Talk:Kisspeptin

message: Hey, I thought I'd put up a list of dot-jots I made in studying kisspeptin for my repro 462 exam, but it needs to be wikified. I figure I'd just get the information out there in whatever form, and I or someone else can do the editing later. If you disagree with this approach, feel free to delete the dot-jots, but leave a message here first (so i know its not vandalism). -- 14:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea, but it's not very encyclopedic.  Maybe that sort of information would be better put here first, and then inserted where appropriate in the actual article later.  Great idea, though.  Rhetth 19:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dot-jots 

message: Hey, I followed after link to NCBI and Ensembl websites and I found that kisspeptin peptide is from 138 aa and not like it says in article, 145 aa. What I'm missing? (English isn't my native language, so my apologies for any mistakes).  Beliysh (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  The original cloning of the kisspeptin precursor contained an error in the sequence which led the prediction that the resultant protein would consist of 164 amino acids.  This error was identified and the sequence length was revised to 145 aa (see ).  Apparently there was a second sequencing error (see : "sequence caution" The sequence AAC79512.1 differs from that shown. Reason: Frameshift at position 138.).  Boghog (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about number of amino acid precursor kisspeptin 

message: classically melatonin was considered the key to the release of GnRH in puberty, and evidence hold it. how is kisspeptin related to melatonin?
:I suggest you ask at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about relationshp to melatonin. 

message: I moved the following "Further reading" list to here, because it seems most of these are rather obsolete by now. If you find anyone to be of particular interest, I suggest summarizing those interesting parts in the Wikipedia article text and using the study as a reference. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete list of further reading 

message: Goal of this article (for neurobiology assignment):  There is a decent amount of secondary reading on this topic.  Therefore, we went through these sources and tried to find information about diverse topics related to kisspeptin.  We wanted to compile some information on many different topics since there was so much out there. The subsections might not be in great depth, but there is a variety of information presented.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbond35 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Educational assignment 

message: After reading of the reviews, we decided to make some changes to the page.  There were quite a bit of grammar and spelling mistakes that were fixed.  Also, some wording and general information within each of the sections was not consistent because different people wrote each section of the article.  For example, KISS1 had several names before, but now it is standardized across the whole article, which will reduce confusion. We also had to delete some sentences that contained the same information in different sections.  
We did not change the first two sources, even though they were mentioned a few times.  They might be primary sources, but they were used on the page before we started this project.  As a group, we decided to keep some of that information and thus, had to keep those citations.  Therefore, in order to use that information without taking credit for it, we had to keep the primary sources in the final article. There were also a few comments that asked us to add more detail, however, we decided not to do this because Ian suggested that we dumb down our writing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbond35 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Reviews

message: I enjoyed learning about Kisspeptin. I did notice in the Genomics section that the group went from using Matastin to Metastin. You may want to go back and revise the correct spelling. One last suggestion would be to go back through the article and add hyperlinks to some phrases such as chromosome 1. Above all, it does meet the 6 criteria for a good article. Dfernandez14 (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 1 

message: I learned a lot in this article. I especially think you did a good job with the intro and the sections on the biological functions; it was really well sectioned. The language was kept clear and simple as it can be with the topic discussed. The information included in all the sections seem relevant, and I don't get the feeling anything is missing. There is a small part in the role of puberty were it says "including (rat, mouse, and sheep)" which I don't think you need the parentheses if you are saying its including. Good job! MekMU (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 2 

