Talk:GAB2

Peer Review

• Hey guys, excellent article. It is really hard to find areas to critique and give advice on because I believe this is really well organized and you clearly did your research. Everything you mentioned in your "Introduction," you covered very well in your body paragraphs. I especially liked the sections on Cancer and Parkinson's disease-I thought they were the most well written. One problem I think you should address in your revisions is more of a website design issue. I really like your idea and thought process behind including what proteins GAB2 interacts with; however, I think you can outline it in a more abbreviated fashion. Having each protein listed makes the page a bit lengthy, and sometimes chopped up paragraphs make the sections very hard to read. I would recommend trying to consolidate all of these proteins in one section while still highlighting some important associations it has with GAB2. Maybe some pictures with it will help as well. In addition, I think your site can be perfect if you add a signaling pathway diagram or even a concept map of the RTK mechanism under the "Function" Section. It does not have to be too extensive, but highlighting how phosphoryalation events on the receptors is an important concept and should be more focused on. However, this article is really good, and I think you guys are in great shape. Very well done! Nucerop (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. In response to condensing the interactions section, we believe that the current format allows readers to much more easily view target information. Combining the interactions section into a single paragraph would make it much more difficult to see specific GAB2 interactions. We added a map of the Gab protein interactions in the function section. Tanbr (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• The introduction did a great job giving a brief summary about the GAB2. The last two sentences of the introduction seem to be extraneous because there is no smooth transition. If the two lines are summarized together, this will give the reader a clear impression of their connectedness. Keep this in mind while revising the rest of the article. Make sure each section is easy to approach and would allow any reader to gain a better understanding.

• The Structure section was very detailed and provided a good amount of information with accompanying explanations that helped with the flow. One line from the third paragraph of this section: “ the creation of PIP3 (Which is produced as a result of the PI3K pathway)” could be reworded so parentheses don’t have to be used.

• In the Function section, providing a link for “mutagenesis” and “binding assays” would be helpful for the reader, especially if he or she wishes to learn what these techniques are. Source #10 by Million RP, Harakawa N, Roumiantsev S, Varticovski L, Van Etten RA (June 2004) talks about other methods of studying signaling and transformation.

• Source#12 by Vaughan TY, Verma S, Bunting KD (2011) seems to contain more information about the discovery of Gab molecules, which may be useful for the Discovery section. This source also contains more information about the consequences of the deletion of Gab2. This additional information can be added to the Function section. For example, the source includes that Gab2 deletion leads to impaired fertility as well as impaired IgE-induced mast cell degranulation and interference in the activation of downstream PI3K/AKT signaling.

