User talk:Lovatonv/sandbox

Hey, I looked over you rough draft of your article and it looks like a great starting point but I had some suggestions which can be found below, Under the section Taxonomy the point you made is a great starting point but for your final make sure to add more regarding the taxa of the fungi itself. Maybe start with the original name it was founded in and then transition into the new name. You should maybe include something about it being an Ascomycota and then describe if asexual forms are present or sexual and then talk about the anamorph or teleomorph, if any. And if you need more help in finding this and can’t find it in literature or online seek the professor for more guidance.

Under the Growth and Morphology, I think you can add more about the fungi itself and add a description of not only how it looks but try to gather more information on the size, length and refer to lecture or online for tools on how to describe fungi and what should be included.

I think you have some things mixed up under your growth and morphology section and physiology so make sure to identify the difference between the two sections and for your final to add the respective information under where it truly belongs. Just be careful with getting it mixed up.

Under your Habitat and Ecology; definitely try finding more information regarding the environment of where this fungi can be found. Like not only locations but also describing if it does reside close to trees or forests ect. I did notice you wrote it’s unknown but try to find commonalities between the literature and describing a common element among where it has been found before. Or even what researchers are suggesting and make point this is a future question or next steps for research.

Under your disease in human’s section; I think you should change the title of this section and make it “Pathogenicity” or “Pathogen associated with fungi” or something along those lines. Under this section expand on the pathogen aspect of this fungi, what it does, how it effects mammals, common targets and common elements found in literature. You started off great maybe adding more cases that have had this diagnosed and what occurred to some people can be a great example or description that can be added under this section.

Maybe you can add a new section titled “Treatment” and add information reading new advancements of treatments I found some information on research regarding that so maybe that can help.

Lastly, I found some articles/links that might be helpful for your research: (most of the info I found was under the name this fungi was first identified as)

Book:

1.)	Identification of pathogenic fungi by: Colin Campbell, Elizabeth Johnson, David W. Warnock (This was on the U of T Library website and the online version is available to students)

Articles:

2.)	First Autochthonous Case of Rhinocladiella mackenziei Cerebral Abscess Outside the Middle East by: Hamid Badali, Jagdish Chander, Shaifali Bansal, Atul Aher, Surendra S. Borkar, Jacques F. Meis and G. Sybren De Hoog

3.)	Cerebral Phaeohyphomycosis Caused by Rhinocladiella mackenziei in a Woman Native to Afghanistan by: Alejandro Cristini, Dea Garcia-Hermoso, Marie Celard, Gilles Albrand, and Olivier Lortholary

4.)	In vitro activities of conventional and new antifungal drugs against Rhinocladiella mackenziei agent of cerebral phaeohyphomycosis by: H. Badali, G.S. de Hoog, I. Breuker-Curfs, J. F. Meis

5.)	Cerebral phaeohyphomycosis—a cure at what lengths? by: Dong Ming Li, G Sybren de Hoog

Trinity17 (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Here is another source: U.S. Case Report of Cerebral Phaeohyphomycosis Caused by Ramichloridium obovoideum (R. mackenziei): Criteria for Identification, Therapy, and Review of Other Known Dematiaceous Neurotropic Taxa (1998), Sutton DA. et al., J Clin Microbiol

Although slightly old, this article has a lot of information you can use, like possible information on patients, speculations about taxonomy and relationships, the differentiation between the Ramichloridium and Rhinocladiella genera. The drug itraconazole is mentioned as a treatment that improved conditions, but could not save lives. The paper mentioned above by previous user, In vitro activities of conventional and new antifungal drugs against Rhinocladiella mackenziei agent of cerebral phaeohyphomycosis, makes reference to a drug, isavuconazole, as a possible treatment drug.

The paper, Cerebral phaeohyphomycosis due to Rhinocladiella mackenziei (formerly Ramichloridium mackenziei): Case presentation and literature review (2011) by Al-Tawfiq JA and Boukhamseen, has information on cases of incidence of infection, attempted treatments, and a fair amount of references to search through.

Thisiseyes (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

HMB436 Peer Review
Hi Lovatonv,

If you can find it I'd suggest adding the etymology of the name of your fungi in. Your taxa box seems to have a typo for the binomial name, shouldn't it be "Rhinocladiella mackenziei" instead of "Rhynocladiella mackenziei"? Also consider renaming the header "Disease in humans" to "Mycosis". (Mycosis -"a disease caused by infection with a fungus, such as ringworm or thrush."

(Note that all the subsequent articles can be found by using the UofT's online onesearch library)

A good source for you too use could be "Primary Central Nervous System Phaeohyphomycosis: A Review of 101 Case" by Revankar et al. It has many interesting details that you could populate your outline with including "The next frequent isolate was Ramichloridium mackenziei, seen exclusively in patients from the Middle East" and possible treatments such as "the combination of amphotericin B, flucytosine, and itraconazole may improve survival rate".

Another source that might be useful to you is "Successful therapy of cerebral phaeohyphomycosis due to Ramichloridium mackenziei with the new triazole posaconazole" by AL-ABDELY et al. This is a case report showing the extended survival of a 62 year old patient despite the disease having a 100% mortality rate.

A third source you could use is "Ramichloridium mackenziei brain abscess: report of two cases and review of the literature*" by Kanj et al. You can mention various details from this article including that there are various fungi which cause phaeohyphomycosis and that they are specifically causing brain abscesses. There is also a list of symptoms that you may be able to add to you article.

This is a good outline but you certainly are going to have to populate the sections with more detail (especially the mycosis section since there seems to be a lot of literature about it). Good luck with your article! Lantsford (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

HMB436 Review
Hi Lovatonv, here are some of my suggestions for your article.

