User talk:Hstuhlma/MTAP

MTAP Peer Review 1
History: "characterized likely as a phosphorylase" wording is weird. Get rid of likely or rephrase the sentence. "They noticed that there had to be a protein" get rid of had to be and change it to "they noticed there was a protein". I would add more to the history overall. It is very brief and doesn't seem to give the whole story. Elaborate more on the discovery and how they performed the experiments. For the 1986, which group? You should list the group that discovered it by name and include more information on the process.

Function: Maybe go into more detail on the polyamine pathway or link to the wikipedia article because most people will not know what it is. Do the same in regard to the purine pathway and why it is important.

Structure: You definitely need an image of the structure here if there is one available. Maybe even include one of PNP to show the difference directly. You should also go into more detail on the actual active site.

Gene information: I'm not sure if you really need to include the sequence of the gene. It seems to just take up a lot of space and not do much for the overall article. Instead, you could link to the source that has the sequence for readers to reference if they really want to see. I would focus more on the location of the gene and if there are any inhibitors or enhancers to its transcription and then translation.

MTAP and cancer: Your first sentence isn't a complete sentence and needs to be finished. Go into why cancer cells would have more MTA.

Purification: "When the protein was first being looked into" should be changed to "when the protein was first examined". Again, say what group purified it and why. Explain the different purification methods or link to the wikipedia article so readers can learn what it is.

Overall: Make sure you complete the sections you bulleted and add images where they're needed. Add more explanation to each section to give readers a better understanding. You had lots of great sources, but make sure you actually use all of them and get rid of any that weren't used. Also, if you say "studies" make sure you reference more than one study. You did a great job presenting the information without any opinions or bias. I think you had some good sections so far, I would like to see a section about how it is used/studied today besides cancer research. I think it would also be beneficial to mention future applications for MTAP and how groups hope to use/study it in the future.

Racngiles (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Racngiles

Peer Review
I like what you have so far! I think the way you divided the sections is clear and well-organized, and it seems like you've made great progress! Are you planning on keeping the same lead? I think the original lead is sufficient, although it could be nice to add a sentence about purification since you have a whole section dedicated to it.

History: I think it could be helpful to clarify/reword the discovery of MTAP: why did researchers studying rat ventral prostate figure out that there were high concentrations of MTAP in the tissue? Explaining this and potentially rewording it i.e. "While examining rat ventral prostate samples, they discovered high concentrations of MTA in the tissue. Through further analysis using ____ they deduced that the high concentrations of MTAP were likely due to protein phosphorylating or another mechanism of splitting MTA through an unknown enzyme."

Function: This section looks great and I like your plan to add more. However, I would confirm with Dr. Walter if you can use a figure from one of the sources. I remember Yulia mentioning that we can only use non-copyright images like a stock image.

Structure: I think potentially reordering this section to go before function may make more logistical sense. It could be helpful to define trimer enzymes, also see above comment about using images!

Gene Information: I agree with the other editor, the gene sequence may not be entirely necessary, but I can see why you chose to include it. I would also look back and see if some of the information can be moved to the structure section.

MTAP and Cancer: There seem to be some grammatical errors. The other editor commented on the first sentence but I would also be mindful of using too much passive language like your second sentence "Research studies have shown" could be changed to "Research studies show" or even "studies show" for conciseness.

Purification: There is a lot of passive voice here that could easily be fixed. Logistically, this paragraph could be moved closer to the history section for clarity.

Aldewald (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review
The introduction is super engaging and accessible to non-experts. I think that the material included in each section was appropriate and not over-explained. I appreciated the effort to be concise in explanations where the ideas were fleshed out fully. As for the areas that are still in the works, I am eager to see how they are displayed in an accessible and engaging way.

There were some links into related concepts and terms, however not a ton. I think it would be productive to add some more because there is a lot of terminologies not known by non-experts on this topic. There weren’t many highlighted examples and I assume those will be implemented once the brief outlines that are here are fully explained. That being said, I don’t think the plans nor the content used is redundant nor duplicative.

There appears to be an absence of graphs or figures. There is a sequence of the gene which is necessary. However, I would be interested to see what other figures could potentially portray this piece more effectively. Possibly some close-ups to the structure to supplement the already present structure of MTAP shown!

The sources are complete and there aren’t any inappropriate sources being used. It appears as though all the sources utilized are from academic journals and peer-reviewed work. This is fantastic because there are also well over 10 sources being used. This variation in sources really helps support the neutrality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheblin (talk • contribs) 03:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

MTAP Peer Review
Lead: I noticed there was nothing written under the "lead" section of this wiki article, but for the purpose of this peer review I will assume that the "History" section is the "lead". Through the history information stated and the section you wish to include in the future regarding the "overview of the large research discoveries made", I feel like this will allow all readers with the satisfaction that they know the importance of the subject. Overall, I feel that the lead reflects the most important info and is well written. The two points that you wish to incorporate are relevant and will strengthen this section further. - acronym MTAP was not identified --> identify so that everything is there for the readers

Structure: Your group does a great job of giving the different aspects of the article their own sections. However, I have one suggestion for the order in which the sections are placed. As a reader/peer reviewer I thought it would make more sense if the order of sections after "History" and before "Gene information" went like this: purification, structure, and then function. Since you mention that purification led to "experiments on the stability, structure and properties of the protein" I thought it would make sense to go before you start discussion structure and function. Moreover, I think that the structure section is telling of the way that MTAP functions thus "structure" should go before "function".

Balanced coverage: Since some of the content/ideas in the Sandbox is currently bulleted, I'm not able to appropriately critique if each section's length is equal to its importance in MTAP. However, I think that all information/bullet points are relevant to get a great understanding of MTAP. Your current article reflects all the perspectives represented in the published literature and it strays away from drawing conclusions, which is all great; you do not try to convince your readers to accept one particular point of view.

Neutral Content: -The phrase "large enough extent" in the history section does not feel neutral. I would suggest saying something in the lines of "In 1986, MTAP was purified and characterized and a group in Italy studied it further". -The phrase "This trend is easily understood" in the MTAP and Cancer section does not feel neutral. I would suggest saying something in the lines of "This is because MTAP functions to cleave its substrate MTA in the polyamine pathway" Asides from these two suggestions, I think you do all do a great job of not making claims on behalf of others and providing a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

Reliable Sources: You all do a great job of making sure that most of your statements are connected to reliable sources (I looked over all the references in your reference section).

Overall, I see great potential in this article and was very impressed with all the sections.

Ypasinos (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

=Catherine's feedback= I am looking forward to reading the finalized article! Cawilhel (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Having a separate "History" section does not seem necessary for a protein. A lot of the information you include would be more appropriate in other sections (for example, 98 kDa homotrimer is structure information).
 * In the Function section: What is MTA? Can you make an image of the reaction pathway to include here? That may be more helpful for a reader than describing it. Information about the importance of methionine and adenosine would really strengthen this article since they are both super important!
 * I do not think you should include the "Purification" section. This is information that people can seek out in the primary literature, but it does not strengthen your Wikipedia article or pertain to the typical Wikipedia viewer.

= Nils comments =

Nice start. Make sure not to get lost in the details - ask, what would a general reader be most interested in? Find other Wikipedia articles to link to.

Ngwalter (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

= MLibrarian comments = It is my understanding that you will use the Lead from the original article, at least this is what I would recommend. The article needs to start from defining and spelling out what MTAP stands for. I also look forward to seeing suggested figures. A few comments:

1) This sentence belongs to Structure "They determined the enzyme to have a molecular weight of 98,000 Da, with three identical subunits"

2) I agree that Purification is not necessary MLibrarian (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)