Talk:Glyoxylate cycle

Gsneck (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)gsneck

Untitled

The first sentence is not exactly incorrect, but somewhat weird. It says the glyoxylate cycle occurs in "plants, bacteria, protists, fungi and several microorganisms, such as E.coli and yeasts." Firstly, E.coli is a bacterium and second, bacteria, protists, fungi and yeasts are all microorganisms. Maybe the author wanted to make a distinction between prokaryotic (to which bacteria belong) and eukaryotic (e.g. protists, yeasts and fungi) microorganisms? I will not change it, since I'm not sure what the author originally went. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.154.49.68 (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

In the first sentence, it is said that "some vertebrates" can perform this cycle, while in the final sentence it says that "vertebrates lack the two key enzymes". It's either one or the other. Source please.

who are you! you just deleted the sources! why don't you read them and make a positive contribution!!!!!!!!!!!!! you have even selected yuour quotes out of context to get a different sense!!! Osip7315 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia may have lost the updates on this, we will see if it comes back Osip7315 (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

i have re-added what i thought may have have been lost (i may not have simply saved what i wrote before), with fleshed out references, this is a very technical subject, please read the text carefully and spend the necessary time reading the references so you actually understand what is being said, the references given are by the leading researchers in this not well known subject. Osip7315 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

ok. the first sentence wants altering, if you read the paper in the external links section, its pretty certain this cycle is very broadly across all living things, the page would benefit from a better first sentence Osip7315 (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

its hard to believe the overconfidence of some of these people, deleting all the modern science and research updating the views of Glyoxylate cycle, it seems to me like they can't actually read scientific literature, just delete what clashes with with they were taught 10 years ago Osip7315 (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

front up and discuss on this board before acting like a troll!Osip7315 (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

to the troll who deleted the references, you can find the journals and papers on the web, READ THEM if you can. if you can't understand this technical literature then don't edit this subject.

its unreal , idiots going thru deleting what they don't agree with because they were taught different 10 years ago. its people like this who ruin wikipedia, create a real IDENTITY! Osip7315 (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you tim vickers, thats much better! the whole point of editing wikipedia is to extend ones knowledge and investigate

thats all people who disagree with you are telling you to do.

you might find some chromium gtf aka the compendium helpful for that ADHD btw

Osip7315 (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure if I understand your comment. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

i doubt you are sorry and if you want to cut intellectual ice then be specific as to what you don't understand

it's such a bad american trait, they won't eat anything unless they are spoonfed and prefer toxic rubbish to high nutrition, what counts is the spoon feeding Osip7315 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It was the phrase "chromium gtf aka the compendium", this meant nothing to me. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

the compendium is the supplement and dietary program that i have developed over the years for kids with developmental disorders, especially autism

like you i am also on autistic spectrum

chromium gtf is the yeast based form of chromium as a supplement (killed yeast), it seems to be better than the other forms and lowers insulin resistance and promotes fat metabolism and is generally useful for blood sugar issues

one of the problems with supplements is they all need a lot of cofactors, chromium is relatively stand alone, but successful supplementation really has to be done with all the cofactors and the dietary side, my "biofilm carbohydrate diet"

if you are in ohio, it's a low iodine area and thats something else that needs looking at, there is a good iodine page in the compendium

the links are on my user page, chromium is in the "minerals i take" section in the compendium index

medicine does not understand nutrition and supplements and never will

Osip7315 (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'm sure it is well-intentioned but I'm happy with fruit and vegetables. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

perhaps you need some more vaccines and mercury amalgam fillings? Osip7315 (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

First Round Peer Review: Team 15

The article reviewed, titled “Glyoxylate Cycle” discusses the cycle itself, as well as its role in Gluconeogenisis. It then goes on to describe the cycle’s similarities to the TCA cycle and more specific purposes in particular organisms, as well as the potential for engineering the cycle in several organisms. The possibility of activating the cycle in more complex organisms such as sheep is discussed as a potential method for increasing wool production. The article also mentions that the glyoxylate cycle may be targeted by future antibiotics as a way of combating disease-carrying bacteria, so the continued study of this cycle should provide increasing benefits to the field of metabolic engineering.

The subsection titled “Plants” has several fundamental errors that need to be addressed. The information discussed appears to accurate, but the last two sentences of the section are very poor structurally, making it difficult to understand. Consider dividing the ideas up into more sentences, and avoid restating ideas. The following subsection titled “Fungi” is quite difficult to understand, and it is unclear what point is being made about the glyoxylate cycle in fungi. A few other minor errors, mostly grammatical, include the spelling of mearly (merely) in the “Engineering Concepts” section, the appearance of a double “complex complex” in the “Overview”, and the formatting of the last sentence of the first paragraph of the “Role in Gluconeognesis” section.

