was worded "Sigma-2 receptors are highly expressed breast, ovarian, lung, brain, bladder, and colon cancers, in addition to melanomas.[3][8] This novelty makes them a valuable biomarker for identifying cancerous tissues. Furthermore, studies have shown that sigma-2 receptors are more highly expressed in malignant tumors than in dormant tumors.[5]".

A quick glance at your references indicated to me that you have a lot of sources that talk about application and appearance in cancers, which I believe means that section could be expanded also to encompass more detail seeing as that seems to be the most important clinical application of this receptor. I looked more in depth at your source entitled "Early development of sigma-receptor ligands" because I believe your section about signaling could use more information. It seems to be cited properly as far as I can tell, and all of your information cited in your article is supported in the source. However, as suspected I think there is a lot more information there that would make your article even better!

Good start but keep working! Maddyshea3 (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary Review #2
After reading the article, I learned a lot about a topic I really did not much about before. The article takes a simple and direct approach to describe the topic, which would theoretically make it easier for the reader to get a basic understanding of the topic. Upon further review of the article, I would say that there would be a few areas for improvement. I think that for the "Function" section, there should be a little more elaboration on detail; specifically on the subheading for cell proliferation. Receptors tend to have a lot of functions and one sentence may give readers some confusion as to how general or how specific the article is trying to be. I liked the exploration of the topic when I read the heading "Ligands". As we know, ligands are pretty important in a lot of signaling processes, especially with the numerous receptors present. However, I think that the exploration of this section was a little too general. I liked that there was a table that compared class name and common compounds; however, if they were to explore further as to a little more specific of what each class did, it would definitely make the article stronger. Because this article is about a receptor, I think it would be nice to have an image that gives a more pictorial representation of the channel. The image that is in the article has a good molecular model of the receptor; however, a more pictorial representation would definitely help students looking at this article to picture this receptor in a way that is easier to understand. Out of the sources that were used, one of the sources I looked at was the one titled "Nuclear receptors in pancreatic tumor cells". It was used properly in citing material relevant to cancer and tumor inclusive details. However, it was cited usually just to identify if cancer was involved. Maybe if there was more detail used from the source, I would feel more confident in how effectively the article was used. Other than that article, it looks as if the article was written in a solid manner. Hopefully by reading the reviews, the article will see a stronger improvement from the awesome approach it has so far! Good Luck! ReteshGSW94 (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary Reviewer #3
I actually had looked into doing this article for my group so I understand how much work you have done to overturn it. Firstly, the stuff you should not change. The structure of your article is quite good. It can be difficult sometimes following certain areas of scientific topics but since yours is laid out well it is much easier on the eye. The two pictures and the table you have placed in are nice. If there is any way you can incorporate more, that would be helpful to understanding the sigma-2 receptor. Lastly, I found that your references were not used sparsely. This helps me as the reader check out your findings even more and to understand your topic. Great references. Since the previous first reviewer already addressed most of the grammar issues I would like to enter in a couple other ideas for improvement. Although the end of the intro surely needs to be cleaned up, “It has been found to play a role in both hormone signaling and calcium signaling, in neuronal signaling, in cell proliferation and death, and in binding of antipsychotics.” This is all good but it should read, “It has been found to play a role in hormone signaling, calcium signaling, neuronal signaling, cell proliferation, cell death, and binding of antipsychotics.”

Onto other improvisations. Since science can be a difficult subject for many it could be in your best interest to enter more Wikilinks (the blue highlight things) so that a lower level person reading your article can better decipher the location and importance of your receptor. Even it is as simple as highlighting the word “brain” this could surely help a reader who wants to keep everything in perspective. For instance, the cancer section many more Wikilinks. There are not too many high schoolers would understand what an agonist or antagonist is or what they do.

