Talk:Chromatolysis

Non-peer review

Hey guys! I think your article looks great--your writing style is very concise and direct, which is perfect for Wikipedia. Here are a few suggestions I came up with:

• Careful not to use excessive amounts of jargon without adequate explanation. Sometimes all this requires is the use of additional hyperlinks, and other times it requires that you include a brief (a sentence or phrase) explanation. Just a few examples: pyknotic (could explain in a little more detail), perinuclear area (just needs a hyperlink)
• Under "Peripheral chromatolysis" you mention that it is seen in lithium-induced chromatolysis. Is this another type of chromatolysis that you should include under a separate heading? Or perhaps it is an additional cause of chromatolysis? Either way, I think you could elaborate.
• Under "Causes" you list "Nissl bodies" as the number one; however, this seems slightly redundant considering your definition of chromatolysis ("the dissolution of Nissl bodies"). I think what you mean is that there are several causes of Nissl body damage/irregularity that eventually lead to their dissolution. It would be more clear to either rename the section or to break up this section so that you tease out the different things that lead to chromatolysis (ex. spinal neuron injury, cytoskeletal rearrangement, etc.)
• You seem to rely a lot on a single source for your different sections (you often include only a single citation at the end of a section, which I'm assuming means that all of the previous information came from that source). Your article could be stronger if you had several sources to support the same idea.
• Make sure you include a current/future research section!

Good luck! Stempera (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Abby, thank you for your suggestions, they were very helpful. I think we have hopefully incorporated all of your points. We decided to take out the "Nissl bodies" section because, as you said, it was out of place. Most of the points made in the section we have either incorporated into causes, such as axotomy, or have incorporated it into the introductory paragraph. We added a small explanation of how lithium can induce chromatolysis, but put it as a cause rather than a "type" of chromatolysis because like acrylamide it acts a toxin to induced chromatolytic effects. We have also updated our references and have included a significant amount more sources which will hopefully serve to adequately strengthen our page. Thanks again! Michjkelley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Peer Review

Hi guys! This was a great article, I just have a few suggestions to make it even better

1. Since you linked axotomy you don't necessarily need to explain it in parenthesis
2. Make sure to try and include a Current and Future Research section!
3. Try to link more throughout the article. Some suggestions for linking could be neuron, axon hillock, basophilic staining, A and B cell perikarya, EPSPs, and IBNS.
4. Under the history section, making bullet points for the stages of pyknotic chromatin as well as the structural features might make it easier to follow along.
5. Finally, under acrylamide intoxication if the rat study had tables or graphs displaying the information they found including them would be great.
Overall great job! Zonfrell (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Lexi

• Thank you for your feedback! We have incorporated some of your suggestions. We have added more linking through the article and other minor changes. Unfortunately we cannot incorporate any tables or graphs from the acrylamide studies because they are not on Wiki Commons, although we agree it would make the understanding of the information easier. Thanks again for your suggestions.

Molonyc (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

Hey guys, your page looks really great and it is a really interesting topic! However, when I was reading it, I couldn't really get a good idea of what would happen to a person if they experienced chromatolysis. Maybe you could add a section describing the physical symptoms that go along with Chromatolysis? You could specifically add how dissolution of nissil bodies leading to cell death differs from regular apoptosis and what different physical symptoms that causes. I think this would give the reader a better sense of what is physically going on to a person with Chromatolysis. Good luck!Goverman (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks you for your feedback! Although there are no specific physiological "symptoms" indicated in research surrounding chromatolysis, it is thought to be associated in a number of diseases, including ALS, IBNS, and Alzheimer's. We will try to better elaborate on why the specific morphological changes occurring during chromatolysis is associated with these diseases, especially in regards to Nissl bodies. Michjkelley

Peer Review 3

Good start, but here's some specifics:

