Talk:Sucrose gap

Untitled
Hi Wiki community,

We are a group of three Boston College undergraduate students working on a project for our Introduction to Neuroscience course. We will making a lot of modifications during the next few months on the Sucrose Gap page to provide people with more information on this technique. If you want to find out more about our project, please read this page, User:NeuroJoe/BI481_Fall_2012. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarahkim14 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments
* There's no need for a separate "Introduction". I suggest you combine those couple of sentences with lead paragraph, removing any redunancies Illia Connell (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Refs 6 and 9 appear to be the same - but the vol numbers are different. These shoule be combined into a single citation.
 * Add wikilinks to Alan Hodgkin and Andrew Huxley.
 * Consider using the cite journal template for references to provide consistent formatting. Template syntax can be tricky, ask if you need help.
 * You can remove the stub and orphan templates
 * All suggestions made Illia Connell (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this was an informative, concise article and easy to follow. I think that you could add some wikipedia-links to some of the vocabulary in the article to help those who do not have a strong neuroscience background to better understand the topic. In terms of the "alterations made to the technique," you could also make a sub-heading to lead this and to possibly allow for other alterations of the method to be added. The development of the "double sucrose-gap" could also go under this sub-heading, if you choose to organize it this way. Tranpb (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC) '''Proper additions of hyperlinks have been added. Thanks for the input. Emmerlin (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC) We decided not to make a separate sub heading for alterations to the technique, but instead made sub headings for single sucrose gap and double sucrose gap in the method section. We did this because our discussion of alterations to the technique focused mainly on the double sucrose gap and there is not enough information on other alterations available to create an entire separate section for it. Thanks for your suggestions.--Ekeena (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)'''

I think the article does a good job of explaining the sucrose gap in a direct and very technical manner. I had never heard of this technique before, yet I was able to understand it. To improve the article, like the comment above mentions as well, I think you need to add more hyperlinks to a lot of the terminology used. For example, you should hyperlink "membrane potential," "electrical coupling," "spatial constant," the neurotransmitters mentioned in the applications section and the Ohm's Law equation. I think you could also explain a bit more what the double-sucrose gap is and what you mean when you say a "physiological solution." Overall, you guys did a great job and the article is very informative. Susana.benitez (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC) '''Proper additions of hyperlinks have been added. Thanks for the input. Emmerlin (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC) It was hard to elaborate on the double sucrose gap because there was very little information available on it. We had some difficulty finding sources that explained the double sucrose gap technique in a lot of detail. Thank you for your suggestion about the physiological solution. We clarified what this type of solution does in the method section. --Ekeena (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC) '''

Your article is brief, concise and overall covers the basics of the use of a sucrose gap in research. Your information and organization make your article easy to understand for readers of a variety of scientific backgrounds. Clarity and brevity is great but I felt that at certain points your article could have used a more thorough explanation. What does it mean for the sucrose solution to be of high specific resistance? What are the advantages of a double sucrose gap? Are researchers still using a sucrose gap in recent research? If so, explain a little bit about how they’re using it in their research.

Hyper-linking other terms such as short-circuiting factor, spatial constant, Krebs or Ringer solution, etc...would be helpful. I understand that it’s difficult to find images that can be used on Wikipedia but if you had a diagram illustrating the set up for a sucrose gap in an experiment that would be helpful to readers as well. If wikicommons doesn’t have one you could try emailing some of the authors of your sources to see if they would be able to help you out. On the whole, nice job! Sarah.lord (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC) '''Thank you for your suggestions. We added an explanation of what high specific resistance means in the method section. Some of the advantages to the double sucrose gap were discussed in the last paragraph of the applications section and in the method section. The sucrose gap is still being used in recent research and some of these experiments are referenced in the applications section. There weren't any diagrams of the set up for the technique in wikicommons. We contacted the publishers of some of the articles that we used, but did not get permission to use their images. A few of the sources that we sited, however, have useful images of the set up. Thanks again for your comments. --Ekeena (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)'''

