Talk:CH391L/S14/ApplicationsofOptogenetics
- Jeffrey Barrick (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2014 (CDT) Can you give us examples of what organisms the genes for the channel rhodopsins and halorhodopsins come from?
- --Ella Watkins (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2014 (CDT)Added information about the origins of the proteins. I also added a bit about how the opsins are activated.
- Jeffrey Barrick (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2014 (CDT) Some people had questions about the physical machinery for illuminating neurons in the brains of living mice. How does that work?
- --Ella Watkins (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2014 (CDT) Added a link to a great video about how the mice are outfitted, also I couldn't find the original paper I had talked about, but it was very specific about what steps to take (i.e. anesthetizing the mouse, proper amounts to inject.. etc.) and I didn't think that it would even benefit people to look at.
- --Dennis Mishler (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2014 (CDT)Ella, figures are missing a legend/citation. Could be the coding.
- --Ella Watkins (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2014 (CDT) I got it, you can't have large images and captions... unfortunately. I like having larger images! Oh well!
- --Dennis Mishler (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2014 (CDT)A simple figure for "how was this system made?" Ella, if there is a simplistic figure showing what you describe in this section, I think that would be a nice addition. And I think it is important that everyone understand how this system was made.
- --Dennis Mishler (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2014 (CDT) "Harlorhodopsin" in "epileptiform" section.
- --Ella Watkins (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2014 (CDT) Fixed!
- ----Jorge Vazquez (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2014 (CDT) Awesome job! I really liked it. I think is well laid out and it is very well written. Sections about examples are detailed and there is direct links to extended information. I would've liked to read more about potential applications, it is still not very obvious to me.
--drewtack (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2014 (CDT)Just a small think regarding you images, the final image with the companies logo should have some form of caption. Also, the rat image caption seems to be open ended, you should close it somehow. Alternatively, I think you could state "Testing optogenetics on rats is a common practice." Especially since rat testing itself is not a technique.
--Dennis Mishler (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2014 (CDT) Elizabeth's Critique
Overall Format and structure: I like the overall structure- good separation of ideas and examples
Introduction and background material: I like the first part of the introduction, though I think you could remove the transition words. I’m not exactly sure what the lead in to your “Steps” is saying- maybe rethink punctuation and reword. A sentence about what exactly a light sensitive protein does or what features it has in this section would be helpful. “Examples will be provided later” can be included in the previous sentence “…, described below”. Spacial to spatial. What techniques? At least identify by name, or imply too many with “numerous”.
Methods and main body/concepts: “In 2005, Levskaya et. al. published in Nature Magazine their experiment where they created a bacterial system that is dependent on red light to switch states.” is better worded something like- “Levskaya et al reported in 2005 a bacterial system that is…” Changes like this can be made for other literature references as well. Not sure about verb agreement when you cite X et al. Reading through I think it might be plural? Double check this… I think your description of the Nature paper was really interesting and readable. I would move the information about how they designed the system above the ompC part- it reads more like background.
An introduction to your optogenetic process list would be helpful (and maybe a more specific title? Looking at it out of context…)
Relation to iGEM and future directions:
Good. This, like the article overall, could be reworded to have a more formal and concise tone. However that may just be my bias/ personal preference.
Figures, Figure legends, and citations:
Your figures do not have captions or references. I also prefer to in-line cite as soon as possible (ie cite Levskaya at the top of the paragaph), whereas you seem to cite at the end of a paragraph containing cited information. Not sure if one way is right or wrong, but there may be accepted convention I’m not aware of.
