User talk:Guanine2708/Extrachromosomal circular DNA

Hello! I'll just give some feedback here on the article so far! From Diana Del Rio, group 9 from 505.

1) An introduction section like the original article has would be great. Maybe just a single sentence or a short paragraph like the original article has would be a nice intro for getting into background, structure, and function.

2) Background section: Adding in the full names for Bassel and Hotta would be good, unless that might go in the first introduction for the article above. You could also rephrase the second sentence to something more concise like "In their experiments, they utilized electron microscopy to visualize isolated wheat nuclei and boar sperm and found that boar sperm contained circular DNA of various sizes." and cite it all as [1] reference. Also, I am not sure what the wheat nuclei is used for, but maybe explaining it a bit could be helpful or if its not too relevant, maybe leaving it off and focusing on the boar sperm findings would be fine! You can also remove the (DM) from the Double Minutes if the abbreviation is not going to be used further. I also think maybe leaving off the years for the following circular DNA discoveries might make the article be a little cleaner, just leave the references and the reader would be able to get the years from the articles if they need it!

3) Structure and function: This section is really important so just need to pepper in more references. Especially with the sentence that is mentioning that eccDNA is involved with cancer, and that its a byproduct of programmed recombination events. It will be cool to read it when the functions section is put in!

4) This section is pretty solid. Maybe finding one or two more would bulk up the section.

For the references, its really good that there's so many, but I would also suggest that you make it a "Header" so it separates the article and the list of refs. Other than that, its looking really good!

Extrachromosomal circular DNA Peer review 1
Hi! Here is my feedback for your article:

1. I agree with Diana's comments!

2. Adding a figure of the DNA or its structure would be helpful!

3. For the section that begins and ends with "Some known functions...topic of discussion": you could flesh this out a bit more and talk about the role of eccDNA in these processes; you could discuss current/future research on cancer and drug resistance.

4. When you say "appears to play role" under the "Applications" section, I would suggest using different wording and providing evidence/research.

Overall, good background and draft!

Tahmina018 (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

=Catherine's feedback=

It would be helpful if you could find or create an image to help explain what an eccDNA is and what the structure might look like.

Your structure and function section needs additional information, as you already noted. It may be helpful to make subcategories for each of the four types of eccDNA you list and provide details under the subcategories.

This bit in the structure and function section ("EccDNA are circular DNA and have been found in human, plant, and animal cells and are present in the cell in addition to the chromosomal DNA. The eccDNA are present in normal cells and are a byproduct of programmed recombination events. It has been shown that eccDNA is the product of genomic instability, has rich and important biological functions, and is involved in various diseases, one of which is cancer.") seems like it would fit better in the background section.

This sentence ("Overall eccDNA has been linked to cancer and drug resistance, aging, gene compensation[22], and for this reason it continues to be a significant topic of discussion.") is weak. More information about cancer, drug resistance, aging, and gene compensation would improve it. Also, when you say "cancer and drug resistance," does this mean eccDNA is correlated to both cancer occurring and cancer drug resistance, or is this a different type of drug resistance? Please make this more clear.

--Cawilhel (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Nils feedback
Nice start! Please consider keeping some of the original article, but then adding your expansion into more of the functional relevance, as you suggest, adding a figure and recent scientific insights.

Ngwalter (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

MLibrarian feedback
1) In the first sentence "Bassel and Hotta made the initial discovery of eccDNA", I suggest spelling out the acronym eccDNA, so that it would be "extrachromosomal circular DNA (eccDNA)....".

2) In the background section, in the sentence "Their research found that the boar sperm cells contained circular DNA of various sizes" I suggest linking "circular DNA to a Wiki page" and also at this point it would be nice to say a couple of words on how circular DNA is related to eccDNA, how they are related, and whether the finding was focused on circular DNA or more specifically on eccDNA?

3) As this sentence goes "Charlotte Avers identified circular nuclear and mitochondrial DNA in yeast[3]. Circular DNA was likewise" again, please link circular DNA to the existing Wiki page and explain why you talk so much about the circular DNA, while the topic is eccDNA.

4) Currently, the article immediately jumps into operating with eccDNA or circular DNA concepts without preparing a reader to what it is. I suggest moving the second section up, to be the first. This way the article will start from a definition of eccDNA. The Background section can go next and it would be more appropriate to call it History.

5) In Applications, link matrix attachment regions (MARs) to the existing Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaffold/matrix_attachment_region; link Oncogene to existing wiki

6) In applications, rephrase "From eccDNA, matrix attachment regions (MARs) were found which were found to activate amplification of oncogene"

7) A scheme would be nice. MLibrarian (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

feedback from october that wasn't published
Hello! I'll just give some feedback here on the article so far! From Diana Del Rio, group 9 from 505.

1) An introduction section like the original article has would be great. Maybe just a single sentence or a short paragraph like the original article has would be a nice intro for getting into background, structure, and function.

2) Background section: Adding in the full names for Bassel and Hotta would be good, unless that might go in the first introduction for the article above. You could also rephrase the second sentence to something more concise like "In their experiments, they utilized electron microscopy to visualize isolated wheat nuclei and boar sperm and found that boar sperm contained circular DNA of various sizes." and cite it all as [1] reference. Also, I am not sure what the wheat nuclei is used for, but maybe explaining it a bit could be helpful or if its not too relevant, maybe leaving it off and focusing on the boar sperm findings would be fine! You can also remove the (DM) from the Double Minutes if the abbreviation is not going to be used further. I also think maybe leaving off the years for the following circular DNA discoveries might make the article be a little cleaner, just leave the references and the reader would be able to get the years from the articles if they need it!

3) Structure and function: This section is really important so just need to pepper in more references. Especially with the sentence that is mentioning that eccDNA is involved with cancer, and that its a byproduct of programmed recombination events. It will be cool to read it when the functions section is put in!

4) This section is pretty solid. Maybe finding one or two more would bulk up the section.

For the references, its really good that there's so many, but I would also suggest that you make it a "Header" so it separates the article and the list of refs. Other than that, its looking really good!

from october 15 :( pls check the history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddelrio08 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)