1. Link your page more to the wikipedia community. Some internal links I saw that could be added were: neuron, Walther Flemming, pyknosis, plasma membrane, perinuclear space, axon hillock, anterior horn, and EPSP. Also go on the Nissl bodies, neuron, and ALS wiki page and link your page from there in an appropriate place so it's not an orphan. There's probably more links you could make, but those are the ones that I saw.
2. In the beginning reduce, or better yet eliminate, the use of parenthesis or quotes unless of course you are actually going to put in a quote and cite it.
3. Also take out things like "based on the findings of these studies," "some researchers argued," "the authors of these studies, most likely unfamiliar..." etc and do one of two things: simply state the findings without the preface, or describe the experiment and then you can say "based on these findings."
4. I would make a separate section for "Future Research" and put the things that are unknown about chromatolysis in that section as well as areas for further investigation.
5. The paragraphs under Nissl bodies do not seem to flow, so try to work on that.
6. Finally, further explain IBNC. There is no Wikipedia on it so it wouldn't hurt and it didn't seem like there was enough information in what you wrote to connect it to chromatolysis (how does it relate?)

Good start to your article. Keep up the good work.

Sheggers (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestions, Sheggers! We took your and other people's advice of linking terms to other Wiki pages, and we also got rid of our parenthesis. We added a little more to the IBNC section, edited the Nissl bodies section, and tried re-wording the "researchers argued" type of sentences. And thanks for the reminder about the "Future Research" section!

Alexanae (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 4

Great article guys! You did a very thorough job, and your article is both clear and concise. A current/future research section would be the icing on the cake for you, since that is the only part that I can find that is lacking in any way. As I read your Associated Diseases section I was wondering in particular if there are any treatments for ALS or IBNC that specifically target the Nissel body-dissolution aspect of these diseases; this might be something that you could look into in a future research section. I know that sources can be tough to find, but this would be a great little addition to your article (and plus, it actually is a part of the grading rubric for this project). Beyond that, well done guys! Very well done!

KMaher123 (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, KMaher123! Glad to hear that we are writing in a clear manner. And thanks for reminding us about the current/future research section. Most sources that talk explicitly about chromatolysis are dated back to the 1970's, so we had to dig a little deeper in our research to find potential areas of further research. There also seems to be some disagreement in the scientific community as to if the term still even needs to be used or whether it should just fall under the umbrella of "apoptosis." However, some researchers still use the term especially when discussing associated diseases and what effects the disease was having on the neurons so we will definitely include that in our future research section. Thanks again for your feedback! Michjkelley

Peer Review 5

Nicely done so far! I noticed that the citations are only at the very end of paragraphs or sections. This might just be my own opinion, but I was a little confused at to what info each reference was used for.

Cameron (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, Camtreez. We have tried to include more citations so that there won't be any confusion as to where the information is coming from. Michjkelley

Peer Review 6

Great job expanding this article!

I only have a few suggestions: In the introduction, the first reference to "apoptosis" is not hyperlinked while the second one is. I would switch those, or combine the two sentences if possible so that you can avoid defining apoptosis. As the first reviewer noted, if you're hyperlinking to anther page, you don't necessarily need to define the term on this page. You also define cytoskeleton in the section "Causes," subsection "Nissl Bodies," which seems slightly unnecessary.

In the subsection, "Peripheral Chromatolysis," I would change "much less common" in the first sentence to include "than central chromatolysis," just for the sake of clarity.

As another reviewer already noted, the inclusion of a "current/future research" section would probably be helpful and hit a point on the grading rubric. Also, I agree that a clearer explanation for IBNC would strengthen and clarify the "Associated Diseases" section.

Any image would also be great, if possible!

