Talk:Ferroptosis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AKMade, PTRK22, Laurennmichelle97, Kellyneurobiology.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thegastermaster.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Primary Review - April 2018

Hi! I really enjoyed reading your article and am impressed by what is presented thus far.

1. Well Written

• "The process that results in this form..." is a little confusing. Maybe be a little more succinct here and straightforward with its process.
• The "Mechanism of Ferroptosis" is a very well-written section!
• "Foods high in Vitamin E promotes", I think it should be "promote"
• "Having Ferroptosis be an iron dependent mechanism" seems a bit jumbled and I think the wording could be switched up
• The third paragraph in "Comparison to Apoptosis in the Nervous System" is overall a great paragraph!
• Overall layout and majority of spelling/grammar is correct, would just read through everything again to touch up some wording/flow issues

2. Verifiable with no Original Research

• It looks like your 8th source is an original source, not a secondary one, so I'd think about removing it.
• "Ferroptosis can also be induced by blocking the enzyme GPX4" is very similar in wording to source 11.
• "In normal development, NGF binds to a tyrosine kinase..." is again, pretty similar in how the phrase is worded with what matches in source 13.

3. Broad in Coverage

• Yes this article is broad in coverage, as it covers what ferroptosis is, the mechanism by which ferroptosis operates, comparing ferroptosis to apoptosis in the nervous system, drawing many similarities and differences between the two, by describing how ferroptosis works in neurons, bringing in many different types of studies for support, and looking "big picture" as it focuses on how ferroptosis can be used in cancer treatment.

4. Neutral

• Yes, the article maintained a neutral viewpoint throughout the entirety of the piece. Focusing on the mechanisms, facts, and data at hand, rather than bringing in biased or untrustworthy sources.

5. Illustrated

• I liked the placement and use of the illustrations, showing the mechanism of ferroptosis, and the structure of cytochrome C, but would like to see an image somewhere toward the top of the article to draw in the audiences attention and give them something to look at right when they click on the page

6. Final Thoughts

• I would focus on going through the flow and wording of the article and make sure that everything reads smoothly, all thoughts are concise and that the average reader can make sense of what is written.
• In the "Ferroptosis in Neurons" section, the article talks about the difference between apoptosis and ferroptosis, and think that this part should be moved into the "Comparison to Apoptosis in the Nervous System". For this section I'd make sure to strictly focus on ferroptosis in the neuron and bring in as much supporting information as possible. This is arguably the most important section as it ties everything together.
• The oxidative degradation link does not work

Source:

• Source 7
• First off, this source appears to be a primary source based upon the presence of graphs, data, and figures, as well as a Methods section. Since it is not a secondary source, I would not include this in the article for references. Since it looks like you only took one part from this article, it may be acceptable, however, I would still make sure that this will not be an issue. Overall, I think the information that you used from this article could be found in another one that is a secondary source. The information from this article is good, but since it is a primary source I would advise to not use it and to find another article with similar information that is a secondary source.

--RyanD15 (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Our group went through the page to fix the grammar errors you were able to catch, as well as checking over the grammar and formatting of senteces for a smoother read. We looked over source 7 and 8, which turned out to be original sources used by a previous editor. We got rid of those sources since they were about information that we covered in different subcategories. We decided not to add another image near the top because this topic is not extensively researched so it is difficult to find an exact diagram of ferroptosis. We moved information from the Ferroptosis in Neurons section into the Comparision section because it seemed more revlent to be placed in that category and tie it together. (AKMade (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC))

Secondary Article Review

Hello, I like a lot of your information, I would just recommend changing your link to Oxidative Degeneration to another similar term since there isn't a wiki page for it. Also, I don't think that your last source ( PMID 28212525) is a secondary source, but I may be wrong. Wheatona22 (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback. The link to oxidative generation link was removed because a wikipedia page for oxidative degeneration does not exist, but we elaborated on the concept of oxidative degeneration later in the paragraph. The last source was a secondary source, we checked this multiple times and found that it was a secondary source. Thanks! PTRK22 (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)PTRK22

Primary Review #2 - 15 April 2018

Hi! Awesome article overall. Here is my review:

1. Well written

-in the first paragraph, I think “defences” should be “defenses”

-“...losing its electrons, being oxidized, by the free…” - this line is choppy

-"This processes…” - check verb agreement

-“Ferroptosis in neurons” section really good!

-Overall pretty good, but I would read through again to ensure there are no grammatical/flow errors in the article. I didn’t put every grammatical error I saw here, just a couple

2. Verifiable with no original research

-Source 8 (“Inhibition of neuronal ferroptosis protects hemorrhagic brain) is original research - probably shouldn’t be included, especially if the same info can be found in another source

-The second half of the first sentence is pretty similar to the same info found in the article…I’m not sure if it’s too similar but you might take another look at it and try rewording it so it’s more different.

3. Broad in coverage

-yes; not only talk about what ferroptosis is, but also it mechanism, comparison to other forms of cell death, and applications.

