User talk:Angelajhyb/Chaetomium perlucidum

Reviewing Chaetomium perlucidum for user Angelajhyb link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angelajhyb/Chaetomium_perlucidum -the taxonomic info is well organized and could be even better is a picture of your fungus was included! -sources are all very reliable -if you're looking for more resources Earth Science library has so many books on just Ascomycota -if available images of what the fungal infection looks like could also be cool to add since you have a lot of info about its pathogenicity. -so far really informative and I like the bit about what makes individuals more susceptible to fungal infection EmmaKas (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Wshepherdmyco (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Angelajhyb/Chaetomium perlucidum

Lead
Your introductory paragraph is very nicely set up. Right away, the reader knows what the fungus looks like, where it is found, and why it is medically relevant. One suggestion I would make, however, is to try and briefly explain what some of the terms you employ mean--for example, while mycologists or doctors might understand the terms "neurotropic" or "otolaryngologic", the general public might not. Adding a brief explanation or including hyperlinks to established definitions would make the article more accessible.

Content
The article is thoroughly researched, and I can't find much to improve on here. I did find a paper, however, that you might consider including in your article:

https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/pubmed/16535442. Stahl and Klug analyze the lipid composition of 100 different filamentous fungi, including Chaetomium perlucidum. As you'll see in the data, C. perlucidum seems to have a lipid composition that is dominated by saturated fatty acids, with only trace amounts of an unsaturated fatty acid present. This might help explain how the fungus maintains membrane integrity and grows at such high temperatures, but you would have to do further research to add weight to that claim. It is purely optional on your part.

I would also suggest adding a section about culturing techniques. The paper you cite by Barron et al reveals that young ascomycota were obtained after 6-10 days of incubation at 25 degrees on potato flake agar. They also note that Spanish studies established an optimal growth temperature of 37 degrees Celsius, and that mature perithecia could be obtained if the fungus was provided with sterile plant material. This information would give new researchers ideas as to how to best grow the fungus in their own labs, and would make a valuable addition to the Wikipedia article.

Tone and Balance
Your tone is great. Such a passive voice is optimal for scientific writing, and you should keep it up when you write your final article.

Sources and References
Again, your article is very well researched and takes information from a variety of sources.

Organization
I would make two slight alterations to the organization of the article under the "Pathogenicity" sub-heading.

First of all, I would move "Mode of transmission and Infection" right to the top of the "Pathogenicity" sub-heading. This would make it much easier for readers to follow the natural progression of the disease right from the very beginning--they would first be presented with information about how the pathogen enters the body and which tissue it initially colonizes before learning about how the infection spreads throughout the body once firmly established.

Secondly, I would create a separate sub-heading for your discussion of Amphotericin B, perhaps labelled "Treatment". Currently, you discuss Amphotericin B under the "Pathogenicity" sub-heading, but the discussion of treatment does not, in itself, add any insight as to how the pathogen colonizes the human body in the natural world. Distinguishing between the two topics would make the article more focused and coherent.

Overall impressions
Overall, this seems like it will make an excellent article. You have done thorough research and presented a set of facts which are not only detailed but are also incredibly interesting! With a couple of modifications to the structure of the article, and some explanation of the more complex terminology in use, I think you will be in good shape.

Wshepherdmyco (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments
Lots of good material on this fungus. Try to simplify terms like 'phaeoid'. One way you might be able to come up with a few more mentions is to search google, or even better, google books for the search term: chaetomium "c. perlucidum" Often genus is only mentioned a few times in an article and thereafter it is abbreviated to the first letter. If you co-search the genus name together with the abbreviated species name in quotation marks, you will be able to find papers that otherwise might have been missed.

Lastly, some of your references appear duplicated. This is possibly because you did not follow my instructions about in-line citation. Please do not do this. Instead, use the prototype I provided and consolidate your references in a references section at the bottom of the article. Medmyco (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)