message: (Primary Review)
The article is very interesting and provides many different topics on kisspeptin as intended by the authors.  I especially liked the introduction of the article and the section on the biological function of kisspeptin.  The introduction gave a clear and concise summary of the entire article.  The section on biological function was easy to read and provided a detailed explanation on the several roles of kisspeptins.  The article is also well illustrated.  The pictures used help understand the topics being discussed and are well located in the article.  The article was neutral and broad in coverage.  
Although most of the article is well written, there are a few grammar mistakes that need to be fixed.  Also, the section on structure repeats some of the details already presented in the section before it, like the number of amino acids that make up the protein and the similar C-terminus in all the proteins.  I would suggest omitting the number of amino acids that make up each protein since it seems to be getting into unnecessary details that don’t contribute much to the goal of the article.  In the genomics part, I would instead try talking about mutations of the genes and their effects on the functions of kisspeptin, if possible.  I did notice that the first two sources cited are experiments, since they include the methods used to conduct the experiment and their results.  This is considered a primary source so it might be a good idea to use other sources for your introduction.
The source I verified was "Kisspeptin/G protein-coupled receptor-54 system as an essential gatekeeper of pubertal development” (source 12 on the references list).  This qualifies as a secondary source and is correctly cited in the article.  I would suggest discussing more how the nutrition or energy levels of the animal affects the production of kisspeptins.  It was an interesting detail worth mentioning.
Overall, this is a well written article and very interesting to read.
BiologyGF (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 3 

message: (Secondary Review)
Overall, I think your group did a great job. I enjoyed learning about Kisspeptin, and I think that, generally, your group did an excellent job of portraying the information without being overly technical, which is important for a Wikipedia article. However, in the structure section of the article, I think that your group could use further explanation and more Wikilinks. While Wikilinks are an important component of Wikipedia, it is equally important to include a brief (1 sentence) description of what you are talking about. This allows readers to read and understand your article without having to leave the page, but also provides supplemental reading if he/she is interested in learning more about a specific topic. I think your group excellently fulfills the six good article criteria and are in good shape for this project.
Semaj311 (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Review 4

message: Overall, the article provided a lot of information about Kisspeptin. It was very interesting while I was reading. Each section of the article did not seem that it missed anything in general but in the genomics section, I was unsure of whether it was an error in the spelling of either Matastin or Metasin. All in all, the article was very good and it seems that it allows readers to understand without any problems! Great job!lusanity1 (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Review

message: (Primary Review)
Overall, the article was very well written and provided an excellent synopsis of the history and function of Kisspeptin.  Further, the article provided verifiable research, broad coverage of the topic, and remained neutral throughout.  Overall, this article meets the criteria for a good article.  The source I verified was "The role of kisspeptin and GPR54 in the hippocampus" (reference 6), which qualifies as a secondary source.  My specific thoughts and suggestions are outlined below.
LEAD IN PARAGRAPH
I liked the way the article began, with a nice lead in paragraph that did a good job of quickly explaining the basic information and physiology of the protein, before providing more details later in the article.  
HISTORY
Following the lead in section, the history section of the article provides the pertinent background information necessary to set up the rest of the article.  The only issue I suggest looking at in this section would be grammar related, as the article states, “Today, much effort is being done to characterize…”  It may help to replace “done” with “made.”
SOURCES
The section detailing the sources of Kisspeptin followed with more good information and writing. I liked the usage of a GIF in this section; it provided a nice 3D visualization of the hypothalamus.  Again, the only issue I noticed in this section would be a grammatical error, as the article states, “There is very great degree of expression of GPR54…”  It may help to replace “great” with “high” to improve the sentence a bit.
GENOMICS
This section provides a lot of nice details and a good overview of the genomics related to Kisspeptin.  A small revision to make in this section would be to stick to using only one of either KISS1 or Kiss1, and one of either Matastin or Metastin – all four variations are used in this section.  
STRUCTURE
Similarly, this section provides more well resourced and detailed information.
PATHWAY
This section does a good job of detailing the pathway of GnRH release related to kisspeptin.  However, the sentencing saying, “Research in both rats and humans has provided that the binding…” could be improved by adding the word “information” or something similar following the phrase “has provided.” 
BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION
This section was very interesting, and did a good job of expounding upon the information given in the lead in paragraph.  Moreover, this section succeeds in outlining both the micro- and macroscopic function of kisspeptin.  One thing to look at though, would be in the “Role in tumor suppression” section to make sure to be consistent in the use of the same variation of KISS1 – “KiSS-1” is used as well in this section. 
KISSPEPTIN NEURONS
Finally, this section continues the trend of good writing and well-sourced information.  Again, something to look at would be to make sure the same form of KISS1 is used in this section.
ShieldsMU (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 5 