4. Neutral

-yes

5. Illustrated

-yes; I like the use of pictures to show pathways/mechanisms

6. Other

-to echo above, need to fix the oxidative degradation link

-In the “Comparison to apoptosis in the nervous system” section, I really like that you focus on what apoptosis is as a comparison. However, I think it would be helpful in that section to add a sentence or two explaining explicitly what the main differences are between the two. You don’t mention ferroptosis at all in that section, and I think even just one or two sentences would help to tie it in with the rest of the article more cleanly

-The heading titles should only have the first word capitalized (e.g. "Ferroptosis in neurons" instead of "Ferroptosis in Neurons”)

Source:

Source 1: Ferroptosis: An Iron-Dependent Form of Non-Apoptotic Cell Death

This source looks to me like a primary source: it has data, graphs/charts, and an experimental procedures section. Therefore, I don’t know that it should be used in the article. However, since you only used information from the summary section at the top, it might be ok. The same information can also be found at http://www.cell.com/trends/cell-biology/fulltext/S0962-8924(15)00216-0 and I don’t think this one is a primary source

Briancmart2 (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for giving us feedback. Our group went through the page to fix the grammar errors that you were able to catch. We also looked over the entire page to reword some sentences and give the article better flow. For source 8, we did find that it was a primary source used by a previous editor and removed the information from this source because we were able to incorporate it in other ways into our subcategories. The link to oxidation generation was removed because the wikipedia page for it did not exist, but we elaborated on the topic later in the paragraph. In regards to the ferroptosis verses apoptosis paragraph, we added some direct connections between ferroptosis in order to make the differences more clear. We chose to keep the titles the way that they were because we believe that it adds more of a professional feel to the article. Lastly, we did find that source 1 was a primary review used by a previous editor. We were able to replace this source with a secondary source that included the information we needed in the paragraph. Laurennmichelle7 (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Seconday Review

Hey guys, I like how you incorporated pictures into your article. I feel that pictures (media) add life and enrich an article. Also, I actually read your article twice and it seems to me that your article is neutral and contains a great flow. However, I would just have to say that you should fix the "Oxidative Degeneration" link. FYI, only the first word should be capitalized in your heading titles. Other than that everything looks fine! (AliZraik (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC))

Response: Thanks for your feedback! The oxidative degeneration link was removed because it did not have an existing Wikipedia page, but we were still able able to elaborate on its function and importance in our page. We chose not to add a picture into the beginning of the article, due to the fact that because Ferroptosis is still being heavily researched and not a lot of information is extensively known about the action, it is difficult to get a definite diagram of the actual action of ferroptosis. In the section titled "Ferroptosis in Neurons" there is an image that shows the pathway leading to ferroptosis. We also fixed the heading titles. --Kellyneurobiology (talk)

Secondary Review

Hi guys! I think you did a great job. Your information is very thorough, organized, and well explained. The images you incorporated made things more clear. Awesome work. George baldas (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback! We really appreciate it. Laurennmichelle7 (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I really like the information that you have presented in your article, particularly implications for the role that ferroptosis could play in treatment of a variety of cancers. I did think, however, that the wording of your article was a little awkward. For instance, the introduction paragraph was a little too long - a lot of that information could be placed elsewhere in the article. Some sentences throughout may need to be re-worked but overall well done. Bmehall1 (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! We changed the introduction by removing the second paragraph that was contributed to by a previous editor because it had used primary sources. Instead, we were able to include that information into our subcategories. Laurennmichelle7 (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall the article is well written and through. The intro paragraphs are a bit long and maybe think of incorporating more of the specifics that you have there into the body of the article. Good formatting and use pictures. One thing I would be careful about some of the wording like: "The research so far for this particular role of ferroptosis is an indication that there is room for more research opportunities to identify the roles ferroptosis may acquire to help the human body." It sounds like an opinion in this format, especially with the lack of a reference here to back it up. It might just take some rewording here to fix that. Rsscience (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for your feedback on our page! We have links and references to other pages existing in Wikipedia and articles used for our research when creating our page. Because this topic is quite complicated, the information we have included in our first paragraphs, we believe, are essential to understanding the concept of ferroptosis as a whole. It aids in understanding more complicated aspects of the topic that are discussed later in the page. We also re-worded the sentence to make it easier to read and less complicated. Thanks again!
--Kellyneurobiology (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I think all of the information you have is well organized and it makes sense logically with the sections and subsections you have. Adding some more sources would be extremely beneficial to this article. For instance, in the 3rd paragraph in the introduction you guys include a lot of information about current research regarding ferroptosis, yet you do not have a source for about four sentences of information. Also, the introduction paragraph is a bit daunting and could use some revision. I think breaking it down into smaller sections or adding new subsections so you can include your information. I think the idea of an introduction is supposed to be brief, so try to rework that. I also have one gripe in your Role of Ferroptosis in Cancer Treatment section. At the end you guys linked a lot of different types of cancers that ferroptosis has been used in, but there aren't any commas or separation. This is small, just letting you know it looks odd on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBujko (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. We had to adjust the sources after we found a lot of primary sources used from previous editors in the beginning paragraphs but we did include more references to the information in paragraph 3 (now paragraph 2). We revised the first couple paragraphs because a lot of that information was able to be added into our subcategories and to give a better flow to our page. We fixed the links in the Cancer Treatment section by creating them into bulletpoints. (AKMade (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC))

Primary Review #3 - 17 April 2018

Very Good Article overall, after reading the previous reviews I have elected to only share information from my review that differs from theirs.