This article is very well written. Easy to understand and still very detailed. It might be good to include a diagram. The article “Resting and action potentials recorded by the sucrose-gap method in the superior cervical ganglion of the rabbit” has a good one. The addition of hyperlinks would be nice, especially at points like in the application section where it says “Studied on the effects of choline, acetylcholine, carbachol ...” It would be nice if each molecule had a hyperlink. A change in format of methods section so that “Single Sucrose Gap” and “Double Sucrose Gap” are subsections might be easier to read. I really liked your section of “Advantages” and “Limitations.” Overall, very nice. Tanbr (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC) '''Thanks for your comments. We decided to include subsections for Single Sucrose Gap and Double Sucrose Gap as you suggested. We also added links to a lot of the vocabulary. We tried to include a diagram, but couldn't find one on wikicommons and didn't receive permission from the publishers who we contacted. There are some useful diagrams in some of the articles that we cited, though. Thanks again for your suggestions. --Ekeena (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC) '''

Peer Review
Very good introduction and history, add hyper links to voltage clamp technique, membrane potential, nerve fiber. '''Proper addition of hyperlinks have been added. Thanks for the input. Emmerlin (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)'''

Method: what do krebs and ringer solutions consist of? What test drugs typically used? "A pair of agar-bridged Ag-AgCl electrodes are placed in the test and KCl chambers to record the changes in membrane potential." Is test the right word? Did you mean test drug? '''We added wikilinks to Krebs and Ringer solutions, and some examples of test drugs or compounds that can be studied is included in the Application section. Also, I did mean to write test chamber. Thanks!''' Clarahkim14 (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Alterations to technique could be its own subsection under methods.

Advantages: Probably should cite the source you used when you mention "the sucrose gap technique is easier to perform and less expensive." Instead of saying for a long time in the following sentence, give a range used in the source you got this from as well, and if they didn't give range, I would reword it to "for an extended period of time" But I would recommend finding a source which provides this information. "This method is also useful in studying the changes in membrane potential in response to different pharmacologically active agents, which can be introduced in the test chamber" This is repetitive from the methods, and on that note check repetition in the methods section, I feel the first and second paragraphs of the methods have some parts that overlap, so maybe look over that again and try to minimize that. '''The entire paragraph is from the same source, but I couldn't find any specifics on the time range. I rephrased the sentence as you suggested though.'''Clarahkim14 (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Limitations: "Also, the sucrose solution, which has a low ionic concentration, can deplete the exposed cells of vital intracellular ions such as sodium and potassium. This can cause the membrane to become hyperpolarized and change the conduction of action potentials along the cell" For this part could you expand upon how this affects the results of the experiment? Upon reading this I now question the validity or application of this technique as this sounds like it would skew the results it is trying to obtain in the first place. I may be wrong with this mindset however, so please correct me if so. ''

Overall I think this article performed its function of explaining the sucrose-gap well, I come away with a good understanding of what it is, and its history. My major critiques would be to add wikilinks where you can, it allows the average reader to be able to click on anything that comes across as confusing to get more information to become more knowledgable and thus understand your article better. Second, check repetition between sections. Double sucrose gap technique is explained the same in applications, limitations and methods. This however may be due to a lack of information on the topic, or limited use of its applicability which is what it seems like is the case however. Adding an image of the set-up would be great, maybe even of the founders. And like I mentioned earlier and Sarah said above, expand on topics that the average reader wouldn't understand as well that can contribute to the overall knowledge of what exactly the sucrose-gap is finding. So explaining the compositions of the solutions, test drugs used, and high specific resistance, Ohm's law and what it consists of, could add more depth to your article. Overall though great job! Very easy to read and I come away with a good understanding of the sucrose-gap. '''Thanks for your input. It was difficult to find sufficient information on this technique, but we will work on minimizing repetition in our article.'''Clarahkim14 (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

T Doh (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review
This was a very nice and concise article, which is somewhat surprising considering that Mike Emmerling was in this group (kidding! I’m kidding Mike..).

At one point in the “Method” section, it says,“The third chamber usually contains an KCl solution.” Just a little grammatical error. Quick! Change it before Professor Burdo sees it!

I loved your “Method” section. It was very clear and concise, and made someone like me who previously had no idea what a sucrose gap was or its relation to neuroscience understand the mechanism through which one would use it.

There is a little bit of overlap between the “History” section and the “Method” section. I understand that it is a very difficult task to possess no overlap between these two segments, but as a suggestion you might want to do a little less describing of the basis of the sucrose gap technique and the double sucrose gap in the “History” section.

I thought that having a section devoted to the “Limitations” of the sucrose gap technique was very wise. It put things into perspective a little, and was a good addition after previously going over the strengths of this technique.