message: (Primary Review) 
Overall, the article is well written and provides a lot of useful information about kisspeptin. The article does not have any biases and the images are helpful for understanding certain parts of the article. There are a lot of sources used and the sources are cited correctly. 
That being said, I think you should either explain what gene expression is or link the word expression to another wikipedia article in the "Sources" section. Gene expression is something that is understood by people with a biology background, however, the article should be clear enough that any reader can understand it. Also, I think you should explain or link the word translation in the "Genomics section. You also use "KISS1," "Kiss1," and "KiSS-1" as well as "Matastin" and "Metastin" in the article. You should make sure you are consistent with your spelling and abbreviations. You should explain what depolarize means in the "GnRH release" section.  In the "Role in tumor suppression" section you abbreviate kisspeptin as KP, however, this abbreviation was never made before. If you want to use this abbreviation, you should put "KP" in parentheses after kisspeptin. Finally, there are some minor grammar mistakes throughout the article that you should be able to find and correct after rereading the article. 
The article was very good, but some minor changes will make it easier to read and understand for people without a strong bio background. Some changes should also be made to make the article more consistent because it currently seems like the article was written by a few different people and then put together. 
I looked at your first source, ""Kisspeptin directly stimulates gonadotropin-releasing hormone release via G protein-coupled receptor 54." It does not appear to be a secondary source. The researchers are describing their own work and conclusions. You do not cite this reference in your article directly so you might want to create a further readings section and include it there instead. AGBiology (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 6 

message: Overall this article was nicely written and fairly easy to follow. However, there were several terms that could use a bit more of an explanation or a link to a page with more details. Some of the terms and phrases pertaining to anatomical structures may not be understood by a layperson. The images that have been added into this article were a nice visual addition, though the Hershey kiss picture may not be the most relevant. Since there was a fair amount of information before this article was edited, adding a bit more depth might have been helpful. However, overall, well done! BMRmed1392 (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 7: Secondary Review 

message: I enjoyed reading this article and learning about Kisspeptin. I really liked how well the article was organized and that it was very easy to follow and understand the information presented. The use of your images and figures were effective in helping the reader visualize the information you are providing. Also I think your use of the hyperlinks was very effective in directing the reader to further investigating the details on this topic. I think this was a great article overall, keep up the nice work! Morzelek (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 8: Secondary Review 

message: (Primary Review) 
I felt that the article was well written. There were a few sentences that I would change due to grammatical errors, and some places where the language was a bit complex (hard to avoid in a scientific setting), but, overall, the article was well written. The style of writing was easy to follow and made for a good read. The links definitely helped, but if the authors could “dumb down” some of the language, and maybe add in summaries, it would make some of the reading a little easier. I enjoyed the images used throughout the article, particularly the rotating image of the skull and hypothalamus. I feel the authors went into a fair amount of detail, addressing the main aspects, without going over board and too in depth. The source that I verified was source 2, “KiSS-1, a novel human malignant melanoma metastasis-suppressor gene”. The article seemed to be primary research rather than a review article. However, the authors did a nice job of paraphrasing for their use of the information in the article.  
A few additional notes -- Under Sources, Hippocampal dentate gyrus: “There is very great degree of expression” consider revising this sentence. Consider revising the sentence following it as well. -- Under Sources, Adrenal gland: “unfortunately have not been” change “have” to “has” -- Under Genomics: “… residues that are paired…” Consider changing “that” to “which” and adding a comma. -- Under Genomics: “Also within this conserved within this family is…” need to reword this. Take a look at the sentence following this one as well. -- Under Structure, Sturcture of GPR54: “It is composed of 398 amino acids throughout there are a total of seven transmembrane domains” Needs rewording. -- Under Pathway, GnRH Release: “expression is some” change is to in -- Under Biological function, Role in Puberty: “Several studies have confirmed that addition of kisspeptin to biological systems including (rat, mouse, and sheep) are able to bring about the release of LH and FSH.” Put “including” within the parentheses.
Overall, I feel that the authors did a good job in presenting the information. It was a very interesting topic and I enjoyed reading the article.
Mychm52 (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 9 

message: This article was interesting to read. The role in played in puberty is what really interested me. The little hershey humor was factually, and a good way to break the ice with the reader. Great Article!!Josecarlos44 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Review