Talk:DISC1

Comments

First of all, excellent job in expanding this article! Your contributions are greatly appreciated.

Concerning the "Molecular location and structure" heading, I am very confused as to what this is supposed to mean. Does the "molecular location" refer to the chromosomal location of the gene or the tissue distribution of the expressed protein? The "structure" part of the heading I assume refers to the protein structure although it could also refer to the promoter/intron/exon structure of the gene. Furthermore current section heading does not capture all aspects of the gene and protein that are discussed. The gene and protein encoded by the gene are two distinct topics and therefore can easily be split into two separate sections. I do not see the need to subordinate these two sections to a "Molecular location and structure" section. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. To answer your questions, the intention behind the original section title was one that encompassed all of the information included there (both chromosomal location of the gene and protein distribution and structure) and I did not think that just "gene" and "protein" on their own as titles made clear what information was covered there. I think that the change you made to "gene location and transcription" and "protein structure and subcellular distribution" solves the issue very well. Thanks again. Kamilaosypiuk (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor Corrections

Your article looks great so far! I have too very minor corrections. In the introductory paragraph, I noticed that you used the phrase: "mitochondria fission:fusion and transport." I am not sure if this is what you wanted to say, but various articles on PubMed used "fission/fusion" or "fission-fusion" rather than "fission:fusion." Also, one citation in the clinical implications section was located in the middle of the sentence, when it should be placed at the end. Phil J. (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and comments; we appreciate your time! After doing some research myself on PubMed, it seems that mitochondrial fusion and/or fission may be affected by DISC1, and I have made that change. Thanks for catching that. I went through the "Clinical implications" section a couple of times and could not find the citation in the middle of a sentence. Perhaps one of my colleagues already fixed it, but if you happen to come back and notice it, please let me know in more detail where it is! Thanks again. KelleyAmbrose (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, nice work on updating the DISC1 page which I have been working on from time to time. Just needed to edit out DISC2 as an interactor as this gene is not (known to be) translated, although at the RNA level it may interact persay as an antisense sequence regulating the expression level and or splicing of DISC1. I believe it would be a good idea to create a new small page dedicated to DISC2 (of which there is very little known) to remove any possible ambiguity on this matter. It is also noteworthy that the adolescent disorder found in the proband and has been found also in more resent studies of the family is not neccesarily linked to the DISC1 transloaction, as it is present in equal proportion in carriers to family members without the abnormality. I will endevour to follow this article closely and contribute as much as I can, to help with finalising this article Drummond7 (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions and edits! We appreciate the comments, and do agree that DISC2 should have its own page. However this task is actually outside the scope of our project guidelines. From a preliminary Wikipedia search, I confirmed that no page exists already, so it seems like a "DISC2" page could be created if you would like. Also, please feel free to add and cite information about the family studies you have explored-although we may continue to edit on our own, the timeline of our project is coming to an end and we will likely not be consistently editing the page after May. Thanks again! KelleyAmbrose (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

BI481 Peer Review

Hey guys, great job on the article so far. The amount of detail was impressive and the number of sources shows it was very well researched. Most of my comments have to do with stylistic issues, rather than the overall content since it seems like the article is already pretty comprehensive. For one thing, I would be careful with how many protein/gene names that you place in the middle of paragraphs. While it's definitely important to reference the relevant ones, sometimes it can be a little difficult to read and understand, especially for readers without any background in genetics or neuroscience. Another thing that is very minor is how you listed the model organisms being used to study DISC1 in the "Gene location and transcription" section. Instead of writing the common name and then linking the scientific name of the species in parenthesis, you should setup your links so that the common name is the link. This only requires a slight modification to how you normally link to other Wikipedia articles, but it will definitely allow the paragraph to flow better. In the "Protein Interactions" section you listed a bunch of the proteins on a list, but then discussed some of them individually right after. I would recommend removing the individually discussed ones from the list, and then place remaining list at the bottom of the section. This is because Wikipedia likes to avoid lists of things if possible, and it seems a little redundant to list and then explain some of them. (ATF4/ATF5 is one example of this). One last thing to consider is for the "Protein structure" section. I don't know if you have looked for any images of the structure (or if one even exists yet), but it may be worth to try and find an illustration of the structure. This is definitely a lower priority though, especially since any images are likely to have restricted use rights. Other than that though, everything seems very well done and should only require minor modifications from here on out. Pathyland (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful and helpful comments. We cleaned up both the "Protein Interactions" section and list of model organisms, and hopefully those two parts are more concise and clear as a result. Thanks again! KelleyAmbrose (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi everybody, this is a very thorough article and I only have a few minor suggestions. Firstly, although you did well linking to other Wikipedia pages there are still some valuable links that you missed such as dentate gyrus and olfactory bulb. I only suggest this because as I was reading the article I was curious about these two topics and it would have been helpful if I could have navigated to those pages directly from your article so I would know what I was reading about. Also, I recommend just proofreading the article again because I found a few of the sentences somewhat awkward. For instance, you may want to change the opening sentence to read "Disrupted in schizophrenia 1 is a protein encoded by the DISC1 gene in humans". I hope it does not seem like I'm being too picky I just noticed that some of the phrasing could be more direct and concise. Finally I agree with the above suggestion to be careful with protein/gene references as they do disrupt the flow of the article at times. Overall, this is a very good article and you really don't seem to have much left to do. Weitzm (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions! We've added additional links throughout the article and plan to read through it extensively in order to maximize fluidity. We appreciate your help! KelleyAmbrose (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey! I found this article to be extremely thorough, well-written, well-structured and organized. I commend you because a lot of the recommendations I made to other people on the format or the content of the pages you had already taken care of. I only have a few minor recommendations to improve your article. The following statement: After studying this large Scottish family for four generations, in 2000, this gene was given the name "DISC1"." doesn't have a citation following it. You may want to consider adding a citation to the original work, or the source you got this from. Also, a minor change in the first sentence from "Disrupted in schizophrenia 1 is a protein that in humans is encoded by the DISC1 gene" to "Disrupted in schizophrenia 1 is a proteins that is encoded by the DISC1 gene in humans" can help. I also noticed that in the Clinical Implications section you mentioned Asperger's Syndrome few times, without the link to the Asperger's Syndrome Wikipedia page. If there is no specific reason for excluding this link, I think it would be beneficial to add this to your page. Other than that, I think your page is excellent and very well-done. Good luck with the rest of your editing! Cynthia Cepeda(talk) 10:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reading over our article and contributing your feedback. After looking over your suggestions and others', we changed the first sentence to increase its readability and added a link to Asberger's, among others. We did not add a citation after the sentence you mentioned, only because the linked citation was included at the end of the paragraph, after all of the facts from that article had been presented. Thank you again. KelleyAmbrose (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys! This was a very informative, understandable, and well researched article. The introduction is a very good summary of the material, which is helpful in understanding the specifics of DISC1. I found the clinical implications to be particularly interesting. The information covered is very extensive and you guys did a great job researching the topic. There are some spots in the article where some links could be added to extend the understanding. Some examples include LOD in the Importance of genetic studies and isoform in “Gene location and transcription.” I did catch a few grammatical errors, so it might be a good idea to reread the article for errors. Overall, you guys did a great job and your article was very complete and informative! ethingte (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. We have taken your comments into consideration and hope to have explained further the concepts of LOD and isoform as a result. We will make sure to proofread carefully as well! Thanks again. KelleyAmbrose (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to start off by saying great introduction. It is short yet clear and easy to follow. The last sentence of the intro needs a little tweaking but overall it is very well done. Moving through the rest of the article the Importance of Genetic Studies subheading is a great section but I am not sure if it belongs under the Discovery heading. In that same section just to clarify the LOD, is that on a scale of 10 or a scale of 100? In the protein interactions section is KALRN the same thing as Kalirin-7/Rac1? If so try to make that a little more clear. Also, the subheading MAP1 I believe is supposed to say MAP1A. Other than that this is one of the best organized and written articles I have read. While the middle meatier sections do become a little complex for those not science minded the general paragraphs more than compensate with enough information. Fantastic job.HRockwell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC).

