User talk:GrumpyButtons/Topoisomerase inhibitor

INTRO PARAGRAPH (for EGB)the first sentence of revamped intro is nice in that we clearly can understand what inhibitors do.Histidine6.0 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC) (EGB) Moving along, I'm not completley sure it is necessary to expalin topoisomerases in as much detail as you did in the beggining since this artilce should mainly foucus on the aspcects of just the inhibitor of topoisomerase. (EGB)I'd maybe incldue one sentence about the topoisomerase but then transiton straight into the inibitor part sooner starting with "some topoisomerase inhibiotrs." (EGB) The overall flow of the intro is nice! Histidine6.0 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC) (EGB) The intro should give a brief synoposis of the full article and i think you did that nicelyHistidine6.0 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

TOPOISOMERASE 1 HISTORY (EGB) On topoisomerase 1 inihibitor history, I like the transiton of how you describe the lack of knowledge scientists had to how they made connections with new findings of the interaction of inihibior with DNA by x-ray. An idea for this disproving of the theory sentence, I think its okay that you cant find an article that specifacally "mentions" the shift in change of undersatnding. This is because science is always evolving and if you find an article that notes a new obsravtion, then dont be shy to say that there was a shift in understanding! That new finding automatically leads to a shift in the understanding.Histidine6.0 (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(EGB)I like the strcuture of the history section you are trying to take on. However it is unclear that campthothecin, indocarbazoles, etc are inhibiotrs at first glance. It could be nice to add the word inhibitors to the end of each of the names maybe. BUT, the structure is nice and i like how you breakdown the history of each inhibitor into diffenrt sections.Histidine6.0 (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC) As you know, just cite the sources thorugh wikipedia. I understand this was just an accidental error when transferring from personal sandbox.Histidine6.0 (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(EGB) It could be better to add different numbers before the titles of the dif inhibiortors for the history secction so that they all dont have a 1. Maybe something like 123, or ABC. Histidine6.0 (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC) In each section of the history, if you talk about another aspect for the same ihinbitor dont be shy to make another subheading! it makes it clear to the audince the diffenrt roles these inhibiots have found to play overtime. Histidine6.0 (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC) e.g. poisons v antitumor affects for campothecin. the lonely sentence at end of indenoisoquinolines section can be merged in the previous paragraph. Overall, good start to the history section. It will just take a little bit more fine tuning. Histidine6.0 (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

ANTHRACYLINE STRUCTURE PEER REVIEW (for EGB) One nit-picky aspect is that there is no smooth transiton into what an anthracycline is. yes you describe it but how does it relate to the inhibiors yall are dicussing? --- try to tie that in (maybe it means changing the title or adding one snetence before discussing structure).Looking at what is in the draft, the first sentnece makes it difficult to grasp what the sturtcure is. Picture exactly what your words say and maybe think of a better way for reader to visualize the structure through your words. A picture could possibly be nice to incorporate. Histidine6.0 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC) In the next paragraph when you talk about the 4 main antrhicyclines maybe break up into differnt subheadings when explaing them. One last thing is that the title makes me think we are only reading about sturtucre however, you then go into some functionalty of the sturture. Maybe a new heading could help clear up a lot. MAke sure the heading clearly and brifely explains what will be said in the paragraphs below. Histidine6.0 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Peer review for Wassupbrotein (sections signed VJ) by Sean Calvert

Paragraph about Topo I mechanism 1. I think making the shorthand notation with regards to DNA topoisomerase I more uniform would help make your contribution look more formal. Topo I vs. Top I. 2. In the second sentence, I think changing the phrase "double helix axis" to "helical axis" will make the sentence more concise while not changing the information it's trying to convey. 3. In the third sentence, I accidentally read the word "reliagte" as "relegate", when I think you were trying to say the strand re-ligates with the help of Topo I, which definitely makes sense. To help avoid this confusion, I would either change it to "re-ligates" or talk about it and use the phrase "re-annealing". 4. In the 4th sentence, you used the word "relegation" when I think you meant "re-ligation". If I'm wrong though, please disregard hahaha. 5. In the 4th sentence, I think using the word "stabilizes" is more grammatically correct than the word "stabilize". 6. At the end of the 4th sentence there is a space between the period and the end of the sentence. After that I think the rest is really good! It's clear, concise, and easy to read. I think linking to the existing wiki pages for the long drug names you mentioned would be helpful, just because the average person may not know what they are or what a lactone ring is. Scalvert2000 (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Sean Calvert (SJC)