A few more major suggested revisions include the structure/format of the “Engineering Concepts” section. The section, which is by far the largest of the article, contains several lengthy paragraphs in a row with no interruption, which appears quite intimidating to the reader. Consider breaking up the large amounts of text with a picture, perhaps that of a sheep, provided an interesting and appropriate caption is included. It was also noticed that there are no hyperlinks in the entire section, even though as mentioned before, it is significantly longer than any other section of the article. There are certainly many words which could be linked, such as “metabolic pathway” to provide a single example. There were also some major issues with comma placement, run-on sentences, and overall clarity in this section. This sentence provides a particularly poignant example, “Efforts to engineer the pathway into more complex animals, such as sheep have not been effective, showing that much more research would be needed in order to incorporate the pathway into more complex mammals, and it is possible that a high expression of the cycle in animals would not be tolerated by the chemistry of the cell.” This sentence, and others like it deserve some significant rewording.

In addition to the major issues with the “Engineering Concepts” section, there were also a few concerning the article as a whole. The first of these involves the tense(s) in which the article was written. The article switches back and forth from past to present tense many times, some of which are necessary, but most are not. The article should primarily be in the present tense, and past tense should only be used when referring to specific studies. Another issue that should be addressed is the use of abbreviations throughout the article. Certain abbreviations, which were introduced in the overview and other early sections of the article, ought to be carried through the remainder of the article. There seems little sense in bothering to introduce an abbreviation for an enzyme, use it for one or two sentences, then use the full name of the enzyme in the rest of the article. Lastly, the lone sentence “Vitamin D may regulate this pathway in vertebrates” at the end of the “Vertebrates” subsection seems out of place. This simple sentence, which has three sources, could certainly be expanded upon. The sources, which were checked for proper citation, provide much more information than is mentioned in the 8 words allotted to the subject by the article. Consider fleshing out this topic a bit more, by at least a sentence or two. The sources checked appeared to reference only the abstract of scientific articles, avoid this in the future as well.

Glennbeatty (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

First Round Peer Review from Team 6

Most of our concerns for this article concern sentence structure and the lack of definitions of some terms. This article began in 2009, so, as a team, we were unsure which section was added. Because of this we have comments regarding the article as a whole.

Overall, we suggest more in-depth coverage of the cycle, specifically evolutionary changes. The one possible way to utilize the cycle from an engineering perspective is well-explained, however it may be useful to include other ways to engineer the cycle. Again, we suggest the article focus on evolutionary changes of the cycle, not the components of the cycle itself.

Here are a few notes regarding the first few sections:

• The Similarities to the TCA Cycle section refers to an “active thiol group”. It may be helpful to define this or link to a wiki page about active thiol groups.
• " In microorganisms, the glyoxylate cycle allows cells to utilize simple carbon compounds as a carbon source, when complex complex sources such as glucose are not available." --the second comma is unnecessary
• Once an acronym is defined (as isocitrate lyase is defined as ICL), there's no need to keep defining it. Just use ICL instead of isocitrate lyase (ICL). Same thing applies for malate synthase (MS).

The following is a bulleted list of comments regarding the Engineering Concepts section.

• The first sentence is awkwardly worded and confusing. "...for which they are not native..." is ambiguous and could either be referring to the metabolic pathways or the mammals.

In the last sentence of the first paragraph: "mearly" should be "merely".

