Talk:DISC1

message: First of all, excellent job in expanding this article!  Your contributions are greatly appreciated.
Concerning the "Molecular location and structure" heading, I am very confused as to what this is supposed to mean.  Does the "molecular location" refer to the chromosomal location of the gene or the tissue distribution of the expressed protein?  The "structure" part of the heading I assume refers to the protein structure although it could also refer to the promoter/intron/exon structure of the gene.  Furthermore current section heading does not capture all aspects of the gene and protein that are discussed. The gene and protein encoded by the gene are two distinct topics and therefore can easily be split into two separate sections.  I do not see the need to subordinate these two sections to a "Molecular location and structure" section.  Cheers. Boghog (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input. To answer your questions, the intention behind the original section title was one that encompassed all of the information included there (both chromosomal location of the gene and protein distribution and structure) and I did not think that just "gene" and "protein" on their own as titles made clear what information was covered there. I think that the change you made to "gene location and transcription" and "protein structure and subcellular distribution" solves the issue very well. Thanks again. Kamilaosypiuk (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Your article looks great so far! I have too very minor corrections. In the introductory paragraph, I noticed that you used the phrase: "mitochondria fission:fusion and transport." I am not sure if this is what you wanted to say, but various articles on PubMed used "fission/fusion" or "fission-fusion" rather than "fission:fusion." Also, one citation in the clinical implications section was located in the middle of the sentence, when it should be placed at the end. Phil J. (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your feedback and comments; we appreciate your time! After doing some research myself on PubMed, it seems that mitochondrial fusion and/or fission may be affected by DISC1, and I have made that change. Thanks for catching that. I went through the "Clinical implications" section a couple of times and could not find the citation in the middle of a sentence. Perhaps one of my colleagues already fixed it, but if you happen to come back and notice it, please let me know in more detail where it is! Thanks again. KelleyAmbrose (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your suggestions and edits! We appreciate the comments, and do agree that DISC2 should have its own page. However this task is actually outside the scope of our project guidelines. From a preliminary Wikipedia search, I confirmed that no page exists already, so it seems like a "DISC2" page could be created if you would like. Also, please feel free to add and cite information about the family studies you have explored-although we may continue to edit on our own, the timeline of our project is coming to an end and we will likely not be consistently editing the page after May. Thanks again! KelleyAmbrose (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Corrections 

message: Hey guys, great job on the article so far. The amount of detail was impressive and the number of sources shows it was very well researched. Most of my comments have to do with stylistic issues, rather than the overall content since it seems like the article is already pretty comprehensive. For one thing, I would be careful with how many protein/gene names that you place in the middle of paragraphs. While it's definitely important to reference the relevant ones, sometimes it can be a little difficult to read and understand, especially for readers without any background in genetics or neuroscience. Another thing that is very minor is how you listed the model organisms being used to study DISC1 in the "Gene location and transcription" section. Instead of writing the common name and then linking the scientific name of the species in parenthesis, you should setup your links so that the common name is the link. This only requires a slight modification to how you normally link to other Wikipedia articles, but it will definitely allow the paragraph to flow better. In the "Protein Interactions" section you listed a bunch of the proteins on a list, but then discussed some of them individually right after. I would recommend removing the individually discussed ones from the list, and then place remaining list at the bottom of the section. This is because Wikipedia likes to avoid lists of things if possible, and it seems a little redundant to list and then explain some of them. (ATF4/ATF5 is one example of this). One last thing to consider is for the "Protein structure" section. I don't know if you have looked for any images of the structure (or if one even exists yet), but it may be worth to try and find an illustration of the structure. This is definitely a lower priority though, especially since any images are likely to have restricted use rights. Other than that though, everything seems very well done and should only require minor modifications from here on out.
Pathyland (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the thoughtful and helpful comments. We cleaned up both the "Protein Interactions" section and list of model organisms, and hopefully those two parts are more concise and clear as a result. Thanks again! KelleyAmbrose (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your suggestions! We've added additional links throughout the article and plan to read through it extensively in order to maximize fluidity. We appreciate your help! KelleyAmbrose (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank you for reading over our article and contributing your feedback. After looking over your suggestions and others', we changed the first sentence to increase its readability and added a link to Asberger's, among others. We did not add a citation after the sentence you mentioned, only because the linked citation was included at the end of the paragraph, after all of the facts from that article had been presented. Thank you again. KelleyAmbrose (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your feedback. We have taken your comments into consideration and hope to have explained further the concepts of LOD and isoform as a result. We will make sure to proofread carefully as well! Thanks again. KelleyAmbrose (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: BI481 Peer Review

message: Hi Kamila, Kelley and Ben, nice job with this topic. It's in much better shape than when you started. Just a few issues:
*In the See Also section, don't list topics or other articles that you have already worked into the main body of your article
*Early on in the course I mentioned to avoid a Further Reading type of section. If those articles are that good or important you should work them into the body of your article; otherwise leave them out. NeuroJoe (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: End of Boston College BI481 Project

message: I have compared this version of the page, , from before the start of the project, with this version, , after.
Scale from 1 to 5
1 = most negative
5 = most positive
1. Is the prose clear and concise? 5
2. Does the article comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, and list incorporation? 5
3. Is the article properly and adequately referenced? 5
4. Are in-line citations provided in accordance with Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? 5
5. Does the article address the main aspects of the topic? 5
6. Does the article stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail? 5
7. Does the article represent viewpoints fairly and without bias? 5
8. Is the article illustrated by images that are relevant and are tagged with their proper status? 3
Comments: Overall, I think that this page has been improved very impressively, and has become a very high quality Wikipedia article. I congratulate the authors on their excellent and careful work! I took off a bit on the illustrations simply because there is only the box at the top. As for criterion 6, I recognize that a case can be made that the language is a bit too technical for a Wikipedia article, but I also think that genes are, of there nature, a technical subject, and I consider the treatment here to be appropriate. I was very impressed with the thoroughness of the coverage, and the careful attention to Wikipedia format. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: In 1970, researchers performing cytogenetic research on a group of juvenile offenders in Scotland found an abnormal translocation in chromosome 1 of one of the boys, who also displayed characteristics of an affective psychological disorder.
In the previous version there was a brief mention (using the "classic" cytogenetic karyotype notation) that probably this particular translocation has happened between the long arms of chromosomes 1 and 11 - This gene and DISC2 are disrupted in a t(1;11)(q42.1;q14.3) translocation - which was not reiterated in the expanded version.
More protein interactions:
*DIXDC1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2938013/
*GSK3B http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704382/
And a Wikimedia Commons file which could be useful to include in the article 
80.240.162.190 (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Scottish family case 

message: There is a sentence in the article that reads, " No known functional homologues exist for this protein in humans, although it does have broad homology to scaffold proteins."  This can't be true, or perhaps the sentence refers to another protein that is not encoded by the DISC1 gene in humans.  Thanks for providing the information in this article, just wanted to point out this sentence seems confusing. 13:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the sentence is poorly worded at best.  Unfortunately I don't have access to the source cited for the paragraph, and can't check whether there is some valid and important fact that the sentence misstates. Looie496 (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing line 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on DISC1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110827023004/https://sfari.org/news/-/asset_publisher/6Tog/content/clinical-animal-studies-probe-disc1-s-role-in-autism?redirect=%2Fnews to https://sfari.org/news/-/asset_publisher/6Tog/content/clinical-animal-studies-probe-disc1-s-role-in-autism?redirect=%2Fnews
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified