Talk:Inositol-trisphosphate 3-kinase

message: Inositol Trisphosphate 3 Kinase
Peer Reviewer 1
1. The length of your page is completely feasible and appropriate. However, Wikipedia already has a page for calcium signaling pathway. Maybe you should link that page to your description when talking about IP3-3K function.
2. For the introductory paragraph, you should add one sentence where you mention the biological or clinical relevance of this enzyme. You mention the chemical reaction, a little bit of history, and by adding this information the reader will understand why the enzyme is important and interesting.
3. I suggest you move your Structure Section after the Discovery Section and separate it from this section. Also, you might want to make Isoforms a subsection to the Structure Section. For the structure, I would mention the role of each domain (i.e. domain x is for ATP and MG2+ binding, etc.) and how they help for specificity of substrate. This would allow for a better reading flow and would help transition to the Isoform Section. You mention that the isoforms share common features. You might want to mention some of these common features. An image that compares the three different isoforms is much needed. I liked how you mentioned the distribution of the isoforms.
4. This is more esthetics, but don’t forget to make your images bigger in the page. In that size, the reader is not able to distinguish what is what in the signaling pathway. 
5. This also falls in the esthetics category, but I recommend you differentiate the format of your titles (in your sandbox) for each section. You have them all under the same format and the open public might not understand when you’ve finished talking about the functions and moved to therapeutic applications, etc.
6. The table makes a great description of the IP3K’s distribution in different organism. Since you have it, you should add a small section that talks about it. 
7. I know you guys wrote that the mechanism is coming soon, but for review purposes, do not forget to add it. It will make the Function Section more complete.
8. You should add some information regarding IP3-3K’s role in brain development, memory and learning (Might be interesting for the open public).
9. The Calcium Signaling Pathway section is very good (good summary). However, I would skip the two sections on IP4. They take attention off of IP3-3K and it makes it seem as if the page was dedicated to Calcium Signaling Pathway. 
10. In your last section, I recommend a change in title from “Regulation” to “IP3-3K Regulation”. The first one sound like you will be talking about how IP3-3K regulates rather than being regulated.
11. Your Therapeutic Section is dynamite. Good summary. For the Inositol-Trisphosphate-3-Kinase - Target Section, you should change the title to something like Applications in regenerative medicine. The current title might throw the reader off. 
12. The references and external links are misplaced. Make sure that they are in the correct section.
13. Good diversity in your references.  
Overall, it is a great Wikipedia page. The sections for the page are clear and appropriate. It just needs minor work on the organization. Some important sites need to be linked in order to help the general public understand the concepts. Finally, do not forget to add your images for the mechanism and the structure. Great work!
-desireegt
Peer Reviewer 2
Section 1:
This article about Inositol Trisphosphate-3-Kinase is definitely appropriate for Wikipedia. It follows an easy to read outline which will appeal to the general public. It is certainly a needed webpage because if anyone is looking for it on google, the links on the first page are scholarly articles or databases and having a Wikipedia article to read first before diving in elsewhere would be great. The last section of Therapeutic Use was excellent because the group has multiple topics from psychiatry to pregnancy which is what many people will want to read. The only other easily accessible site that has similar information is one of their resources – examine.com – and it only has information about medical implications whereas this Wiki page has a lot more information. Overall, the length is pretty good. Some more information could be added to add clarification of jargon such as explaining what a phosphatase is. Although, this could also be remedied by making these words hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages so if the reader was unclear of something technical they could read more about it. 
Section 2:
Some of the sections are longer that others but I think that simply mirrors what research has been done so far. One suggestion involves the Calcium Signaling Pathway section. It has a lot of scientific language in it that would be hard to understand for the average reader. There is also already a Calcium Signaling Pathway Wikipedia Page which means that the first part of this section does not really need to go as deep as it does. A couple terms could be expanded upon for clarity’s sake like CAM is mentioned but isn’t explained, the acronym is just said without saying what it stood for. The group did a great job and the sections do not have repeating information. The only repetition I saw was listing of what calcium signaling can do in the discovery and later, larger section. I believe that once you add the remaining pictures and a larger introduction that your page will be great. 
Images: The image that they have included so far is easy to understand. The black arrow that represents the IP3K enzyme is clear that it is adding a “ball” so yes its functions is evident. The other proposed images are good and should be inserted. If both the human inositol-trisphosphate 3-kinase A and B are going to be included, then the C isoform would be nice to include as well if possible. If possible for the table, condensing it might be nice. Having the blank spaces for Tissue Expression for the Humans and Intracellular Distributions for the others looks weird. Overall, the images are informative and add to the page. 
Section 3:
One part of this page that still needs work is attaching citations to parts of the articles. For example in the IP4 as a Second Messenger, it goes “there is evidence that inositol…” and there isn’t a bracketed resource after to indicate where this is from to find what this evidence is. The references do have variety but are mostly drawn from primary literature. They do have a nice variety of scholarly articles that they are using and I didn’t feel like they needed any more of them. I thought that they had enough information on calcium signaling, but if they wanted another source with that Michael Berridge has written some highly cited papers about inositol trisphosphate and calcium signaling. My only other suggestion would be to utilize a textbook source like Voet and Voet just to have another resource that is more easily accessible. 