I hope that this helps--you've done a great job with this topic. Ldellostritto (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback, Ldellostritto! We have been experiencing some trouble finding any images the adequately depict chromatolized cells, but we just found one to put up yesterday. We have also updated the hyperlinks and still have kept some very brief explanations of terms where we see fit so that reading the article can flow a bit more smoothly for the reader. And we will also upload the Current/Future research section very soon, just trying to obtain a few more current sources. Michjkelley

Peer Review 7

Overall, this was a great article. This article is well organized. The headings all fit well and the categories seem to be divided nicely. It makes for a very readable and clear article. The causes and associated disease sections were particularly insightful and well done. Despite being very well done the following changes could be beneficial in making your article even better:

1. The history only goes through the 1970s. What has happened between the 1970s and now? Also along this line, current and future research concerning Chromatolysis could improve the quality of this article.

2. Within the history the meaning of pyknotic is unclear. If this or Flemming can be linked to Wikipedia Pages, I think it would be helpful to readers.

3. There are only seven references, which while sufficing for thorough information appears to be much less than most of the class articles. Perhaps there is more information on other associated diseases and more recent historical significance of chromatolysis.

JaimeeDavis (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, JaimeeDavis -- glad to hear that our organization was clear! During our research, we only found studies on chromatolysis up until the 1970s, as the term "chromatolysis" was absorbed under the general definition of "apoptosis" after the 1970s. Nevertheless, we are still trying to find any current related studies involving this term, chromatolysis. Upon request of many people, we have made hyperlinks to pyknotic and Walther Flemming -- so hopefully that should clear up any confusion in those lines. And we have been steadily adding more references to our article.

Alexanae (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 8

This is a very good article. I have just a few suggestions for you guys. First I think the History section should be more towards the end of the article. Make sure the most important sections and information are the first thing the reader reads. Next, I would consider renaming the "Nissl Bodies" subheading under the Causes heading. The title makes it seem like Nissl Bodies are why chromatolysis happens. Lastly, I think pictures of nissl bodies and the nucleus during chromatolysis would be a very good addition to your article. Any type of picture to give your reader something to look at would be good. Nicely done. Grant.vandervoort (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestions, Grant.vandervoort! We considered adding the History section to the end, but since other reviewers did not seem to have a problem with the ordering, and we found that this section had important background information about the predominant work done in the 1970s and chromatolysis' linkage to apoptosis, we decided to keep it in the beginning. We agree -- naming one of the "Causes" section "Nissl Bodies" was misleading, so we renamed it. Although specific images of chromatolysis were very difficult to come by, we managed to find a few related ones and are currently thinking of drawing one ourselves!

Alexanae (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 9

This is a really interesting topic and great article! I just have a couple suggestions:

1. In the section about the types of Chromatolysis (or maybe in a separate section), perhaps you could find more information about how breakdown occurs (mechanistically, or maybe observed steps) to give a clearer understanding.
2. You could always add more internal links! There are several topics (which I believe someone above already pointed out) that could be linked to other wikipedia pages.
3. Don't forget to add a section for current/further research!
4. Maybe include an image or two-- perhaps a picture of a nissl body?

great work! patelbq (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for offering your suggestions for our article. We have added more about the cellular changes that occur during chromatolysis. Also we have also added more internal links to our article. The current/future research section will be up soon. Finally we have been able to add a few pictures to our article. Thanks again for your feedback.

Molonyc (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 10

Great job on the article! Here are a few suggestions that I have for you: As many reviews have already stated including a current/future research section would be a great idea if there is currently any research being done on this subject. Also, in the first sentence the definition of axotomy doesn't need to be included, since it is already linked to that page. Also under the history section you don't need to state twice that the definition of chromatolysis is consistent with the current definition of apotosis. I would also try to link to a few more Wikipedia pages, such as EPSP's, nucleus, cell body, and axon hillock. Also, if you can find any pictures that relate to this topic then that would be great too! All in all this is a great article guys! Ivesm (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, Ivesm! We've taken out the definition of axotomy and we've included many more hyperlinks. We've also just put up one image and are working on finding more. All of your suggestions are appreciated and we are working to edit with them now. Michjkelley

