Talk:Werner syndrome

Untitled

Comments from Akhan50699:

• The information in the "Characteristics" section (just before the "Diagnosis and Clinical symptoms" part) has a lot of information in common with the "Diagnosis and Clinical symptoms" part, so you might consider combining those sections, or deleting repeated information.
• Inmy opinion, it makes more chronological sense to put the "History" section first, before the "Characteristics" section, so you might consider moving it up. Done
• It might be interesting to add some information in the History section about how Otto Werner discovered Werner Syndrome. Done
• Expand the two-sentence paragraph at the end of the "causes section," or combine it with a previous paragraph because it seems to be randomly placed there.
• Expand "Treatment" section if possible--what other treatments are there aside from Vitamin C? Done
• Is the "Popular Culture" section necessary? The instances of Werner Syndrome in these examples of culture seem rather vague--many people may not be familiar with these cultural references.

The "popular culture" section should not be deleted. Although references are often obscure, this is a standard section in many medical articles. Biolprof (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Akhan50699 (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

History

This source has a lot of information that could be used in expanding the History section http://sageke.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2002/13/re2 RegOH (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Estephe9

This article is being reviewed as a part of this project

A lot of the stuff I edited/am suggesting is grammatical/syntax-related. The content, overall is fine, I just have some suggestions on how to better word it.

Lead

• Third paragraph: "there have been 1,300 reported cases." - Does this mean there have been only 1,300 reported cases ever? Within the last 50 years? Maybe i'm just overthinking this but I think this could be better clarified.
  • This was written by someone else, but I reviewed their source and it seems as though there have been only 1,300 cases of Werner Syndrome reported in the literature as of 2006 (when the source was published). I will add this clarification to the lead. Emileemagnusen (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Background and History

• I split the first paragraph into two because it was long and seemed disjoint.
  • I think you could either take out some of the information about the coining of the term "Werner Syndrome" and the disease's link to cancer, or even better, rearrange that information into another portion of this section
    • I liked the sentence about coining the term; could go either way on the cancer sentence. Biolprof (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you should move the info about scientists verifying the disease as autosomal recessive immediately after the sentence about Werner hypothesizing it based on clinical data.
    • This paragraph was written on purpose to reflect the historical order of the developments regarding the discovery of Werner Syndrome. Emileemagnusen (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Emileemagnusen
• You may want to consider explaining the importance of scientists cloning this gene.
  • Good point. Emileemagnusen (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Characteristics

• I feel as though your first sentence is unnecessary; I think that if you just list the phenotypic symptoms of the syndrome, people will be able to infer that patents' appearances are "abnormal."
  • Fixed Emileemagnusen (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Diagnosis and Clinical Symptoms

• This could be combined with characteristics — it seems a bit repetitive.
• In the first paragraph, you both begin and conclude by saying that graying and loss of hair is the most common symptom (repetitive)
  • Will restructure to make it less repetitive Emileemagnusen (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• Perhaps you should break the paragraphs of this section down by symptom and a description of each — you do this in the second and third paragraphs, but those paragraphs seem a bit repetitive with the information you gave in the opening paragraph.
  • Thanks.Emileemagnusen (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• You say "common" and "very common" a lot. This is kind of unnecessary considering symptoms of a disease are common among all affected patients.
  • Will fix. Emileemagnusen (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Causes

• Give a definition or add a link to "eponymous gene."
  • Removed the word "eponymous" because it was unnecessary. Emileemagnusen (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Treatment

• Add link to skin graft?
  • Done. Emileemagnusen (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Estephe9 (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Mjurgens369

• In the first paragraph of treatment, "Like other progeria diseases, there is no cure for Werner's Syndrome." and "Diabetes, cancer, and cataracts are controlled much in the same way as normal cases." are both very similar sentences to the original source. You might want to rephrase them.
  • Done, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RegOH (talk • contribs) 14:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• In the third paragraph or treatment, you have the same citation two sentences in a row. You could probably change this to just one at the end of those sentences.
  • done. RegOH (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• This sentence under history "Since the initial discovery in 1904, several other cases of Werner syndrome have been recorded." under history isn't really necessary, and it could be removed. You could also put additional statistical information in its place.
  • Thanks for the input. I think the sentence is serving a purpose, providing a lead-in to a paragraph in which we discuss specific statistics such as the incidence rate of Werner Syndrome, so I'm not going to change it right now. RegOH (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• I made a few grammatical edits. I think they are minor and correct, but you might want to double check to make sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjurgens369 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Biolprof

This article is being reviewed for this class.

