User talk:Tmckenne/sandbox

Summary of characteristics of target article

- References - An article should have many references that contain no original research. In-line citation should also be in the article.

- Well Written - The article should be well written, spelling, grammer, and copyright rules should all be applied in the article.

- Focused - The article is focused in it's coverage of the topic.

- Neutral - The authors biased opinion is not included in the article. It remains unbiased and fair.

- Stable - The article is not being changed frequently.

- Images - Has images to help support and illustrate the article.

Tmckenne (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Rotavirus
Rotavirus vaccines are typically made using MA104 cells as the host cell for the virus to infect. In order for the rotavirus to get in to the cell the VP4 protein must be cleaved to allow the rotavirus to enter the cell. To produce a vaccine one must be able to grow rotavirus in culture at high amounts, without the cleavage of the VP4 protein this is not possible. Trypsin solution can be added at low amounts to cleave the VP4 protein and thus allow the virus to enter and infect the cells. This addition of trypsin to the cell and virus media can greatly increase the amount of rotavirus yielded when the solution is harvested.

Unit 7: Getting started on your article
Key Points for the Northwestern Blot article

- What a Northwestern Blot is

- What kind of test a Northwestern Blot is

- How a Northwestern Blot is done

- History of the Northwestern Blot

- Industry uses

Possible references

Northwestern Blot of Protein-RNA Interaction from Young Rice Particles


 * This article can be used to show how the results from this blot are used in a study.

A Northwestern blotting approach for studying iron regulatory element-binding proteins


 * This article can be used to help show how a Northwestern blot is used and what the results can tell us.

GE blotting


 * This webpage has many industrial uses for this test and the equipment needed to complete a Northwestern blot.

RNA-Binding Patterns in Total Human Tissue Proteins: Analysis by Northwestern Blotting


 * This article can help provide real life examples of how this test is used.

Tmckenne (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The Nucleic Acid Protocols Handbook


 * This book provides a detailed description of the technique.Msmrugby (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Specific interaction between coronavirus leader RNA and nucleocapsid protein.


 * This article discusses "a specific Northwestern blotting protocol using radiolabeled viral RNAs in the presence of host cell competitor RNA." This article also provides some relevant images that we can use in the wiki article and cite accordingly. Msmrugby (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible Images

Specific interaction between coronavirus leader RNA and nucleocapsid protein. pages 4290-4293

Northwestern Blot of Protein-RNA Interaction from Young Rice Particles Msmrugby (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Outline for Article
Msmrugby (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction/Overview
 * History
 * Technique specifics
 * Applications
 * Links (See Also)
 * References
 * External Links


 * Msmrugby, I'm going to get started on Unit 8. How about we each take two of the subjects and type up a draft and post it on the page?  Unless you have a preference I can take the technique specifics and applications?
 * Tmckenne (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Tyler, Good plan. I will take the first two sections then.  I'll be able to spend some time on this tonight and tomorrow night.Msmrugby (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Tyler, I started our article and tried to get the article structure in place. I've also inserted an initial intro section and origin section.  I plan on adding to both.  I've also inserted a couple of references and links in the "See also" section.Msmrugby (talk) 03:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice additions Tyler. I added some to the progress report.  I think we have things covered for Unit 8.Msmrugby (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Article
Msmrugby, It looks like someone deleted my contribution to the article. I messaged Neelix about it to see if they can provide some assistance and I also emailed Dr. Ogg, so we'll see what they say. Tmckenne (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Tyler, I saw that, I think the deletion may have impacted our grade as well. I also emailed Dr. Ogg.  I'm afraid that when she went on to the article page today to grade our article, those sections were not there and our article looked light on content and references.  In reality, I thought our first contribution was pretty good.Msmrugby (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Tyler, I was able to fix the article. I undid the last three revisions, and the content reappeared.  I also remade the subsequent revisions that were made post-deletion.  I've started making some of the changes per Neelix's suggestions.  We should both work on expanding/refining our content.  Let's make sure we are communicating so that we are not redundant in our efforts.  Hope all is well.Msmrugby (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Current Status as of 4/6/14
Hi Tyler, I've been working on the article. I've expanded the intro section, added an image of Edwin Southern, added a couple of additional citations, added categories, and added a couple of additional section headings per our reviewers suggestions. Here's what I think needs to be addressed. Overall, I think it is coming along. I've responded to our reviewers, but think it would be good for you to respond as well to the comments regarding your sections. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Msmrugby (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional image(s) could be added, including an image of a Northwestern blot and potentially a process flow if you can find one/create one.
 * Your sections could use some additional work to make the verbiage more concise. Also need to make sure that we have all of the citations that are needed.  The reviews have some specific information that needs to be addressed.  One particularly good one in my opinion is to link to the actual protocol.  Also, if you can bullet out/number the process, it will look better.
 * I added a Limitations section, as it seems like relevant information that should be included. Have you come across any information for this?  If not, I will begin looking for it.
 * I created a section for Further Reading per one of our reviewers suggestions. We should both look for sources to put in this section.