• As a whole, make sure either “Gab2” or “GAB2” is consistent. It tends to change around with each section. All in all, great job! Gracek917 (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The end of the introductory paragraph was left as is because we determined that Wikipedia articles are typically written in this fashion and not like a paper. The wording in the structure section and the hyperlinking in the function section was changed. Discovery section was added to. Thank you for helping to improve the article.kendalse(talk) 19:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hey guys. Fist off, this was a really well done article. You touched across all the major points of GAB2 including its structure, function, interactions with other signaling molecules in cells, and its relation to other diseases. The suggestions I present are only minor as this article is already well done. To start off, in addition to the PH domain you mentioned that was conserved in the GAB family, maybe you can include other conserved sequences in the same family. In addition, you could possibly expand it into a separate section by comparing all the types of GAB proteins, their respective localization in the body, and any other differing functions they might have (i.e. other specific molecules they target). That would help differentiate GAB2 from the other GAB proteins. Also, you can possibly mention some important residues on GAB2 that are vital to its function and relate that to interactions portion of your page. Other than that, I can't really think of other changes to the page; this page is already well done! Great job guys! Agajulapalli (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. It was very helpful. In addition to the PH domain, we have mentioned any other domains which are relevant to GAB2. We chose not to add a section comparing the different types of GAB protein as this article is focused on GAB2 and a comparison of the GAB proteins seems more relevant to an article about the GAB family as a whole rather than about a single member of the family. Tranas (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hey guys, great article! I really liked your use of pictures and graphs to supplement the information. I always find it more helpful to see a visual representation of what you are talking about. In addition, the separate section on diseases associated with GAB2 and the further reading section were nice touches to the article. My only suggestion is that you reread the article and try to make it a little less technical. While someone with a neuroscience background might be able to follow the very well written article, a less experienced reader might have a harder time extracting the main characteristics of GAB2. I think that this is especially important in the introductory paragraph, for example I was a bit confused at first when you referred to Gab2 as GRB2-associated-binding protein. Furthermore, by making the introductory section a little more accessible, it will make it easier for the less knowledgeable reader to follow more technical sections such as the section on structure. Besides the technical language, primarily in the introduction, your extensive knowledge on the subject really comes through on this well written page.Devitod (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey. We really appreciate your suggestions. In rereading our article, we feel as though we've used the appropriate language for a scientific encyclopedia article. Tranas (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your input. 4 - We have fixed the introductory paragraph so that there is no misconception between GAB2 and GRB2-associated-binding protein 2. Tanbr (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hey guys, it looks as though this article covers all of the bases--you discuss the structure and function of the protein, the gene involved, its role in pathology, etc. I think you could have possibly added a bit more information on the specific residues within the protein that are active sites in various processes you describe, and you could have done better in integrating information about the protein's role in specific pathways. Part of the problem was a little bit of confusion that resulted from all of the ways by which you name the protein. Be very clear with your nomenclature, and whether GAB2 Gab2 and GRB2-associated-binding protein are the same or different. It was actually unclear at some points in the article. That's about as much as I can find that stand's out in this article though, as it is spectacular! I realize I dove right into criticism, but I really want to emphasize how well-done, official, and informative this is! Excellent stuff! Ryburns83 (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The article discusses the main domains that host interactions in GAB2: the "PH domain" and the "proline rich domain" and then discusses some of the main types of interactions within the latter. We think this is an adequate level of detail for an encyclopedia article on the protein. We also went through the article and standardized our references to the protein. Thanks for the input. kendalse(talk) 19:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hey guys, great job with the article! To start off, I thought this article was very well organized and thorough. I really liked how you guys organized the brief descriptions of the key proteins that are known to interact with GAB2. In terms of places that may need some improvement, I thought the "Discovery" section was a little too brief. It could be beneficial to add a little more detail about which labs and/or experiments contributed to the discovery of this protein. Other than that, I thought the "Function" section could use more clarification. It was difficult to grasp the overall significance and functionality of the GAB2 protein because of all the technical names and various pathways that it can activate. I realize that this might be difficult to accomplish because your topic is so specific, but it would be really helpful if you could include some general sentences that explain the significance of GAB2 on other cellular processes. Overall, you guys did an excellent job! Clarahkim14 (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. We've expanded the Discovery section by discussing who discovered the protein and what methods were used. There is a general description in the Function section that gives an overview of the function of GAB2. We've added a picture for added clarification. Tranas (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Overall, it is obvious that you guys put a lot of time and effort into this page and you really know your information well. So I have just a few small suggestions to improve it a little. First, the introduction is a little dense. Wikipedia is a website for everyone and anyone so it might be a little overwhelming for someone to read such a technical introductory paragraph. Simplifying your language where possible or expanding/explaining some could help with that. Also, you come use a little more detail in the discovery section could be useful. It would be a good idea to include the method they used to isolate and clone the protein and who exactly preformed this experiment. I feel like most lay people won’t necessarily go to search for your source so this ensures that they are more informed and giving credit where it is due. The structure section was again a bit technical, but I can’t really see anyway to avoid that and it is as informatory as possible, so I think you guys did the best you can with that section. The function section seems a bit brief, but that seems more like there is a lack of information available for you. If you can add anymore information here that would be good to expand it. The interactions section was really well done and very detailed, as was the clinical implications section. You guys wrote it very well too; an excellent article! It was really interesting. Great job Mcintee (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. We've expanded the Discovery section according to your suggestion. In terms of the introduction, we feel as though the language is appropriate for a scientific encyclopedia article. We've clarified the naming of the protein to avoid confusion there. Tranas (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hey guys- Great stuff here. I'll get right into the criticism. The first time reading this over, the one thing that I felt needed some reconstruction was the introduction section. In general, it is important to keep the intro fairly general (big picture stuff), and make it accessible/understandable to those who don't study this sort of thing. For example, instead of immediately discussing which specific gene codes for the protein and then the specific structural characteristics of the molecule, it could be helpful for you to delve into why the protein is relevant in the first place. You touch on clinical implications at the end of the article which was well written, but it could be good to expand on some of that if possible, and also to mention more of that in the introduction. Generally simplifying the discussion in the introduction would be good. You could have also mentioned in the intro that GAB2 is one the four proteins in the GAB family, and you could have discussed what makes a GAB protein a GAB protein, and how GAB2 is different from the other GAB proteins. Besides that, I think it's really well written, and it clearly demonstrates that you all did a lot of research. Well done. Amlayton (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The introduction was simplified slightly. In general the article has not been simplified much as we feel that the level of technical terminology and discussion is consistent with the needs of those who need to utilize an article on a specific docking protein. We do mention in the introduction that GAB2 is part of the GAB/DOS family and although it is not entirely understood what makes a GAB2 different from the other GAB proteins, we do include in the article the effects of mutation of several GAB proteins. Thank you for your input on the article.kendalse(talk) 19:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. Sorry for jumping in. Concering the lead sentence in Gene Wiki articles, as discussed here and here, it is important to start out by stating the scope of the article (i.e., the protein and the gene that encodes that protein). Furthermore, these articles are not only about the human gene/protein, but also orthologs that exist in other species. The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise:

