Talk:Neurosphere

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Opening

Is the neurosphere the culture or the 3D shape that the cells form? In the first sentence you say it's a culture system, but the rest of the article acts as though it's the shape.
The differences between in vitro and in vivo are only briefly mentioned, and if you have any more information on it, I think that sentence/topic would fit well in the "Limitations" section.
The last sentence of the summary could definitely be streamlined. Right now it's a bit awkward. RoodSTO (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

What did "Angelo Viscovi and Derek van der Kooy and colleagues" do? If you're not going to say, I wouldn't mention specific people. But if you do mention them, it would be good to know the sort of work that they did. Otherwise it seems rather pointless to even bring up their names, unless you had something listed as further reading.
Why does it matter if the cells in the spheres were or weren't immunoreactive? Why did they look at antigenic properties? This isn't really clear to me, even by the end of the section, though I would guess it helps to show what type of cells they're differentiating into?
"found that all 21 days in vitro cultures of spheres and associated cells…" is confusing. Is it supposed to mean something like "after 21 days all in vitro cultures…" or something else? RoodSTO (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This section seems a little disconnected overall. In order to streamline it more, I would suggest renaming it "Discovery" and take out the current subsection since you really only go into depth about the discovery.
Some parts may be a bit confusing for someone with no science background. It might help if you define terms like EFG-responsive cells and what it means to be immunoreactive. Lindseyboucher (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neurosphere (Stemness) Assay

What is "Stemness"? Is it something to do with determining whether or not a cell is a stem cell? It's in the title but never mentioned in the body. RoodSTO (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical applications

Is the "CNS Regenerative Medicine" supposed to be a heading that "Auditory Restoration" goes under, or is it a work in progress as its own section? If the former, there should be an extra "=" on either side of the AR title to make it a level 4 heading. RoodSTO (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"CNS Regenerative Medicine" needs to be fixed.
Discuss what animals these applications have been tested on. Have they gotten to the point of human testing? If not, how far down the road will human trials be possible? Lindseyboucher (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Limitations

"highly sensitive to the procedure for the culturing method used" is really awkward phrasing, so I would recommend streamlining it.
"heterogeneous sphere have the potential to form neurospheres" again confuses the definition of neurosphere for me, since I thought the sphere was the neurosphere. RoodSTO (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

The third and fifth sources should be cited with the article information not just the website. Lindseyboucher (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Not a bad article, but it's a bit confusing. You definitely need to clear up the definition of neurosphere and give more explicit reasons why some things matter (like immunoreactivity). Working out some grammar issues would be great too, since it would make the article read better and be less confusing. RoodSTO (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it looks like a decent article right now. I really like that you put pictures up. However, there are some grammatical issues that need to be fixed. Also, I would suggest reading through each section as if you had no science background. Right now, some of the stuff is confusing that way you worded it. People without a science background may not be able to figure out what you mean by certain things. Pay attention to certain procedures or terms that you have not personally described or linked to. Anything that is essentially not common knowledge (such as EFG-responsive cells and immunoreactive), try to either describe what it is, or link to it. By doing that, some of the information may become easier to understand. Lindseyboucher (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Journal.pone.0001604.g001 small.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]