Peer Review 11

Overall, I thought this had a sufficient amount of information for a wikipedia topic. I would add pictures and diagrams to your wikipedia page - that would enhance the article a lot more. Great opening sentence - I think that captures the essence of what a wikipedia introduction should be. Like a lot of other people's topics, please hyperlink any words that are outside the common vernacular. Great history section - the chronological order made things very easy to follow. I would also combined the associated diseases with the central and peripheral. The central chromatolysis section is very short and doesn't provide anything interesting unless you tie it directly with what is going wrong. I think the causes section was well written. Also great sources were used but there has to be more information. mrfushiman (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, mrfushiman! We have added some images and are working on adding another, and the hyperlinks in our article have been expanded. We've been working on adding to and editing the "Central Chormatolysis" section, and we are in the process of adding more sources. Thanks again!

--Alexanae (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 12

Your article was very informative and well written. I think your group covered all the major points that should be addressed and could not really find any additional information that could be included. My only suggestion would be to add more links to your page, which is something a lot of people seem to have noticed. I would also suggest using more sources or at least citing specific facts you pulled from sources. Right now it seems like each section has one source, so either add more sources to each section or just cite the specific details you got from that source instead of including it at the end of the section.

Gshan12 (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.248.161 (talk)

(Gshan12 (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC))

Useful suggestion Gshan12. Our group is working on condensing our information to draw from a number of different sources. We have added more sources, along with additional information about the topic. We've also added more links to our page as well. We appreciate your comments. Robocop8908 (talk)

Peer Review 13

This is a really well written and informative article. You cover all your bases with just the right amount of detail. I could really only find two areas of improvement: the absence of a current and future research section and the lack of citations. It would seem as though the link between ALS and the occurrence of chromatolysis would provide an easy area for research. For the citations it appears that you are making the assumption that all the information from each section comes from a single source. Although this may be true you should probably cite more specifically within the paragraphs themselves. All in all great job though. drewmokas (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2011

• Thanks for the feedback, drewmokas! We have added a current/future research section, still expanding it, and are putting in more citations throughout the article, rather than towards the end of every section.

Alexanae (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 14

You’ve done a good job thus far. The page definitely reads easily, and is a good start. Some suggestions I would make are as follows. To start with, there are two parts where you explain a term in parenthesis; axotomy [in the introduction] and chromatin balls (in the history). I would suggest that you get rid of the parentheses, and either insert the description in a grammatically correct manner utilizing commas. For axotomy, you could possibly take out the entire part, since you have the link, which isn’t available for the chromatin balls. The next suggestion I have would be to try and include a short introductory/summary sentence or two for each section; (Types, Causes, Associated Diseases). That way readers can read it and get the indepth details they’d want. You have a decent amount of internal links; but some additional links I would include ia “Central Chromatolysis”. If there is any current or future research being done on your topic, a brief mention of it would be great! I’m sure there would be some recent information regarding this condition. Overall the page seems thorough, and concise, if not a little short. The final addition of images would make your page a lot more friendly. Keep up the good work! Lucas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

• Thanks for the helpful ideas, Lucas! We have eliminated the parenthesis, and are looking into adding some supplemental information to various sections. And as others have suggested, we made sure to add a future research section and a few images.

Alexanae (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is great but I wonder if the meaning of chromatolysis (in the neuropathological sense) is not mixed with apoptosis. Spielmeyer used the term chromolysis to describe the loss of "color" (chroma) of the neurons. The color was given by the Nissl bodies stained with basophilic stains. It is litterally the loss of Nissl substance. Unfortunately, chroma has also been used for chromosome and "loss of chromosome" leads to discuss apoptosis. I however believe that there is no such thing as disintegration of the nucleus in common "chromatolysis" with loss of Nissl substance - and survival of the neuron. I believe the two meanings of the word could be more clearly distinguished. Chromatolysis loss of Nissl substance (reference to Nissl priumary reacton) chromatolysis disintegration of the nucleus (any cell; apoptosis). What do you think ?164.2.255.244 (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)