User talk:Scalvert2000/H-DNA

MG editing Luis article

Utilize the CITE feature that wikipedia has to sight where you found information that is listed in the article so that when readers are going through your article they will be able to find the articles that reference the information
Going through the first time I would reread and check some punctuation and grammar in order for it to flow more smoothly when reading
The structure is kind of hard to follow, I would start off with an explanation of how gene expression is regulated by HDNA just a brief description and then go on to explain either location or sequence proximity first and go into more detail about while also labeling each section on what it is describing.
You describe the factor location really well but when I got to the second paragraph you jumped into a study when starting to talk about sequence proximity, I wouldve have started with some information regarding sequence proximity and then used the results of those studies to validate the facts that were listed previously.
Overall all the information is there I would just consider changing the structure and format as well as checking th punctuation and grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthwesternMarcello1 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Nguyen editing Abby Musyoka's draft:

Consider checking spacing consistency, capitalization, punctuation, and diction (mostly the word redundancy); excerpt ---> "bind ... to a single DNA strand through Watson crick base pairing binding". Perhaps the second mention of binding in the same phrase can be removed or tweaked in some way. Also, some words are used a bit often so I suggest looking into some word variation or rephrasing.
Recommend to cite any sources used with the available "Cite" feature from Wikipedia. It helps to see the sources so we can gain insight on the topic and understand the research conducted. In addition, linking to other relevant Wikipedia articles may be worth looking into, such as cystic fibrosis or Hoogsteen binding.
Reading over the writing with a fresh mind might help. For this specific sentence: "DNA nanotechnology proposes the use of triplex based devices to exploit the reversibility of the duplex to triplex transition through pH changes, the use of triplex-stabilizing ligands or strand displacement." I would use a bit of parallel structure to explain this, as it's a bit hard to understand what's being said in some parts. You're saying it can be exploited through pH changes, it can be exploited through the use of triplex-stabilizing ligands, or it can be exploited through strand displacement. It's a tad unbalanced and perhaps it would either help to elaborate some more, especially on the strand displacement part as that seems to be the most different phrase from the others and breaks the parallel structure the most.
Showing the term before using an abbreviation at any point may be a good idea. It was unclear to me what "TpA" was, as I had not seen it before in your section in full form I believe. If I had seen it, it was not made evident by use of the word and then (TpA) next to it. Katiepng (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett Griffin-Baldwin editing Sean's draft:

You have a sentence in your transcription section about how H-DNA forming sequences are "perceived as DNA damage" that I think would work well as part of a general preface for H-DNA caused genetic instability before launching into talking about replication and transcription specifically.

REPLICATION: — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrumpyButtons (talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"One specific class of nucleases called nucleotide excision repair nucleases..." might be a little extraneous, maybe just start the sentence with "Nucleotide excision repair nucleases..."
This might just be personal preference but consider changing the order of information in the sentence "These deletions were less prevalent near H-DNA forming sequences in cells deficient in ERCC1-XPF and ERCC1-XPG" to "In cells deficient in ERCC1-XPF and ERCC1-XPG, these deletions were less prevalent near H-DNA forming sequences". It shows more of a cause and effect relationship.
Maybe briefly elaborate on what differentiates FEN-1 from ERCC1-XPF and ERCC1-XPG. I was left wondering why the expression of FEN-1 increased genetic stability while the expression of the other NENs decreased it. How does FEN-1 interact with H-DNA?
Maybe expand on the implications of H-DNA replication interference in cancer.

TRANSCRIPTION:

Maybe change "by interfering with transcription and stopping it prematurely" to "by interfering with and stopping transcription" to remove the "it"
There is the repetition of "Here, ..." at the beginning of sentences in this paragraph, I don't think all of them are necessary.
Right now, the paragraph is structured where you initially talk about the effect of H-DNA interference on cMyc transcription and then you talk about how RNA polymerase interacts with ideally constructed H-DNA segments. Consider changing the order of this information to first talk about general RNA polymerase/H-DNA interactions with the ideal model and then go into the specific biological example of cMyc transcription interference.
I know cMyc is a proto-oncogene, it might be possible to make a cancer development connection here.

GrumpyButtons (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)GrumpyButtons — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrumpyButtons (talk • contribs) 17:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiepng (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]