Taxobox
 * I'm not sure if you need a citation for each of the lines...

History
 * How did the fungus name change from Ramichloridium mackenziei to Rhinocladiella mackenziei? Why did the name change?
 * make sure you italicize the name of the fungus

Growth and morphology
 * instead of referring to another paper about the detailed description about the fungus, why don't you paraphrase that and include that information in your sandbox?

Physiology
 * for you second point, what kind of diagnosis did you mean? identification of the fungus, or the diagnosis of the disease in fungus extracted from the patient?

Habitat and ecology
 * Paper that deals with a case study (doi: 10.3109/13693780903383914), in which some interesting facts are noted in the introduction, such as the fact that there were no environmental source of this fungus recovered in US at the time (2010) because it was usually immigrants or visitors from the Middle East that have brought this infection along with them. Take a look and see if you can find something useful.

Disease in humans
 * what is cerebral phaeohyphomycosis? what are some symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment?
 * There was a case study report in 2015 about the disease (doi: 10.1016/j.cmrp.2015.05.010) that talks about how the disease frequently occurs in immunocompromised/immunosuppressed individuals. Some of the symptoms that the individual had was loss of awareness, inability to speak, and emotional lability. However, the fungus that was identified to be responsible for this same disease was a different fungus than yours. Maybe use this paper as a starting point to look for other case reports that are related to your fungus.

Others (Skimming through this paper, it looked like it also explained how the name changed from Ramichloridium to Rhinochloridium, so look into that as well)
 * Sexual/Asexual Reproduction? According to this reference (doi: 10.3114/sim.2007.58.03), Ramichloridium is an anamorph genus, with conidia, with no teleomorph. But double check that this is also the case for Rhinochloridium Mackenziei.

References
 * ISBN/PMID/doi for each of the references?
 * I don't think we need a 'retrieved date'. Instead, we should put the date that the article/book was published?

Hope this helps!Dhs293 (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review by Bedrosmi
I have read through your draft and have come up with some tips that you may find helpful in improving your page. Although I appreciate that your points are clear and concise, I think readers would benefit if you elaborate on the preexisting categories. Expand your taxonomic category by providing a historical timeline. Begin from your current point which states that it was initially classified as a species of Ramichloridium, and discuss the influential evidence leading up to its current classification.

I like your first point under the “Habitat and ecology” category, given that R. mackenziei is prominently found in the Middle East. An article I found, linked below, would be a good addition to this section. It highlights the first case of brain infection in infection outside of the Middle East, in India, where R. mackenziei is not commonly found.

Given that Rhinocladiella mackenziei is most notably a human pathogen, it is a good idea to emphasize the cause and effects of the disease. Try using the “link” tool to give readers access to terms that would aid in their understanding of the fungus. A good start would be linking the word “phaeohyphomycosis,” which already has a wiki page associated with the infection.

A good addition to your list of categories would be a “Treatment” portion. Here, you can describe any known treatments for the disease and the effectiveness of said treatments. One of the journal articles you have found, “Rhinocladiella mackenziei as an Emerging Cause of Cerebral Phaeohyphomycosis in Pakistan: A Case Series, ” mentions itraconazole, posaconazole, and isavuconazole therapies that have been reported to be effective in some cases. Another article I found, linked below, also describes instances in which similar therapies have been employed against fatal brain infections. Bedrosmi (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review by Zhuo Cao
Hi Lovatonv, I just reviewed you topic and the peer-reviews. There are some suggestions that might be helpful.

-In terms of the structure, it might be better to have the name of the fungus with its general descriptions above the “Contents” box. And also, it is also great if the name of the fungus is presented in the taxobox instead of “Lovatonv/sandbox”. In terms of “Taxonomy” section, I might have a slightly different opinion with Trinity17 (the first reviewer), I think it might be better to delete this section and put the point in the “History” section. As long as it is clearly indicated in taxobox, it seems not necessary to create another section just for one synonym.

-Regrading the sources, the first reference listed is retrieved from MycoBank and the description MycoBank presents is based on “Phylogenetic and morphotaxonomic revision of Ramichloridium and allied genera” which is your third reference; it seems like u actually cited the same literature but at different levels. It is always better to just cite a peer-reviewed source. As suggested, it might also be better if the references are in Alphabetical order which might be easier and more convenient for both the editors and viewers to check. In addition, more sources might be needed for this work. Since there is a really limited database online for Ramichloridium mackeiziei, besides the sources suggested above by our fellows, you might consider a small travel to Royal Ontario Museum for a book, named The black yeasts and allied hyphomycetes, which is expected to have a extensive detailed descriptions and studies of Rhinocladiella. There are some other available sources you might also be interested:

“A monograph of Cercosporella, Ramularia and allied genera (phytopathogenic hypomycetes)” (search on google, there is a link allows you to directly download the PDF)

“Nomenclatural Notes on Some Black Yeast-like Hyphomycetes” http://www.jstor.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/stable/1219743?pq-origsite=summon&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

-With respect to the listed points or facts, some of them might not be well-categorized, specific, informative, nor important. For instance, the “Physiology” section listed 2 points. The first one says “poor growth at 25 °C”, which might not be informative because the viewers might prefer its maximum growth temperature or its overall growth statistics instead of a specific temperature that the fungus grows poorly. It might also be better if this point is part of “Growth and morphology” section. The second point in this section mentioned the characteristic of its growth affecting diagnosis. It might be better to place this point at “Disease in Humans” section or “pathogenicity” (as suggested by Trinity17) section, because the main part of this point is about its diagnosis. By the way, I found one typo you might consider to fix for the final article, the “Ramichloridum” in the history section in which a “i” is missed.

Hope my suggestions could be supportive. Thanks very much for the patience and wish you all the best!