• "...engineers have attempted to engineer..." Choose a different verb. Obviously engineers engineer things. The double usage makes for an awkward sentence.
• Try to make the flow from the rest of the article to the Engineering Concepts section more fluid. Right now it seems choppy and not really connected to the other sections. Try to include some of their methods of linking to other wikipedia articles for definitions and things like that.
• In the first paragraph, you redefine ICL and MS as important enzymes for the cycle, but it is already clearly defined in the first introductory paragraph. It's redundant. Also, try to be consistent with the above sections by using ICL and MS as acronyms for the enzymes.
• "...lack of two enzymes, isocitrate lyase, and malate synthase, which..." The comma after isocitrate lyase should be removed.
• The first sentence of the second paragraph: the use of past tense conflicts with the rest of the section, unless you're referring to a specific study or journal article, in which case you should state that.
• You use the word “promoter” in the second paragraph. You should probably define that word.
• What is AceA? Acetyl coenzyme A? Notation should be consistent with the above sections. If it's something different, define it.
• "Engineers have been able to successfully incorporate the gene into mammalian cells in culture..." To which gene are you referring? It's unclear.
• " However being able to engineer the pathway into transgenic mice has proven to be difficult for engineers, as while the DNA has been expressed in some tissues, including the liver, and small intestine, the level of expression is not high, and found to not be statistically significant." This sentence is really unclear. Possibly remove the second and fifth commas to make a better sentence.
• Define epithelial cells or link to a wiki article that defines them.
• The second-to-last paragraph: Both sentences begin with "Efforts to engineer the...". Pick a new way to phrase either sentence. It would flow better.
• "...absent in mammals eg. humans." Take out eg. and replace with "for example" or phrase that particular part differently. Having "eg." in the middle of the sentence doesn't really make sense.
• "...humans (mammals)..." Unnecessary because you already defined humans to be mammals in the previous sentence.
• Try to include more ways to engineer the cycle. The example of sheep and wool is great, just try and find some more!
• We suggest more of the advantages/disadvantages of the cycle for humans.

Overall: add links to wiki articles to define things and don't get overly fancy with your sentence structure because it can be confusing at times.

Good luck!

Mahill104 (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Second Round Peer Review: Team 15

Team fourteen addressed all of the issues raised by the first round of peer reviews. The sentence structure and grammar of the sections titled “plants”, “fungi”, and “engineering concepts” were all revised appropriately, but there are a few remaining errors to correct. The last two sentences of the first paragraph in the “plants” section would benefit from some further reviewing. It is suggested that “to be” be replaced with “are” in the last sentence, and that “what” the seed cannot provide for itself be elaborated on in the second-to-last sentence. In addition, the first sentence of the “engineering concepts” section reads: “which do not pose them…”, but should read: “which do not possess them…” The team may consider renaming the section titled “fungi” to “pathogenic fungi” since non-pathogenic fungi, like mushrooms, are not considered in the section. There are also a few run on sentences that try to fit too many ideas into one. In the second paragraph for Engineering Concepts, the sentence "However being able to engineer the pathway into transgenic mice has proven to be difficult for engineers..." should be split into two or more sentences. This happens again in the third paragraph for Engineering Concepts in the sentence saying "Efforts to engineer the pathway into more complex animals..."

Furthermore, keeping in mind that the article is supposed to target an audience including high school students, it may be prudent to define such words as pseudogenic and virulent. There are also many instances where it would be useful to introduce hyperlinks, although much progress has already been made in this regard since the previous revision. Additionally, if the bold print is used for the words “glyoxylate cycle” it should be consistent throughout the article. Lastly, the section referring to nuclear transfer technology is a bit unclear, and could benefit from further elaboration.

Glennbeatty (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Syao92 (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Second Round Review from Team 6

After reviewing their second draft, it is clear Team 14 took note of our comments from the first round of reviews to create a more cohesive article. The many suggestions we made in the first review were expertly addressed. The grammar is much improved and the links to other wikipedia articles help immensely in understanding the article. From the revisions made, the article's focus is much better.

However, we still propose some minor suggestions to improve the article:

• Your capitalization of "glyoxylate cycle" inconsistent, especially within the "Function in Organisms" section.
• "Glyoxylate cycle" is bolded on occasion. If you are trying to link to the wikipedia article on the glyoxylate cycle, make sure it is a link and not boldface type. The bold is unnecessary.
• The use of links to other wikipedia articles was much improved, but it would be beneficial to have links for some uncommon words, like "pseudogenic". The topic of "nuclear transfer technology" is also unclear; it may be useful to provide further explanation or link to another wikipedia article.
• Throughout the article, the capitalization of "acetate" is inconsistent. It should not be capitalized when it does not begin a sentence (much of this occurs in the "Plants" section of "Function in Organisms".
• The first sentence of "Engineering Concepts": "mammals which do not pose them..." should read "mammals which do not possess them...".
• In sentence 6 of the "Vertebrates" section of "Function in Organisms", there is a missing period at the end of the sentence.
• The second paragraph of "Engineering Concepts", final sentence: the second comma is unnecessary and makes the sentence somewhat unclear.

Overall, just keep revising and improving the grammar and try to explain those concepts which could be unclear to a future reader. Mahill104 (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Typo in figure: fumArate, not fumUrate

Nothing major ... fumArate from fumaric acid. fumUrate is a typo (I think). AdderUser (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)