User:Dcinthiya

Contents:

1.History

2.Structure

3.Function

4.Examples

(Diagrams inserted as well) Dcinthiya (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography:

Hanukoglu, Israel. “Proteopedia: Rossmann Fold: A Beta-Alpha-Beta Fold at Dinucleotide Binding Sites.”Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, vol. 43, no. 3, 2015, pp. 206–209., doi:10.1002/bmb.20849.

Hanukoglu, I. “Proteopedia: Rossmann Fold: A Beta-Alpha-Beta Fold at Dinucleotide Binding Sites.” Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education : a Bimonthly Publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology., U.S. National Library of Medicine, 20 Feb. 2015, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25704928.

“The Rossmann Fold31.” Rossman Fold, 31 Oct. 2017, ww2.chemistry.gatech.edu/~lw26/structure/protein/rossman_fold/down/text.html.

Laurino, Paola, et al. “An Ancient Fingerprint Indicates the Common Ancestry of Rossmann-Fold Enzymes Utilizing Different Ribose-Based Cofactors.” PLoS Biology, Public Library of Science, 12 Mar. 2016, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4777477/. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyruvate_dehydrogenase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossmann_fold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substrate_(chemistry) Dcinthiya (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Rossman fold seems best, substrate is pretty broad, so might not be as good. PDH has good images and info, only a few places for explansion. Dcinthiya (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Karina's Peer Review: I think the article is pretty good overall! Here are a few suggestions:

- It seems to be missing a lead section at the beginning to give a breif summary of what the article is about.

- The last 2 sentences under the history sections are a bit confusing and I'm not sure how they fit into that section, so you might want to elaborate on them a bit

- I thought some of the information in the function section might make more sense in the structure section, so maybe think about combining the sections to avoid being repetitive or work on separating the information so it flows better.

- the article is balanced well and has a good flow, and the content is neutral

- maybe add a couple more references, since some long paragraphs only have one or two references

Peer Review (Kristen)

I think your article is really good! It was clear and easy to understand. Some suggestions:
 * The organization of the article was good; however adding subsections might be helpful to guide the reader
 * The article doesn’t have a lead, so maybe adding an introduction section so readers can get a quick overview would be helpful
 * The structure section is comprehensive, but splitting it up into paragraphs or sections might be helpful
 * Expand on the function section to give more detail. Some of the language is a bit technical and could be confusing.
 * Add more references to the structure section and maybe add more images to visualize
 * I also found the last section of the structure portion to be slightly confusing. I was unsure how it related so maybe expand on how it relates
 * I thought the content was really good and neutral, however expanding and explaining some concepts more would be helpful