I think there could be an addition of a couple more sections and additions to sections previously stated like cancer. I think an addition for a section could focus on how Pharmacology has influenced the study of this receptor. What could also enhance your page is if you could find any broader implications in other areas of science from the manipulation of this receptor. This could draw in readers from other areas of science. I did not read much of that from your resources but it may be something to think about. Brolenchek (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)brolenchek

Primary Reviewer #4
After reading your article, I think your group is off to a great start overall. I liked how the page was organized and your use of pictures and the chart. This was easy on the eyes and easy to understand. The use of various references throughout the article to back up your claims was important for the reader to see that these facts come from verifiable secondary sources. However, like the other reviewers pointed out there were multiple grammatical errors that need to be fixed. Most of them that I noticed have been addressed in the previous reviews. I also agree that a couple sections, like the subheadings under function, could be expanded a little more because although it's good to be concise, it should also not sound too general. So by going back to your sources to find some extra material that may have been missed could help make this article stronger and provide more depth on the topic. The reference I looked at for your article was "Potential Antidepressant Activity of Sigma Ligands." This reference was cited properly in your article for the receptor's functions, but it seems like there could be more information and details extracted from this reference to add to this section of your page. Again overall I think this page was great aside from the minor errors mentioned above that could be fixed. Keep up the great work and I hope this review was helpful.Morzelek (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Review #1
This article is informative about the basics of the receptor, but I think it might be a little underdeveloped (it seems kind of short). I'm not sure about the availability of information on this topic, but you might want to consider expanding some of the sections a little more if you are able to. There are also some general spelling and grammar errors that need to be fixed. Finally, adding more Wikilinks would be useful! Love the pictures that you chose to use! Overall a good start on the article. Yayneuro (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary reviewer # 2
the article was concise, understandable and informative anybody without a science backround can easy read and gain some understanding about the receptor. However, some sentences need more clarity in the opening paragraph and under classification. Also i really liked the pictures. Yobandaik 02:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobandaik (talk • contribs)

Secondary reviewer #3
While this is a great start on this article, there are many grammatical issues and issues with sentences. I would recommend rereading the article and making sure the article flows without any typos. Good start on the sections, but I would recommend expanding them if there is enough resources to do so, especially the function section. It was very informative and interesting, while being easy to read so the general public would have no issues understanding what is being discussed. Good use of graphics and wikilinks. Great start! Vickimu2015 (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary review #4
This is a good start to an article and I'm sure a great improvement on what was existing previously. There are some issues though including some grammatical and phonetic errors throughout which can be corrected easily and help to give the article more flow. Also, this seems like a good start to an article but needs more substance to the scaffolding you have. Specifically in the function section, Cell Proliferation needs a little more than a statement that these receptors are involved. A good start to the article though, good use of images. Theactualdonald (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary review #5
Really enjoyed this informative article. It sounds like this is an active area of research and you made a significant contribution to the Wikipedia community. I think the best part about your article is your good balance between not being too technical yet having a good amount of detail. As a small recommendation, I think an improvement to your article would be perhaps explaining a bit more about each of the ligands, since that is pretty important aspect of its mechanism of action. Very good use of pictures and wikilinks; it really improves the quality of your article. Awhiterussian (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Review #6
The article states its clear goal of provinding the function and uses of the sigma 2 receptor and provides some information on the use but little on the function. The function can be compiled into a single paragraph that can have a more friendly and easier form to read to the general public. Like the last reviewer, the expansion of the sigma receptor's ligand can have different mechanisms in the function and can even relate to one another as a co-transporter. Another thing is the expansion or adding images where the sigma 2-receptor is present or a mechanism of the ligand. Overall it has a great potential and it is very interesting to read! Luisq15 (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Review #7
This article displays its information clearly, so it is easy to understand for the general public. However, this article does not seem to have the depth that it could have, I feel that most of the sections could be expanded upon, as long as there is secondary sources available of course. Also there are several grammatical errors within the article. Definitely consider rereading in order to correct those. But the citations are very thorough, everything that I saw that needed a citation was cited, so good job with that. Keep working on this and I am sure with a little more detail and some grammar fixes that it will be great. Zneuro (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Review #8
The Sigma-2-receptor article is written very well. I think that there could be more information added for this topic. Though the article does go into some detail, it would be nice if more detail could be added to the headings. There are also some minor spelling errors that can easily be fixed with proofreading. There is some solid ground for improvement in terms of more details regarding the topic. Keep up the good work! Pitap (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)