Talk:Spine apparatus

Untitled

Some images would be nice. Can anybody help?

Joe Depalo, Paul Nucero, and Rachel Newmiller will be working on editing and updating this page over the course of the next few weeks as part of a neuroscience class project at Boston College. We have found some images in response to the above request and we will include them as well.

Review

Good job so far! A few comments – first, there are no hyperlinks in the “Morphology” section and I think they should be included. Also in the first paragraph of the “Morphology” section, you write: “The spine apparatus structure allows for dynamic changes in the surface area of the spine plasma membrane.” I think one more sentence explaining how this works would be beneficial. In the last paragraph of the “Morphology” section, you describe the shape of the SA in different spine types without actually using the terms for the different types of spines; I think incorporating these names would improve this section. Spines can be classified into four categories: thin, stubby, mushroom, and branched. The third paragraph in the “Plasticity” section contains no references. Be sure to cite your sources. I think you should change the title of the “Relevance” section so that it is more descriptive. For example, you could call it “Relevance to Disease.” The information contained in this section is intriguing; can you elaborate on this topic? Overall, nice article! -Reedich (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

-- Thanks for your comments! Although there is a lot more that needs to be discovered about the spine apparatus and its role in disease, the "Relevance" section (now called "Relevance to Disease," as suggested) has been expanded and addresses a direction of future research. RNewmiller (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

-- Thanks for the comments! I made sure to go back and cite the sources in the third paragraph of the "Plasticity" section. Depaloj (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

--Thanks for the comments, Emily. I took your advice and added several links within the Morphology section. I also extended on the dynamic changes of the surface area of the spine membrane and its link to the spine apparatus. I also discussed about the four spine categories and how the structure of the SA differs in each category. Thanks for the help! Nucerop (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

Maybe mention AMPA receptors more since that is what is stored in the ER and results in plasticity. Report on PubMed by Cui-Wang T, Hanus C, Cui T, Helton T, Bourne J, Watson D, Harris KM, and Ehlers MD looks like it could be a good resource.KOskar (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

-- Thanks for the comments, KOskar! I added a few additional details regarding AMPA receptors, the spine apparatus, and plasticity. These details come from a few experiments which utilized immunostaining of AMPARs and NMDARs, but unfortunately these studies did not reveal a ton of information regarding the spine apparatus and plasticity. I had the chance to look at the source you provided as well. This is definitely a great resource for someone who is looking into the spatial distribution and trafficking of AMPARs in dendritic spines. I am, however, hesitant to discuss these data in terms of the spine apparatus. The article never mentions the spine apparatus and I am not sure if these findings can be directly translated to the spine apparatus and its potential role in AMPAR trafficking in dendritic spines. Thanks! Depaloj (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

After reading the article, I have a few pieces of advice and also one question. For the layout, I would suggest putting the first paragraph of the Local Protein Synthesis section above it before that first subsection. Also, you should tag more Wikipedia pages to key words within the article, especially in the Morphology section. Finally, the Morphology section says that surface area benefits the function of the SA, but how?Schererp (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

-- Thanks for you comments! In terms of layout, we decided to keep it as is. We came to this conclusion because the paragraph you mention is written in a way that ultimately seeks to introduce the spine apparatus' role in local protein trafficking, which is only one of several functions of the spine apparatus. Depaloj (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

--Thanks for the advice, Pat! I added more links in the Morphology section as well as highlighting on the benefits of the large surface area of the SA. Nucerop (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Great article guys! It is clear that you did a lot of research and put a lot of time into this article. That being said, there are a few things you might want to revise. I think you could add more information about where exactly the SA is located. It says that it is a specialized form of ER and it is found in the dendritic spines of central neurons. However this doesn’t really give a specific enough picture for the reader to understand (especially a lay person reading it). You might also want to elaborate what a dendritic spine is. The hyperlink is good, but because this is an important fact to understand it’s function, you might want to expand in the actual article itself. Also, you might want to consider adding more hyperlinks. As Wikipedia is a source for all people, you have to assume not everyone is going to have a strong understanding of biology/neurology. There are also a few grammatical errors. For example in the first paragraph under function you say, “…Harris noted a continuation of the smooth endoplasmic reticulum into the spine apparatus, where is then takes on a lamellar structure.” Simple errors like this make it a bit more difficult to understand the large amount of information you have here! One final note, you might want to expand on the “Relevance” section. These points seem very interesting, yet they are so vague that it does not give the reader a full picture of how SA plays a role. Overall though, this was a really interesting read and you guys did a wonderful job! Mcintee (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

--Thanks for the feedback! The morphology section has been expanded and edited, hyperlinks have been added, grammatical errors have been addressed, and the relevance to disease section now contains more information (although there is still a lot to be learned about the role of the SA in disorders). RNewmiller (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys. Good job on the article. It is very informative and covers a lot of information on the spine apparatus. Your text can sometimes be a little convoluted. For example, in the morphology section when you say, "The morphology of the spine apparatus is highly indicative of the smooth surfaced endoplasmic reticulum of the dendrite," it's not exactly clear what you are trying to say. I wasn't sure if this meant that the morphology of the spine apparatus was similar to that of the smooth endoplasmic reticulum or something else. Also, there were some minor grammatical errors. You say that the spine apparatus consists of "a continuous parallel flattened cisternae." However, cisternae is the plural form of the term. In the function section, you might want to add more hyperlinks to other wikipedia pages. Also, I'm not sure that it is necessary to cite the names of authors in the text since there are footnotes already. Finally, could the Relevance section be expanded a little? Maybe you could talk about what brain functions are compromised when there is deficient development of the spine apparatus. Tranas (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

--Thanks for the comments! I cleared up some sentences in the Morphology section as well as fixed the grammatical errors. Thanks for the advice. Nucerop (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

--Thanks for your suggestions! The SA's relationship to disease is still not well understood and is a current focus of some research; the relevance section has been updated as much as possible given current knowledge. RNewmiller (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought that this was generally well-written and very informative Wikipedia page. Overall, I found this page lacking in links to other Wikipedia articles. It would be nice if there were more points, especially in the Morphology section, that linked to other Wikipedia pages (possibly endoplasmic reticulum or dendrite?). While other section looks very thorough, the relevance section seems like it needs more information in order to be completed. Is there any way to add another paragraph to this section? Is there another study that can be discussed? I also believe that this page could also really benefit from the usage of images to supplement the material that is covered in the article. Hfunk (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

-- Hi, thank you for your suggestions. As noted above, the relevance section has been expanded although there is not much research currently available about the spine apparatus' role in brain disease/disorders. Two images have also been added to the article to aid readers in understanding spine apparatus structure and the organization of receptors on the organelle. RNewmiller (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

--Hey, thanks for the comments. I added more links in the Morphology section. Thanks for pointing that out! Nucerop (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Relevance to Disease?

I find the section 'Relevance to Disease' not very helpful. As far as I can see, there is no evidence for a causal role of the spine apparatus in any human disease, e.g. from a GWA study. Since everything in this section is purely speculative, I suggest to remove this section entirely. Millencolin (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Since there were no objections or novel experimental evidence in the last 8 years, I have removed the section 'Relevance to disease'. --Millencolin (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)