User:Mclash2547/User:Jhayes0817/sandbox/Mclash2547 Peer Review

1.Is it obvious to you which sections of the article have been revised? Is the new content relevant to the topic?
Most of the article has been rewritten from the ground up. Some of the original text remains but the author has helped to get the draft one step closer to a publishable work. The section Fear, anxiety and trauma does not clearly fit into the topic. I am sure the author of the article has a few pieces of information that would help to clarify the relation to epigenetic therapy. It may need to be condensed and focused to be more clear and precise.

2.What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any particular information that you found especially informative.
The background section of the article gives a quick explanation of the topic at hand. The three categories of epigenetic mechanisms clearly establish ways in which gene expression can affect diseases. The many treatments for diabetic symptoms through epigenetics was very interesting and well written. What makes the epigenetic methods of regeneration of heart tissue important for the patient. Are the mutations that cause cardiac issues due to lifestyle effect on genes or are inherited mutations a larger issue? The role of diet upon the genetics of cancer was very interesting and relevant. The removal of the sexual orientation thing deserves a round of applause.

3.What overall adjustments do you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes bean improvement? What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
In the introductory paragraph quickly epigenome-influencing techniques. In the Diabetes section of the article it may help to add possible future gene therapies for the patient available. Where is the field heading in the treatment of diabetes? In the cancer section, define polyphenols or at least better explain their role upon genes. Try combining the Schizophrenia section with the Fear and Anxiety, maybe creating one mental health category. Even grouping them together could help the article's flow. A few sentences and paragraphs are lost in the reference section of the article.

4.Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know.
Nothing in the article relates to molecular ecology.

5.Is all new content backed up by a reliable source of information?
Yes sourcing throughout the article was very thorough. Every claim made by the offer had a source to back it up. I would say that the author took the time to thoroughly researched the topic at hand.

6.Are the sources fairly current (> 2015)? Check a few links. Do they work?
All sources checked are current and relevant to the topic.

7.Summarize any typographical/grammatical errors that you found.
No major errors were found in the article. A few misplaced punctuation in the article otherwise well written.

==== 8.Student authors are responsible for all images on their page (even if not part of their revised subsection). Double check the original page to make sure images are acceptable and clearly described. See associated tutorial to review Wiki image requirements. Summarize your findings. ==== No images.

==== 9.Identify at least one additional reference that you think may contribute to the article. Explain why you think this article would benefit from the new information. Be sure to provide the reference in your write-up. ==== This article may help start a paragraph explaining the future of epigenetics. It has a focus upon human diseases and overviews other sections of your article as well.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128122150000017