Paragraph about Topo II Mechanism 1. Same with the first paragraph you did, I think looking at the word "religation" and changing it to something else would help a lot with making your text easier to understand. 2. The sentence that starts with "The mechanism" has the word "still" in it, which makes the sentence more clunky than it would be if that word were gone. 3. Generally, some of the sentences seem a bit long to me. This may just be a stylistic choice, but I think some of the sentences with a lot of commas may be better if they were broken up into multiple sentences. For example, I think the third sentence that talks about the different inhibitors' mode of function could be broken up. Instead of joining the two parts with the phrase "while others, like", I think making the first part that talks about inhibitors that intercalate its own sentence and starting a new one to discuss inhibitors that interact with specific amino acids with a word like "Alternatively," would make the paragraph flow better. This idea could be applied to any sentences that may be seen as run-on. 4. I think the sentence "Interestingly, there is overlap between inhibitors’ mechanism types and forms of inhibition." is a little clunky. Maybe something like "Interestingly, there is overlap between the mechanisms and forms of inhibition for these inhibitors." may make it flow a little better. Again, I think this paragraph is very well written and does a great job of getting the message across. I think a few stylistic changes and syntax tweaks would help, but overall it's really informative. Scalvert2000 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Sean Calvert (SJC)

Peer editor: Rhoda Hijazi Username: biochem22S (Amey Duarte) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GrumpyButtons/Topoisomerase_inhibitor

First Section: Camptothecin and Derivatives as Anticancer Therapeutics. itallicize "in vitro" I think you should split the first sentence into two different thoughts comma after SCLC in 3rd sentence After you mention SCLC one time you do not have to type it out again. In the 7th sentence you can just put SCLC "Serval" in 8th sentence misspelled Can you expand upon the clinical trials mentioned in sentence 8? Overall, this section is succint and informative. I like that you touched on a lot of different derivatives. I am wondering if you can group them by similarities in function to further expand on structure and function.

Second section: Non-Camptothecin The start of this section is confusing by using "Therefore" at the beginning, what are you drawing from to make this conclusion? I think expanding this section to distinguish the differences between non-camptothecin and camptothecin clinically slightly will make this section more informative and easier to understand

Third section: Antibiotics Can you talk more about the two classes of inhibitors? What distinguishes them?

Fourth Section: Intercalating poisons as Anticancer Therapeutics Change Topo 2 to Topo II to establish fluidity Can you talk more about what makes something non -intercalating or provide a link to another page who discusses the differences Did you mean intercalating instead of interaction poisons? I think adding links to your list in the last sentence will help the reader understand the effects of therapeutics.

I believe the organization of your sections are great. I think expanding on the differences between what you are comparing throughout the article will make it more informative. I like that your information is succint and to the point so that it allows readers to get helpful information.

peer review for Lauren by aficancat12 (Abby Musyoka)

1. paragraph 2 "non-interacting poisons specificity target..." I'm unsure how the mechanism behind the poison, say its working against it. Maybe include specifics on how the poison is working against topo 2. 2. Paragraph 3 You start with " as previously mention..." In the section you did give the reader previous information on what a non-intercalating poison maybe include more information how it works. 3. In the same sentence you mention the structural differences between the non-intercalating and intercalating poisons but there was not pervious information on intercalating poisons. 4. Also include consider including some more information on the structure non-intercalating poisons there was no information given in the previous paragraph. 5. Maybe consider removing the some of the subheadings there were a few that were titled structure but talked about something else. 6. I was unsure if catalytic poisons are a separate type of poison from the non-intercalating and intercalating, consider clarifying that section. 7. Check for spelling error within the sentences 8.Change some of the headings and sub-headings to coincide with what is being discussed within the paragraph. 9.In simocycliones, maybe include the mechanism behind it you mention," Simocycliones bind to both E. coli topo IV and human topo II, effectively inhibiting their functions" include how they are able to do that. 10.The sentence "however topo IV ..." "I think you were trying to say that " however the topo IV could also be classified based upon...."' 11. Maybe also separate the section on types antibiotics and drug classifications into its on separate section so that is is not confused with the section above. Overall I think it was a very good, I learned alot of new information on topoisomerases. Maybe consider linking the pages for the drugs you mentioned on the final paragraphs if they are available. Just a little bit of editing on the subheading and headings and add some more information on the mechanisms and I think this part of the page will be all good to go.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Africancat12 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Rhijazi00 (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

for AD (Biochem22S) -- Peer Review
Camptothecin and Derivatives as Anticancer Therapeutics: "serval" i read as 'several'. I would go back and make sure spelling and grammar are all good to go for that. I think you should elaborate on what 'bevacizumab' treatment is, as a reader I would want to know. I would elaborate on the last few sentences, because it seems to end abruptly. Non-camptothecin: I dont think you should start your paragraph with "therefore", but other than that, may elaborate on what was found in the studies. Intercalating Poisons as Anticancer therapeutics: I would rework the first sentence on this because im not sure what you mean by "identification", but otherwise good. your contribution was overall really good! there's a lot of information and i learned a lot! (from lcuomo411)