Talk:VLDL receptor

message: Your article is very well organized and very informative.  However, there are some things that I think would help improve it.  You could add some more hyperlinks for those who don't have such a specific medical background (Ex. epidermal growth factor, the amino acids, O-glycosylation).  Also, it might be good to explain the term isoform a bit more, or just hyperlink it.
Under the Associated disorders section, in the fifth sentence of the first paragraph, I think you should put "(FH) familial" in front of hypercholesterolemia, in order to specify which type of hypercholesterolemia you are talking about.  Also you need to fix the wording of this sentence.  Since your reference talks about how FH patients with defective LDLRs may be immunogenic to treatment with normal LDLRs, you should take out "or in patients".  Also in this sentence, replace "function" with "attack". 
There is also a mistake in the Endocytosis section, in the 6th section.  "coated puts" should be "coated pits".  Also, for your 7th reference, you might want to put the doi number or put a link to PubMed.  Overall the article looks great.  Mjavorski (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Firstly well done- this article strikes a good balance between being clear and being informative. 
Since Wikipedia is open to the public, anyone can access it to get information about a topic. While I do acknowledge this topic is rather specific for someone without a science background, it is still important to give potential readers access to pages where they can find more information about certain topics (like adipose tissue, cerebellar hypoplasia, hydrophobic, or the Reelin pathway). Even if a term is hyperlinked, it may still be advantageous for the clarity of the reader to define the term in a short claus (for example in the more term heavy sections dealing with pathways or genetics). 
Overall, well structured and well written. The typo's from above do need attention, and it might be worth running an eye over the page to clear up some minor grammar errors. 
Again, adding links would help the reader have access to more material. You can hyperlink the same term multiple times if it appears in multiple sections (someone might only read the introduction and not the subsection on Type 1 lissencephaly and as a result they would not have access to the link only found in the subsection). Zandrow (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 2

message: The section on protein structure was very well written and organized. The only thing I would have to suggest is maybe more information on its globular structure and on its secondary structure. Also in the evolutionary conservation a picture may be helpful. At NCBI and other websites you can do protein sequence blasts and view the conservation of proteins between organisms (it generates a diagram for you). I don't know if this information is permissible on wikipedia but it would certainly be worth looking into. 
Under the Tissue distribution and expression section the first sentence is a little ambiguous as it is written currently. Maybe if it was rewritten, "The VLDL receptor is found throughout the body, particularly in fatty acid tissues due to the high level of triglycerides, VLDLR’s primary ligand." Not a big change but just an idea. Also was there a reason why the receptor expression was restricted to the cortex and cerebellum? That might be an interesting piece of information to add. 
Under the Regulation section I thought it was great how you had concluding sentences at the end of all of the paragraphs. It made it much easier to understand the descriptions above the conclusions. Maybe think about writing concluding sentences at the end of paragraphs in other sections as well. 
Ligand binding section: I think the article would make more sense organizationally if you moved this section to underneath the Protein Structure section. It makes sense to talk about ligand binding after protein structure because the two are highly related and are on the same molecular level. 
The sections on Functions and Associated Disorders were very informative and intriguing. I wouldn't propose any changes there. Great job overall! The article was very informative and easy to read. 
Morsekb (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 3

message: It is evident that you all did extensive research about VLDL receptors and that you are extremely knowledgeable about this subject. In particular, I thought you did a fantastic job especially with the Associated disorders section.
I think that you include too much information in some of your sections. For example. in your second paragraph in the protein structure section you do not need to describe all LDL family receptors because there is a page on Wikipedia that already defines it. Yet you should define LDL as low density lipoprotein. 
Often times, I think that you could just include the take home message from individual studies. It can be hard for the reader who just wants a quick overview of the subject to read the nuances of different studies. For example, in your paragraph about lipid uptake, you don’t need to include information about the various knockout mice, just what the researchers learned. Another example is the paragraph about atherosclerosis. You should keep the first six sentences and then the last sentence. The reader doesn’t need to know the details about how the researchers performed the experiment.
I don’t think that the first paragraph in regulation is necessary, because it does not provide much information about VLDLR. Instead, it is more about LDLR, which is not your topic. If anything, you should make a section comparing VLDLR to LDLR. Then you could put in all the comparisons that you make throughout your article. Otherwise, it is confusing why you keep mentioning LDLR. 
The endocytosis paragraph would be clearer if you started talking about the general mechanism and then went into the more specifics.
In the neuronal migration paragraph, it was unclear as to why you mentioned the ApoER2.
Lastly, you need to include many more hyperlinks in your article. The reader may not understand all of the many of the nuances that you discuss, and hyperlinks will help to make your article clearer.
Overall great job!
User:Figueredo (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 4

message: Good job using the correct figure for proteins on wikipedia.  One thing you should do is make sure you are hyperlinking important subjects such as EGF to the other pages.  This is important for readers who need to find quick links to continue understanding your page.  Also if you make statements such as "It is predicted that the VLDLR has a role in the peripheral uptake of triglyceride-rich, apo-E containing lipoproteins" you need to cite them.  This is a statement that needs to be stated who said and where.  Make sure you capitalize the headings appropriately so that they are all capitals.  Otherwise good use of figures. AdamMJenks (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 

message: Thank you to everyone who took the time to review our page on VLDLR!
To Mjavorski: We added many hyper-links throughout the article to help clarify scientific references. We included FH to specify the type of hypercholesterolemia we refer to under the associated disorders section, and we addressed the error in section 6. Also, we changed the sentence talking about the immunogenic character of VLDLR, thanks for the suggestion. Lastly, we fixed our link in reference 7 to include a link to the article. Thank you again!
To Zandrow: We did our best to hyperlink reoccurring words throughout multiple sections to supply the reader with additional information on science topics. However, we wanted to be careful to not over hyperlink. Thanks for your help!
To Morsekb: That is a great idea to include information from NCBI to demonstrate protein conservation. We tried to upload such a diagram to the page, but we were unsuccessful because Wikipedia does not allow it. We changed the first sentence in the tissue distribution and expression section. It is not yet understood why VLDL receptor expression is restricted to the cortex and cerebellum, hence we could not include it. We have taken the time to rewrite many of the subsection paragraphs to make them easier to read and understand. We hope that this makes conclusions more apparent. We also moved the section on ligand binding to follow the section on protein structure because we agree with your thought process. Thank you for your input; we really appreciate it!
To User:Figueredo: We tried to limit our discussion of the LDL family to the five structural domains that seem most relevant to our understanding of the structure of VLDLR. We agree with your comment about the inclusion of research findings. We tried to simplify our explanation of many of the associated disorders by removing study specifics. We have chosen to briefly include the ApoER2 in our section on neuronal migration because it is a related reelin receptor and because ApoE is a compound recognized by VLDLR. We also added hyperlinks to improve the readability of our sections. Thank you! 
To AdamMJenks: We added hyperlinks to our article, and supported research findings by referencing the study authors and its date in our text. We tried to capitalize all of the section titles, but the Wikipedia editor "BogHog" has gone through the page to adjust the formatting of the titles. The titles now have the first word capitalized and all subsequent words in lower case. This seems to follow Wikipedia guidelines on proper title capitalizations. Thank you for your comments.
Best of luck with your own edits! 
Czepielk (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response