Talk:D-amino acid oxidase

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on D-amino acid oxidase. 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/20080512122824/http://www.schizophreniaforum.org/res/sczgene/geneoverview.asp?geneid=131 to http://www.schizophreniaforum.org/res/sczgene/geneoverview.asp?geneid=131
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The goal of the recent contributions to this article was to give a general overview of the D-amino acid oxidase protein, including its basic properties and applications. There was a fairly significant amount of secondary literature, so we focused especially on the impact in the neurological system, and we focused primarily on the impacts in humans.
Briancmart2 (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Goal of BIOL 3501 Contributions

message: Overall I think this article is very well written and gives some really good information about D-Amino Acid oxidase. one suggestion I would give would be to add some clickable links for "NMDA receptors" in the "actions in the brain" section, because if were weren't in this class I'm not sure if I would know what those receptors were as a lay person. For the Regulation section, I also think it might be a good idea to give a small explanation on what a Basson Protein is, as well as tell us what "hDAAO" stands for. I found myself a little lost in the regulation section because I was unaware of what those two terms meant. The article is verifiable with no original research. 
The article was well written as included no bias and read as a very neutral article. Facts were clearly stated, and didn't come off as too detailed. I believe a lay person could read this and understand most if not all of the article without too much difficulty, so well done! The illustrations of this article are helpful, but maybe try adding some more pictures that aren't just 3D structures because to be honest, to me I can't really tell what I'm looking at. 
Source Analysis: Pollegioni L, Piubelli L, Sacchi S, Pilone MS, Molla G (June 2007). "Physiological functions of D-amino acid oxidases: from yeast to humans". Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences. 64 (11): 1373–94.
Based off the wikipedia guidelines for a secondary source, this source fulfills the requirements. The source is correctly cited within the article. I think this source was used very well, the authors gave the most important information from the source without getting in too much detail that would have gone beyond the scope of the assignment. I also think it was well used in the article because it doesn't seem to be only heavily used in one section, but the information is actually spread out throughout the article at the right times.
Overall, I think the article is well written and very informative. Well done! AS2196 (talk)   —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Review 

message: In the beginning of the introduction, adding a simplified explanation on the main function of the D-amino acid oxidase protein would be extremely helpful when trying to understand the rest of the material. I found myself searching for the overall function. Detoxification is listed towards the end of the second introduction paragraph. Is this the main purpose of DAO? If not, what is? Overall, this article is very well written and correlates to the group's main goal. The history section was a nice addition. Great job!
DrakeS (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Review I

message: I enjoyed reading your article. There is a lot of sections with a lot of detail, which shows that the topic has been researched quite well. Only comment I would give is to shorten the introduction to the article because it seems to be quite dense for an opener. When reading, I found the applications section interesting. Specifically, the information about the RgDAAO cancer treatment process. Nice work! --Nelu555 (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Review II

message: 1. Well - written
* Very easy and interesting to read 
* Make the intro paragraph a little less dense, it's a lot of information to throw at the reader right at the beginning
* Keep capitalization of "D-amino" consistent throughout
* Unclutter the article's links - some are not necessary (ex: substrate, dimer, amino acids)
* Proofread for grammer, some intermittent spelling errors and missing words throughout (ex: DAO is capable of reducing oxygen quickly when reduced, it can stabilize anionic red semiquinone - add "and" after "quickly")
2. Verifiable with no original research 
* The last sentence in the history section looks like it could use a citation
* Your first source is listed twice under references
* All sources are secondary and are correctly cited in the text
3. Broad in coverage 
* All information is covered thoroughly
* As a reader I am not left wanting much more, the history, structure, mechanism, implications on a relevant disease and applications in biotechnology and medicine are well thought out and each play a role in bettering the article
4. Neutral
* The article is not biased and presents all necessary information in a straightforward way
5. Illustrated
* Good use of images for clarity
* For the schizophrenic brain image, I would also add an image of a healthy brain for comparison
Source Verification:
I have chosen reference number 10, "D-amino acid oxidase: physiological role and applications" to verify. This is a very good secondary review article on how D-amino acid oxidase works in eukaryotic cells and contains a lot of very relevant information for your topic. The first two uses of this source when talking about a D-amino acid biosensor for selecting nutritious foods and for its implications in cancer treatment are very good. These sections were discussed at length in the source - I even think you can use more from this article do discuss the topic of cancer treatment. The third use of the article about the effect of D-amino acid oxidase on pain stimuli isn't so good, however. I would just leave this statement out since unconfirmed evidence is really not that helpful to an otherwise very informative article.
Overall a really well done article, it is clear that your group did a lot of research and spent time synthesizing it. Bmehall1 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Review 

message: Hi Classmates! I liked how well organized your article was, especially the Applications section that included biotechnology and medical background on D-amino acid oxidase. While you briefly mentioned it in your intro, I think you could expand more on the function of D-amino acid oxidase in your article, or at least outline it clearer. But overall, great work! I can tell you put a lot of effort into your research!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britaanna (talk • contribs) 02:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Review 