I would have enjoyed a little something more about how the sucrose gap technique is involved in exploring cardiac muscle. It was something that you mentioned in the “History” segment, and I found myself looking forward to some further analysis on this subject throughout the article. I was a little disappointed when I saw it was only briefly mentioned in the “Applications” segment of your article, as I believe this could be something interesting and worth exploring (also considering that two of your citations have to do with sucrose gaps and their connection to cardiac muscle).

Additionally, I feel that the “Applications” section of your article can be strengthened a little bit. You do offer some specific examples of the applications of the sucrose gap junction and double sucrose gap, but I generally think it is a little too general and not enough information. You might want to consider talking about how it relates to pharmaceuticals or if it has some connection to various neurological diseases (has been used to detect the processes by which they work maybe).

Also, I think an image on your page could be a good idea. Even something that you guys simply draw (assuming it’s a pretty good drawing) that shows the different chambers in the sucrose gap technique. It would possibly help the audience visual the mechanism through which it works a little better.

Overall, I think this is a pretty strong article. Good work you guys.

Fordbd1 (talk) 23:47 19 November 2012 (UTC)

''The following comments are presented in the same order as your paragraphs. Read them accordingly.'' 1.) Your sarcasm, though hilarious at times, is unwarranted and childish. I am disappointed that you would say such things on my page, one that I worked so painstakingly hard on, thereby detracting from its serious academic tone. Shame on you, Mr. Ford. Shame on you. However, overlooking your jejune banter, we appreciate your interest in, and approval of, our article. ''2.) The edit has been made. Thank you for the heads-up.'' 3.) Our Method experts, Clara and Ellen, appreciate your feedback. They put an ample amount of time into this section in hopes of receiving a response such as yours. ''4.) At the moment, we are in the process of editing the contents of the aforementioned sections to accommodate your suggestion, which we found, after further inspection of our article, to be valid. Hopefully the overlapping did not belittle your experience on our page.'' 5.) Our Limitations expert, Clara, dearly appreciates your comment. ''6.) With a heavy heart do I admit our initial lack of information on cardiac muscle exploration with the sucrose-gap method. However, should you peruse our article now, or ever in the future for that matter, you will find that I have expanded upon the subject, describing precisely why a double-sucrose gap method is ideal for exploring cardiac muscle currents. A lack of secondary sources, though, has made an unbiased expansion upon the subject quite daunting. For this reason, the expansion may not be quite up to your expectations, but it has covered the main points of why one might utilize such an apparatus as the double sucrose-gap and what exactly it has uncovered regarding cardiac muscle.'' 7.) Given that the Sucrose-gap method is in fact a method, not a biological molecule or anything of the like, I find it hard to relate it to various diseases. As I write this, however, I see that you have edited your statement to say "has been used to detect...", and thus I rescind my previous statement.  In reference to your comment, I would further repeat what I touched upon in #6: a lack of unbiased secondary sources made expansion upon specific findings, such as those linked to neurological diseases, a laborious effort that proved less than fruitful.  I, too, would have liked to include such information in this article, and it pains me to see such an opportunity and not have the means to capitalize upon it. ''8.) We are currently in the process of contacting the publishers of several articles for permission regarding the use of their photographs/images on our page. We hope to have something turn up within the fortnight.'' ''Thank you for your input on our article. We do appreciate the time and effort you have put into bettering our page. Good day, sir.'' Best, Emmerlin (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Review
Great job! I have a few suggestions. First, I think incorporating a brief explanation of how the high concentration of sucrose increases resistance would be beneficial in your introduction. You can aso consider creating a separate section for the double sucrose gap because it's mentioned across a couple different sections as it stands now. There are very few hyperlinks in the "Applications" section; for example I think you could link concepts like patch-clamp method. Overall, good work! - Reedich (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC) '''Thanks for your suggestions. We decided to add subsections for Single Sucrose Gap and Double Sucrose Gap to the method section instead of creating an entirely separate section for Double Sucrose Gap. There was not a lot of detailed information available about the double sucrose gap, so we didn't feel as if we had enough for it to have its own section. We also added an explanation of high specific resistance and what sucrose does to the method section and added links to a lot of the vocabulary throughout the article. Thanks again for your comments --Ekeena (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC) '''