Difference between revisions of "Talk:CH391L/S14/MotilityandTaxis"

Revision as of 19:01, 20 March 2014

• Jeffrey Barrick (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2014 (CDT) Has anyone engineered a different type of motility (for example, cilia, gliding motility, pseudopodia)?

• Jeffrey Barrick (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2014 (CDT) In your update, give us the highlights of the studies described here: http://2012.igem.org/Team:Goettingen/Notebook/Results

• --Dennis Mishler (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2014 (CDT) Jorge, regarding your figures, I find some of the legends confusing. For example, in figure 1, it refers to "a" and "b", and while there does appear to be two distinct panels or illustrations, there is no "a" or "b". Perhaps simply "on the left" and "on the right"? In Figure 2, I would change your figure+legend. If someone doesn't know what a Histidine Kinase is, that figure is going to be too confusing with the legend there. I say this because the domains are colored differently, yet are the same protein. In general, you have very complex figures with lots of parts. It may be worthwhile to consider simplifying them, or altering the figures a bit, or expanding upon the explanations.

• --Dennis Mishler (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2014 (CDT) Table 1 needs to be reformatted to fit into the page.

--Dennis Mishler (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2014 (CDT) Jordan's critique

Overall Format and structure: The overall content and organization of the article was thought out and well researched, but it is riddled with typos. Please review the entire text with a close eye, because there’s too many to list here. All organism and gene names should also be in italics, but that’s minor.

Introduction and background material: The introduction is good and does what it needs to for the most part. I would suggest maybe a sentence or two about the history of motility and taxis research hitting one or two highlights about discoveries and maybe a citation of a foundational paper on taxis.

Methods and main body/concepts: I think many of the main body sections could be simplified to remove specific details from the experiments and explain the concept more generally and in simple enough terms to get an idea of what happened and why. I was able to eventually understand the concepts and results presented, but only after re-reading and parsing through sentences as if this was a journal article, which it shouldn’t be. Use a different word than surreal. Maybe call it the bacterial therapy paradox?

Relation to iGEM and future directions: I think you covered the iGEM applications pretty well, and adding the results from Goettingen like Jeff recommended will make this section as good as it needs to be. Figures, Figure legends, and citations: The citations are good. I don’t know that the figures chosen are the best to get the main concepts across because they are very specific and detailed, but they provide visualization of what you’re explaining. I think the arrangement of figures as they are now is rather confusing and the reader is forced to refer back to figure citations in the main text to have any idea of which figure belongs to which section and what it even means. They’re mostly just crowded around the center of the body.

Figures, Figure legends, and citations: The citations are good. I don’t know that the figures chosen are the best to get the main concepts across because they are very specific and detailed, but they provide visualization of what you’re explaining. I think the arrangement of figures as they are now is rather confusing and the reader is forced to refer back to figure citations in the main text to have any idea of which figure belongs to which section and what it even means. They’re mostly just crowded around the center of the body.