message: 1. Well Written - The article is well-composed overall. It's clear that a lot of research went into this article and the layout is well-thought out as well. There are some areas that could be looked over for further thought. In the second paragraph of the intro, "The enzyme is most active toward neutral D-amino acids, and not active toward acidic D-amino acids," I believe that toward should be towards, since it is referring to the plural D amino acids. Also within the intro, I understand that some information warrants its own paragraph, but one sentence is not sufficient for paragraphs. In the history section, there should be another reference for the second paragraph. Small stuff aside, the whole article flows very well and is well presented. The amount of links can be intimidating and some are completely unnecessary/ redundant. 
2. Verifiable with no original research - Make sure the history section has another reference, otherwise everything is all good. Sources are adequately cited.
3. Broad in it's coverage - Very well-rounded article. It covers many facets of the enzyme and its role in organisms. 
4. Neutral - Scientifically based. All good here. 
5. Stable - Stable, balanced, and has no glaring flaws. 
6. Illustrated - I enjoyed the usage of pictures to display the molecular structure. Caption for the schizo brain needs a space. 
7. Review of Source - I reviewed source 2 which was scholarly and a good source to lean on for various sections of your article, but it had pretty similar wording to your article so be careful there. 
Good work everyone. Give it one more read-though to polish some stuff up. MitchellMoylan (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Review 

message: 1. Well Written
* Easy to read and engaging  
* Easy to understand, broken down into laymen's terms as much as possible 
* Grammar looked good for the most part 
* Sentence wording and length were good 
2. No original research 
* All statements are facts and given proper citation (except one line in the history section, might need a citation that's not there)
* Sources are all sited correctly
3. Broad  
* Each topic is explained fully without becoming confusing 
* Explains all areas of impact from said enzyme without being redundant  
4. Neutral
* Article is able to present all information as facts and not opinions 
5. Illustrated and Clearly Formatted 
* All images serve to enhance the article 
* Formatting provides structure and clarity to the article 
* Good use of delineated levels to break apart text  
Source Verification:
I analyzed source number 11, "The Therapeutic Potential of D-Amino Acid Oxidase (DAAO) Inhibitors". It is a well referenced and researched secondary source. The article is also fairly recent, published only 8 years ago in 2010. Therefore the science is likely still very relevant today. The source is only referenced once in the last paragraph of the article, Therapeutic treatments. However, the reference to oxidase transporters affect on schizophrenia coordinates with the source's research into DAAO and NMDA receptor affects on schizophrenia. Overall a good choice for a source and used appropriately.   
The article as a whole looks great and is quite professional. All around amazing job.
Rsscience (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Review 

message: Hi! I really enjoyed reading this article because I didn't know anything about this topic before and I learned a lot. I thought the layout of the article was well organized. The only thing I would do differently would be to make the Schizophrenia part a separate section. Also make sure that the section headings are capitalized. Ktd22 (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Review 

message: I think you all did a wonderful job at organizing this page and keeping it very to the point. The sections are well organized and I liked that you had multiple images on the page, even though it is just an enzyme. I think the crystal structure with all of the databases information was a nice touch as well. I think that as a group you all could maybe try to write a section about the function or expand the structure and properties section. Also try and shorten the introduction just a bit because some of the information seems a bit much for a brief introduction. Otherwise, nice work all around. I can tell you all worked hard and did your research.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBujko (talk • contribs) 03:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Review 

message: This article is very well done. It is organized well, well-written, and covers the topic in sufficient detail. My only suggestion is to maybe add a little more information and details to the structure and properties section.Tsenft7 (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Review 

message: Hi guys! Your article was very well researched. I have never heard of D-amino acid oxidase before, so everything I read was fairly new and I enjoyed learning about it. You did a wonderful job with all of the details and research, I would suggest summarizing a few sentences to make this article easier for someone who is not as familiar with scientific terms to read through your page. Specifically, I would like to see your introduction simplified so that anyone who happens to come across this page will be able to quickly skim this first paragraph and see if the information is relevant for what they were looking for. Nc801 (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Review 

message: I think you guys did really well in organizing the article in a way that makes it easy follow along. You guys have a good summary section that highlights what your article is going to cover. I like that you clarify the differences between D-amino acids oxidase and diamine oxidase since people get confused between them.
However, I think you guys should briefly mention that DAAO may have an impact on schizophrenia since you guys have a section on schizophrenia. In addition to that, you guys mentioned "h-DAAO" several times on the page but never really said what it stands for. I'm going to assume you guys meant human-DAAO since you guys use "h-DAAO and human DAAO" interchangeably. If this was the case, then still go back and incorporate it in the summary section that "human DAAO or h-DAAO is ...." Furthermore, I think you guys should summarize in like 1-2 sentences on how DAAO is used in biotechnology or medicine in the summary section. This will tie the whole article together and doesn't make the sections seem off topic since you guy have the huge section at the end.
I like the organization of your page, but I would recommend moving the "regulation" section right after the "structure and property" section. Since you guys mention activities of G72 gene in the "regulation section," I don't think it makes sense to talk about G72 in schizophrenia before giving readers the background/function of it. Overall, I think you guys did really well. Great job!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSneurobiology (talk • contribs) 02:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Review