I really enjoyed reading you article because it is very easy to follow and explains the detailed information well. I think the section on protein interactions could use some organizational work. I don't know if there would be a better way to list all the proteins other than how you have them currently as vertical groups of two or three. It just appears odd to me and not very visibly favorable. Also as someone mentioned above, make sure the proteins you list match the headings that you have below them because I think one or two of them are off. Also you may want to check the wording in the first sentence about linkages to bipolar disorder. Otherwise I think the article is great and the sections are well thought out and organized effectively with the information. Keep it up! Gdusing12315 (talk) 5:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

End of Boston College BI481 Project

Hi Kamila, Kelley and Ben, nice job with this topic. It's in much better shape than when you started. Just a few issues:

• In the See Also section, don't list topics or other articles that you have already worked into the main body of your article
• Early on in the course I mentioned to avoid a Further Reading type of section. If those articles are that good or important you should work them into the body of your article; otherwise leave them out. NeuroJoe (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Review

I have compared this version of the page, [1], from before the start of the project, with this version, [2], after.

Scale from 1 to 5
1 = most negative
5 = most positive

1. Is the prose clear and concise? 5

2. Does the article comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, and list incorporation? 5

3. Is the article properly and adequately referenced? 5

4. Are in-line citations provided in accordance with Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? 5

5. Does the article address the main aspects of the topic? 5

6. Does the article stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail? 5

7. Does the article represent viewpoints fairly and without bias? 5

8. Is the article illustrated by images that are relevant and are tagged with their proper status? 3

Comments: Overall, I think that this page has been improved very impressively, and has become a very high quality Wikipedia article. I congratulate the authors on their excellent and careful work! I took off a bit on the illustrations simply because there is only the box at the top. As for criterion 6, I recognize that a case can be made that the language is a bit too technical for a Wikipedia article, but I also think that genes are, of there nature, a technical subject, and I consider the treatment here to be appropriate. I was very impressed with the thoroughness of the coverage, and the careful attention to Wikipedia format. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The Scottish family case

In 1970, researchers performing cytogenetic research on a group of juvenile offenders in Scotland found an abnormal translocation in chromosome 1 of one of the boys, who also displayed characteristics of an affective psychological disorder.

In the previous version there was a brief mention (using the "classic" cytogenetic karyotype notation) that probably this particular translocation has happened between the long arms of chromosomes 1 and 11 - This gene and DISC2 are disrupted in a t(1;11)(q42.1;q14.3) translocation - which was not reiterated in the expanded version.

More protein interactions:

• DIXDC1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2938013/
• GSK3B http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704382/

And a Wikimedia Commons file which could be useful to include in the article

Part of the DISC1 interactome with genes represented by text in boxes and interactions noted by lines between the genes. From Hennah and Porteous, 2009.

80.240.162.190 (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

References

confusing line

There is a sentence in the article that reads, " No known functional homologues exist for this protein in humans, although it does have broad homology to scaffold proteins." This can't be true, or perhaps the sentence refers to another protein that is not encoded by the DISC1 gene in humans. Thanks for providing the information in this article, just wanted to point out this sentence seems confusing. 13:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.31.178 (talk • contribs)

I agree that the sentence is poorly worded at best. Unfortunately I don't have access to the source cited for the paragraph, and can't check whether there is some valid and important fact that the sentence misstates. Looie496 (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DISC1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110827023004/https://sfari.org/news/-/asset_publisher/6Tog/content/clinical-animal-studies-probe-disc1-s-role-in-autism?redirect=%2Fnews to https://sfari.org/news/-/asset_publisher/6Tog/content/clinical-animal-studies-probe-disc1-s-role-in-autism?redirect=%2Fnews

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)