Talk:Toxic shock syndrome toxin-1

Microbiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

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.

Feedback

Hi guys! I have a few suggestions to help improve your article. • In your first sentence of the introduction, remove the word "somewhere" as it seems to be just a filler. Also, maybe clarify what you mean by "isolates" because I am not sure if you are referring to the organism or something else. Under characteristics: •You mention menstruating and non-menstruating association with TSS. Do you mean that both categories of women have the syndrome? If so, maybe change the word "associated". If not, maybe you could clarify the statement. •Good use of statistics in this section. Under Structure: •In the second sentence you mention start/stop codons as well as the shine-delgarno sequence which are all typical parts of bacterial genomes. As such, they may not be pertinent when trying to distinguish the specific structure of the toxin. •Some of the info included here is repetition from the intro paragraph like the toxin's size in kDa. It may not be necessary/efficient to have the same information in two places of the article. •Your description of the domains of the holotoxin are very clear and detailed. •You may want to reword the last sentence where you say "any damage done to its function" because it doesn't sound encyclopedia-like. Instead, maybe mention denaturation. Under Production: •The bottom paragraph repeats some of the structural info from the previous paragraph. You may want to just move most of the paragraph into the structural section. Under Purification: •You may want to pick a different title for this section as the info isn't really about the purification process. •The comparison between in vitro and in vivo testing is very informative and clear. Under Mechanism: •This section might be more accessible/readable if it were broken down into paragraphs. •Also. there is some repetition from previous sections about the lethal and super antigenic portions being separate. Let me know if you have any questions about anything that I have written here! LOTakara (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Hi guys! I have a few suggestions to help improve your article. In your first sentence of the introduction, remove the word "somewhere" as it seems to be just a filler. Also, maybe clarify what you mean by "isolates" because I am not sure if you are referring to the organism or something else.

Under Characteristics:

You mention menstruating and non-menstruating association with TSS. Do you mean that both categories of women have the syndrome? If so, maybe change the word "associated". If not, maybe you could clarify the statement.
Good use of statistics in this section.

Under Structure:

In the second sentence you mention start/stop codons as well as the shine-delgarno sequence which are all typical parts of bacterial genomes. As such, they may not be pertinent when trying to distinguish the specific structure of the toxin.
Some of the info included here is repetition from the intro paragraph like the toxin's size in kDa. It may not be necessary/efficient to have the same information in two places of the article.
Your description of the domains of the holotoxin are very clear and detailed.
You may want to reword the last sentence where you say "any damage done to its function" because it doesn't sound encyclopedia-like. Instead, maybe mention denaturation.

Under Production:

The bottom paragraph repeats some of the structural info from the previous paragraph. You may want to just move most of the paragraph into the structural section.

Under Purification:

You may want to pick a different title for this section as the info isn't really about the purification process.
The comparison between in vitro and in vivo testing is very informative and clear.

Under Mechanism:

This section might be more accessible/readable if it were broken down into paragraphs.
Also. there is some repetition from previous sections about the lethal and super antigenic portions being separate.

Let me know if you have any questions about anything that I have written here! LOTakara (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Advice: I thought the article was very well written. You guys obviously did a lot of research. However, it is hard to read in some spots. Most wikipedia users won't understand a lot of the detailed scientific information. I don't want to tell you to "dumb-it-up," but just make it easier to read for people with non-scientific backgrounds. Maybe give some more definitions of words like interleukins, etc. I feel like the main reason people enjoy wikipedia is because it's easier to read than scientific articles and papers. So, I would just say keep you audience in mind when writing. Other than that I thought you guys did a great job!

Brady Bonacquisti (Dumbledore33) 22:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advice:

FIrst off I would like to say that it is well written, but it is rather hard to follow. Many times during the mechanism I got confused. I think that if you try and make the information a little more clear for people with less cellular/bio background to understand the basic concepts that the article would read smoother. Another suggestion would be to move the order of the topics around, possibly putting the Mechanisms section closer to the top of the page. Marissa.Ray (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is really well done. Great work. My only suggestion is to change the mechanism section. It has a lot of great information but it is very wordy. Seeing that huge paragraph makes the reader shy away from trying to read and understand all of the information. I would suggest to try to break it up into smaller sub-sections to making the reading easier and the entire mechanism more understandable. DsMason35 (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, You guys did a very good job on this article. It went very in depth with the structure & mechanisms. However, I do have some suggestions to improve it. In the first sentence, leave out "somewhere between." The characteristics section needs some re-wording. It is a little repetitive and confusing. In the second sentence I would leave out the word "the" before TSS & also close parentheses after TSS. There are two sentences describing who it is found in. I would just have one. The fourth sentence needs to be re-worded. In the structure section, the second to last sentence says, "...TSST-1 to the cross..." I would leave out "the." In the mechanisms section could you write out what all of the abbreviations stand for when they are first mentioned. Some are written out but later in the paragraph and some are not written out at all. Also, maybe be more consistant with the way you write alpha & beta. Sometimes they're capitalized, sometimes not and sometimes the symbol is used. One more thing. Could you create paragraphs out of the mechanisms section. I think it would be much easier to read that way. Overall, great job!! (user:HeatherCaputo/HeatherCaputo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heather Caputo (talk • contribs) 18:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections have been on the Characteristics and Structure sections, but I forgot to sign in when making the corrections. I just wanted to let everyone know that. (Bleonard4 (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, I think the grammar could use some slight work on this article, but overall, it is definitely well-crafted in terms of the details provided. I’ll makes some changes on grammar where needed. Powell Cat (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

This article was one of four submitted by a single editor for peer review. I closed this request (because only one open peer review is allowed per editor) but if someone who is working on this article wants additional feedback, they can submit their own request. WP:MOSMED and WP:MEDRS also have lots of information that should give the interested ideas for edits. Biosthmors (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review: Sources

I find this a very useful article, however as I tried going to your sources, I found that the first one is broken as the page was moved and I couldn't find it. maybe its possible to edit it, as now this is the only place I can find which says GABHS is only one species, which I find a bit unreliable. otherwise, very useful article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.202.2.50 (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]