User talk:Phll/sandbox

Hi Phll! After reading over your article outline it looks really great! I really like all of the linking you did and there's a lot of great information. I just had a few comments in terms of clarification and ideas for furthering your research. Firstly, I think you need to find more information on the history and taxonomy. I particularly struggled with this section as well and found it helpful to go to my genus link. However, I noticed that yours doesn't have a wiki page. You could potentially discuss here that not much is known about the species or potentially look into closely related species to see if you can find anything. Also, in the growth/morphology you talk about a lot of different things (gymnothecia, asci, conidia...). Its not quite clear what the significance of all of these are. To help this, you could add a brief explanation of the reproduction methods so that theres some context for this section. If you can't find anything on reproduction specifically, maybe just mention the purpose of each of the above. Lastly, I was a little confused in the epidemiology section. This is likely because its a rough outline and you didn't want to include everything. But when reading the points I was unsure how each related to your fungus. You mention frontal sinusitis but is this caused by your species? Make sure you are clear on this for all of the points so the reader knows why they are important.

Overall great information, just a few clarification ideas! :)

Cjwalker (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Cjwalker

---

Hello Phll!

Your page included a wide range of information that was clearly gathered with a thorough search in the literature, great job! I have listed below some suggestions to make the page more abundant and informative.

1.	The summary

Good job for including a summary section. I believe that it would give readers a general idea about the fungus before reading further. However, I suggest that you briefly summarize all aspects of the fungus (i.e. morphology, taxonomy, ecology, physiology, etc), and later expand them under the subheadings. Especially consider mentioning the pathology regarding Myriodontium keratinophilum (i.e. its implication in skin lesion and sinusitis). I think this would make the summary more helpful for the readers that hope to gain medical knowledge associated with this fungus. If you concluded that its importance in sinusitis remains unclear after a thorough search in the literature, consider not including this in the summary.

2.	History and taxonomy

This section is really good in my opinion. I especially like that you have included the teleomorph name. Have you also tried creating a disambiguation/redirection page? Also, it seems like M. keratinophilum is the only species in the genus. Could you confirm? Were there some other species that were originally in this genus, but were later categorized into other genera?

3.	Growth and morphology

This section is very informative. However, I agree with Cjwalker that you may want to rearrange the order of your information. I refer you to the Apophysomyces variabilis page as an example of creating flow. For instance, this section can be further broken down into “morphology”, “growth” and “reproduction”. 4.	Habitat and ecology

You mentioned that M. keratinophilum grow on lesions, but is it pathogenic? If so, I would suggest that you also include a section titled “Pathophysiology” to further discuss the risk factors and treatment options.

5.	Physiology

I personally think that the first line (growth temperature and keratinolytic) can stay, but I am unsure if the specific culturing conditions need to be mentioned. Besides, you mentioned that no growth is observed at body temperature, but did you find any explanation on why that is the case (considering that they grow on skin lesions and may cause sinusitis)? At which temperature would they normally grow on instead? How does their mycelium/spore forms affect their ability of growth in different conditions?

6.	Epidemiology

In the sinusitis article that you have linked, it is mentioned that the role of fungi as a definite factor of sinusitis remains unknown. You have also reported a case of a Nigerian patient, and the antifungal drug ketoconazole was able to treat the disease.

I suggest that you 1) look for more cases where M. keratinophilum contributes to sinusitis and/or 2) further elaborate on the implication of the case that you have mentioned (i.e. Has it been mentioned anywhere else that the Nigerian case is an evidence to support the statement “fungi can cause sinusitis”?).

Overall, the outline was very well done. I understand that not a lot of literature is available for this fungus, which is probably why it didn’t even have an English page before your contribution. However, I think you should be able to act on the above suggestions based on the references you already included. Good luck!

Below are some sources that might be helpful:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/search?qs=myriodontium+keratinophilum&authors=&pub=&volume=&issue=&page=&origin=srch_form&zone=qSearch

Especially:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091674998700454 on sinusitis diagnosis and management, including some implications of fungi.

Regards, Axzeng (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Phll!
 * I just read through the outline of your article and it seems like you have a good foundation to work off of for your article. I have a few suggestions that might aid you in further editing your page.
 * I like how there are a few points that start off your article. After a bit of searching, I realized that the species is not yet a widely researched fungal species, so I agree with Cjwalker that you can possibly add a quick statement about the species not yet being that well known within the beginning short blurb.
 * For the History and taxonomy section, don’t forget to italicize your fungus species name when you mention it in the second bullet. As for adding information to this section it seems like you were able to maximize the resources able to be found, since all the papers and books I was going to suggest have already been referenced to.
 * In the Growth and morphology portion, it seems like there is lots of information about the species growth in culturing situations. However the many of the descriptions seems to be very long lists of adjectives describing the fungal colonies. I want to suggest when writing the actual article to include only the necessary and important descriptions or to break them up into separate points, since the outline was a little confusing to read. (eg. Colonies on YpSs agar growing moderately rapidly, attaining a diameter of 6cm within 14 days at 25°C, consisting of a white basal felt, obscured by white, floccose, mycelium-> can be concentrated into a more concise ideas such as: moderate to rapid growth in YpSs agar|attaining 6cm diameter in 14 days at 25 C| colonies are of white color, with felt base obscured by floccose mycelium). Some of the points seemed to be losing focus and it seems like the reader would get confused in what is actually being explained since there is a lot of different information within one section. Possibly you can put the Physiology section above the Growth and morphology including a brief Reproduction subheading so it can lead the reader into the Growth and morphology section. This will allow the article to have a better flow.
 * For the Habitat and Ecology section, I also wanted to suggest different organization, since the second bullet seems to be better for the introduction. There seems to be multiple cases of isolates of the Myriodontium keratinophilum species, so I think giving a brief statement about generally where the species is mainly found(seems to be mainly isolated skin, hair and nails) and then listing the different isolates will be a more efficient way to deliver the information.
 * I think it’s great that you’ve added an Epidemiology section within your article. However, it does seem to blend in with some of the information you state in the Habitat and ecology section. Maybe if you clarify if the isolations were cured or self resolved for the ones in the Habitat and ecology section(if they were), it would give a clearer distinction. If they weren’t different than the ones stated under epidemiology, possibly you can just give a brief statement under Habitat and ecology stating that there are many individual isolations of the species and make the epidemiology heading a subheading under Habitat and ecology where the different cases are all listed.
 * Overall I think you’re article is great and I applaud you in finding the resources you did, since I had difficulty finding any useful sources for your species that you didn’t already have. I hope some of my suggestions were helpful and I wish you luck! --Kim.glor (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)