1. Well Written

You all did a great job describing and explaining a complex topic in simple terms, relating ferroptosis to similar things such as apoptosis was smart. I think you have 2 empty or broken links on the page oxidative degradation and RSL-3 do not seem to link us to anywhere productive. There was some repetitiveness while listing the specific cell death events that ferroptosis is involved in "such as kidney failure, iron overload, and cystine deprivation". Also when referring to "Bax" there was a weird dashing error that should be a quick fix.

2. Verifiable with no original research

It seems that a number of your sources are primary research articles. Sources on wikipedia are supposed to be "reviews" which is a search option on most databases. You can also try to search for the primary sources that you used as sources in a review article, and then you can cite that secondary source.

3. Broad in Coverage

You were able to describe the topic very well and in its entirety without focusing to closely on any one mechanism in the process which is good. You provided links to other pages when necessary on topics that may not have been that well known, such as "glutathione peroxidase 4".

4. Neutral

I observed no biases while reading through this page.

5. Illustrated

The provided illustrations are very helpful in visualizing the mechanism and pathways for ferroptosis. They were placed at good positions in the document and contribute to the fluidity of the article.

6. Other

One thing that I should mention is a concern with the copyright of the illustrations. It looks that you drew them yourself and then uploading the photo. I'm not entirely sure but it might be worth it to look up if the picture that you copied this from is able to be reproduced or copied like this legally.

Source:

Your Source #13 which you seem to rely heavily on in this article is a great secondary source! It was published in 2014 which is fairly recent so you are able to trust that the information provided is up to date. This source has over 125 sources that is pulled from so you can trust that the information was not skewed due to one faulty experiment that might have been included. Overall this is a great source and if every source was like this, things like writing this article would be a lot easier. JaminB (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Benjamin



Thanks for your feedback Ben!
We find the two empty links, as there are no existing Wikipedia pages for these topics. We do go into more detail about them later in our Wikipedia page. We also fixed the bax dashing error in the "Apoptosis Comparison" section. We chose to keep the sentence you saw as repetitive. We believed this was essential in comprehending the message we were making in this section. All the primary sources were eliminated and reviewed so they are all correct. With our images, we did site the original images and the articles that they are part of. Also, due to the fact that there is not a lot of information or research on this topic yet, it is more beneficial to draw our own images. They are uploaded on the Wikipedia Commons, so all copyright laws are being followed. Source 13 was very helpful to us! Thanks for the positive feedback!
--Kellyneurobiology (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I really enjoyed this article and found that the diagrams that were used helped get the point across in explaining the process of ferroptosis.I also really liked the section about cancer and the links to the different kinds of cancer affected by ferroptosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannah neuro (talk • contribs) 02:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback. We made sure that we included figures to help with mechanisms so it makes more sense. The links and figures all contributed for an overall better understanding of ferroptosis for the general public PTRK22 (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)PTRK22

Secondary Review

I think this is a very well written article. However, some of the language, especially in the lead, could be difficult for an outside reader to understand. I would break down some of the content in that long paragraph of the lead and try to explain it more without as many biology terms. Ktd22 (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback. The lead paragraph was written by another user and we agreed that it was very thick and wordy. We removed the second paragraph of the lead section, removing the content and sources. We were able to incorporate the information from that deleted paragraph into sections further on in the article, providing the same information in an easier way for the general public to understand. PTRK22 (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)PTRK22

Secondary Review - May 2018

This is a well-written article. Diagrams were appropriate and easy-to-follow. Some sentences are slightly wordy and could be simplified. Some sections, like the 'Role of Ferroptosis in Cancer Treatment' section, could use more sources. There is one citation in that section; if that's what the section is based off of, the other information in the section could use that same citation, just for clarity.

Original Sentences: "The role ferroptosis plays in the human body by being induced revolves around the regulation of growth and proliferation of some types of tumor cells. While it can contribute to the human body with positive effects, it can be detrimental in outcomes as well. The main negative effects it may have on the body are the disruption of metabolic pathways, or disruption to the homeostasis of the body."

Proposed Revision: "Ferroptosis activation plays a regulatory role on growth of tumor cells in the human body. However, the positive effects of ferroptosis could be potentially neutralized by its disruption of metabolic pathways and homeostasis in the human body."

Proposed Addition to the end of 'Role of Ferroptosis in Cancer Treatment' Section: "Breast cancer cells have exhibited vulnerability to ferroptosis via a combination of siramesine and lapatinib. These cells also exhibited an autophagic cycle independent of ferroptotic activity, indicating that the two different forms of cell death could be controlled to activate at specific times following treatment. Kyle Smith (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Four years later - perhaps we can archive the original reviews

Not sure how to set it up. - All sections not updated for 12 months ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent research inc re PDAC

Scientists discover molecule that kills pancreatic cancer cells new pathways in ferroptosis. - Rod57 (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)