• Correct the error in the first in-line citation. This appears to be the page number in the cited book and should be inside the citation. If you are not sure how to correct this, check WP:Citation tools or post the question at the Teahouse. Also, the citation is missing a space between the year and the book title.
  • done, thanks. RegOH (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Treatment section, paragraph 2: Avoid beginning a sentence with “There is….” since “there” has no reference. Suggested change: “Evidence suggests that…”
  • Tried rewording differently, I hope its better now. RegOH (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• In the last sentence of the same paragraph, omit “…shows tremendous potential…” as per WP:POV. Instead, just indicate the date that clinical trials were initiated. If you have trouble finding this information, let me know.

Biolprof (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• • done. RegOH (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from User: Ecapelle

• I would add more wikilinks. I came up with a quick list just jotting down while reading: cancer, ophthalmologist, some big names in the history section, autosomal, recessive. I'm sure that there are more you could add though.
• WRN and chromosome 8 were wikilinked later in the article after they had already been previously mentioned.
• Under Associated Diseases, should it be "myelodysplatic syndrome (MDS)" instead of the acronym and name parenthetically? I'm not sure what the English/Wikipedia rules on this are, just a suggestion.

Ecapelle (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from User: Jfriend2

• This article definitely has enough information to not be considered start class, so you might think about changing the class to whatever you see fit, C-class at least.
• Some paragraphs in the article are very long and do not provide for good reading, you might want to consider shortening them or separating them into more, smaller paragraphs.
• wikilinks can be added to later paragraphs in the article
• a picture of the physical appearence of a person with this syndrome would very much improve this artcle

Jfriend2 (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from iamwillthinnes

• Could you add pictures of an individual with Werner syndrome?
• You might want to provide a link to the p38 pathway or an explanation of what that is, because I am unfamiliar with that protein. Is it similar to p53?

Iamwillthinnes (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from iamwillthinnes

• Could you add pictures of an individual with Werner syndrome?
• You might want to provide a link to the p38 pathway or an explanation of what that is, because I am unfamiliar with that protein. Is it similar to p53?

Iamwillthinnes (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Last sentence under Causes may unintentionally give wrong impression

(In all quotes below, emphasis has been added.)
~ The last sentence of Causes is "Surprisingly, complete loss of WRN helicase activity does not cause clinical Werner syndrome." This leaves out an important detail from the source for the sentence: "Recombinant R834C-WRN protein isolated from mammalian cells in culture displays markedly diminished (40- to 50-fold) ATPase and helicase activities, with retention of WRN exonuclease activity."
~ Several sources provided the basis for this background review: "In all examined cases of cells derived from WS patients, however, neither the RNA transcript nor the protein is detectable9,10. Reported missense amino acid substitutions, present as compound heterozygous mutations in a small subset of WS patients11,12,13,14, lead to protein instability and loss- the functional equivalent of null alleles. Thus, the development of WS appears to require the loss of the WRN protein and both of its encoded catalytic activities."
~ And this statement based on their results sharpens it: "...WRN helicase activity alone is not rate limiting for WS pathogenesis, and that clinical WS likely results only when both WRN helicase and exonuclease activities are lacking in patient cells."
~ But the Wikipedia reader only sees a Causes section that emphasizes the importance of helicase activity ("loss of function of these helicases has important implications in the development of Werner syndrome"), only mentions exonuclease activity as an afterthought -- and concludes with a sentence that (based on what's led up to it) could give the very-wrong impression of "Since loss of helicase activity doesn't cause Werner syndrome, then surprisingly something besides WRN must be a factor." I think it's an unintentional result of how the Causes section aggregated over time, but it's led to the last sentence being a functional misrepresentation of the source.
~ My suggestion for a replacement, based on the quotes above: "One study focusing on a variant WRN (R834C) that has almost no helicase activity but retains exonuclease activity, found that people with this variant do not show clinical symptoms of Werner syndrome. The authors suggested that Werner syndrome likely results only when both helicase and exonuclease activities are lost."
~ (I also think it would be good to reduce the undue weight of the preceding verbiage, and to add some of the sources this study cited as a basis for stating that no WS patient has had detectable levels of WRN... but that's just my strong impression, and I would hate to jump in and start mucking around with an article I haven't been involved in. That's a quick route to discord, wasted time, and error.)
Thank you for your time and stewardship, 65.132.12.114 (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)