 * I added some additional content and cleaned some things up. It is definitely coming along.  The applications section could use a little more revision so that the applications are easier to extract.  Also, need to address tense so that it is consistent (could be, will be, can, etc.).Msmrugby (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Msmrugby, I've been working on the following:
 * Trying to find an image of a Northwestern blot.
 * Addressing the comments from the reviewers
 * Bulleted out the technique summary
 * Added more information to the limitations section
 * General editing
 * Let me know if you have any good ideas on where to search for more images. Tmckenne (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I'll keep looking for images, but we may have to go with my strategy of linking to an article with images.  On a separate note, I just posted our Unit 10 review on our Group page.  Take a look and make any edits/changes as you see fit.Msmrugby (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks good, I added a few things about the image you added and the links to specific protocols section. Tmckenne (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion week of 4/16/14
Hi Tyler, I've initially responded to all the reviewers who provided feedback. We'll need to respond again as we address the specific items. I found a free western blot image that I added. In the description, I mentioned that the Northwestern blot looks similar. I'll communicate in this space as I continue to make additions/revisions.Msmrugby (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Msmrugby, thanks for responding to their initial review. One thing I wanted to get your thoughts on specifically is the review by Keilana where they suggest that we removed the technique summary section.  Initially I don't necessarily agree with this suggestion as when I look at western blot, gel electrophoresis, etc. they go in to even more detail then we did on our page.  What are your thoughts?  Tmckenne (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Why don't we show a process flow? We can make it a graphic that can go in that section.  We could create a flow in PPT and then save it as a JPEG file and upload it to the article.Msmrugby (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI. I just added an image of a gel electrophoresis device.  I also added content to the origin section.  Lastly, I did a spelling and grammar check and made appropriate revisions.  I'm still looking for information on who named the blotting technique/who the inventor is.  Have you found any information on this?  I will work on the article more tomorrow.  Plan to critically read each section and work on flow.Msmrugby (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes a process flow would work in place of a picture, good idea! I will work on rereading the entire article now and see what I can do.  Tmckenne (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Tyler, I revised the language in the Technique Specifics and Applications section to improve the flow. Take a look and edit if any of the original intent was lost.  I did a spell check and grammar check.  I deleted the technique summary section based on comments.  Per our discussion, we can add a process flow once it is created.  I also posted our Week 12 Progress Report, please feel free to add to it.  Per feedback from the last review, there are additional citations still needed for your sections.  I will respond to the feedback again tonight, but it would be good for you to respond as well.Msmrugby (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion week of 4/30/14
Hi Tyler, We received some good feedback from the recent reviews. I've initially responded to each reviewer and have started making changes to the lead and origin section. I also move the images slightly, per recommendations. I've reached out to a professional connection I have to see about additional Northwestern blot information (graphics, origin info, etc.), and will let you know if that pans out. We need to get the process flow pulled together. I can work on the graphics piece of it, if you can develop the relevant process steps that should be part of the flow. Talk soon.Msmrugby (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Msmrugby, great idea reaching out to a connection you have, hopefully they can help us with images for our article. I think the process steps would be:  run gel electrophoresis, transfer gel to blot paper, incubate with primary for approximately 30-45 minutes, wash blot with wash buffer 5 minutes for a total of three times, incubate with secondary for approximately 30 minutes, wash blot with wash buffer 5 minutes for a total of three times, and develop blot.  I don't really have any software besides PowerPoint to make a process flow, do you have anything better? Tmckenne (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not much resulted from connection. I did create a process flow based on your steps above, and uploaded it.  Take a look and let me know your thoughts.  Should we delete the image of the gel electrophoresis device since we also show one in the process flow?  Will make some additional content edits in the next couple of days.Msmrugby (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The process flow looks great! I agree we could probably delete the gel electrophoresis device since there is one in the process flow.  Maybe we could add a picture of an RNA-binding protein, this should show readers what the blot is detecting?  Tmckenne (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Great. I deleted the gel electrophoresis image and moved the flow to the right.  I think the spacing looks good at this point.  I also added some content to the disadvantages (including another source) and fixed the categories at the bottom.  I responded to most of the recent feedback comments as well.  We need to still address the following before tomorrow evening.  (1) Find additional content on competing technologies/processes, popularity of process, or other relevant history (2) Fix/add external links.  Take a look at the Wesern Blot page for an example. (3) Post our update for the week on our Group page.  I'll spend some more time on this tomorrow.Msmrugby (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The layout of the pictures looks great, thanks for doing that! Seems you know your way around Wikipedia better than I.  I will work on the article some now and get a update on the group page done.  Feel free to add to the group page update once I'm done with your updates too, but I'll try to cover them all.  Also I took a look at the external links section on the Western Blot page and it looks a lot like our protocols section, do you think we could combine them? Tmckenne (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we can delete the external links section. It is related to the protocol section, so not sure how to differentiate it with this particular topic. I go ahead and do this.  If you can add any additional content that you find, we should be in good shape.  I added to the update on the Group page. Thanks for posting that.  Nice working with you on this project, and best of luck to you!Msmrugby (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)