Overall comments:
Overall, I thought that this page was great and I can tell that you put some hard work into it. This page offers a great overview over what Inositol Trisphosphate-3-Kinase is as well as why it is medically relevant. Besides a couple of things mentioned above, the main things left to do are to doing a grammar run through, adding links to other Wikipedia pages, and making sure that scientific language is either toned down or explained. 
-BiochemEnthusiast
Peer Reviewer 3
Section 1
Overall, it seems like the important information that makes a Wikipedia article a comprehensive resource, is there. I think you have the right idea, there are just some adjustments and additions to be made. When you are editing the page, try to go through and simplify what you’re trying to say. A lot of paragraphs sound more like a review article than an article for Wikipedia, and when editing, you should try to minimize jargon as much as possible (Just something to always keep in mind). More links to other Wikipedia pages should be added, especially to ITPKA. Any word that a non-scientist may not understand, like isoform, should have a link. Some of the first sections seem to be missing a lot of information, but once those sections are filled out, I think the article will be an appropriate length.
Section 2 
I would want to see something about the significance of this enzyme right in the introduction. It seems like the article does not address why the enzyme is so important (in "everyday" language). People without a background in biochemistry won't (generally) understand why it's important for an enzyme to "facilitate phosphoryl group transfer from ATP to 1D-myo-inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate."
The part about how the enzyme was discovered is interesting to read. In general though, this section has a lot missing. There’s a piece of this section that should be paraphrased, not quoted. When you start talking about ITP3K in the Isoforms section, I think it would be appropriate to start abbreviating it, since you’ve already introduced the abbreviation. It is easier to read “ITP3K” than trying to read “inositol triphosphate 3 kinase” over and over. When you’re talking about the important structural features that are conserved over isoforms, it would helpful to explain those in more detail – what is characteristic of these features that makes it important that they are conserved? A picture highlighting the different lobes of the protein would be helpful here.
 
In the function section, it would help to take a step back and explain bigger picture function in a couple of sentences. When I think of function, I think of transcription regulation, cell signaling, etc. What you have written so far looks great, but it needs references.
The calcium signaling pathway section seems like it should go under function, if it is a pathway in which ITP3K plays an important role. Some clarification is needed in this section; there’s a lot of awkward wording that makes it confusing to read. Also, it sounds like some parts contradict each other. For example, it is mentioned that IP4 does not cause calcium channels to open on the ER, but in a later section, it says IP4 at high concentrations does cause the channels to open. I think I get what you’re trying to say, but maybe try to explain that in a different way. Citations are needed in this section as well; especially under Additional Roles of IP33K, and IP4 as a second messenger. The first sentence in the IP33K and Long Term Potentiation section, “As mentioned, both inositol 5-phosphatases and IP33K
reduce IP3 concentrations in the cytoplasm, terminating signal transduction.” is a great sentence! It would be helpful to have sentences like this opening all of the sections. This is the kind of language that will help your readers understand what you’re trying to explain. 
The therapeutic use section is written very well in my opinion. One suggestion I would have is to lead with the ITP3K as a target section, because most of the rest of the section seems like it’s focused on IP4. Make sure you emphasize the role of ITP3K when you’re talking about IP4, since the article is about the enzyme. A couple of small notes – you mention ITP3K is a “druggable” target; make sure you explain what that means (eliminate jargon). I was confused about the difference between IP3 and inositol – are they different molecules? Also, play with the first couple of sentences in the Lung Cancer section; the transition between the first two sentences is a little muddy.
Images
Great diagram of the signaling pathway! It looks good. I’d suggest you put a picture of your enzyme in the article: (for example: http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=1TZD, it's not great, but at least it's something.) This will help people visualize the enzyme a bit better. Also, add the images/schemes that you mentioned you were going to add – I think they will definitely help your reader with understanding your enzyme!
Section 3
Overall, I think the references are diverse and fairly comprehensive. The biggest issue I would work on is making sure that everything is cited correctly. For example, when you mention any kind of finding or evidence make sure the reference where they make that claim is cited (even if it’s not publically accessible).
Overall comments
This article is a huge improvement from what the Wikipedia article is currently. I think you’ve added a lot of critical information about the enzyme. Just make sure you add the information that was left out of the first edit. (With the notes you made, I assume you know you need to add it!) With a little bit of editing, I think you’ll have a solid article! 
Just a couple of housekeeping notes to keep in mind as you make edits: 
- Some of the wording is awkward, especially in the “Discovery” section. 
- start abbreviating ITP3K after you introduce it, and spell out the full word only when you think it will help what you're trying to explain. It's much easier to read the abbreviation than the whole phrase.
- Only use one type of abbreviation (typically the most accepted version)
- Mention similarities to other kinases, such as phosphoinositide 3 kinase
- If you can, you should make the font larger in the ITP3K signaling pathway diagram; it’s a little hard to read the words.
-Andrea Shergalis  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clairecato (talk • contribs) 04:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review and responses during the educational assignment in Winter 2015