• <recommended UniProt name> is a protein that in humans is encoded by the <approved HUGO gene symbol> gene.

The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for the help. The first sentence of the article has been written to conform with the Gene Wiki convention. Tranas (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hello, people. In general, I thought that the "Structure" and "Function" sections were well done, and the commentary on those sections in this talk covers most of what I'd want to say on them. The "Interactions" section, however, may need a bit of an overhaul. First, I'd cut down on some of the biological jargon where it isn't completely necessary. Second, you should explain why those interactions are biologically significant in the first place. Sure, GAB2 and some other protein interact within a certain biochemical pathway, but what does that mean in concrete physiological terms? Why is that interaction even worth noting in the first place? What are the consequences of that interaction? Another comment: some Googling revealed that a lot of research has been done on GAB2 as it relates to disease. Therefore, you could expand on the "Clinical Significance" section in interesting ways. There are a lot of articles, for example, on the significance of GAB2 for macrophage function. That could be an interesting addition. I hope this helps! Signed, Sommerro (talk)

Thank you for your input. In response to the interactions section, we believe that not only listing the interaction, but exactly how they interact is within the scope of the article. With each interaction, its importance is listed as either as a cascade intermediate, such as interaction between Grb2 and GAB2 (for which it is named) or relevance is shown to a larger disease, for example, CRKL and breast cancer. We did not find as much as you did on macrophage function, though macrophage function is not really "clinical" as much as it is cellular so we did not include it. Tanbr (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Review

Great article, there are a couple things I may chime in about. First, in the structure part of the protein make sure you put down the size of the protein. This is a main thing that someone may be looking for at your page, just basic information. Secondly the discovery section may be on the weak side a little bit. The section is pretty vague and sounds like there can be a lot of proteins that could fall into your discovery section, not just GAB2. Lastly, the further reading section is a bit lengthy. This section should be the most relevant and informative readings on the subject or very related subjects, not just any paper on the subject. Otherwise good job with all of the formatting and content. AdamMJenks (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey.Thanks for the suggestions. We've added the size of the protein into the structure section and expanded the discovery section. We have also cut the further reading section from 24 to 13 readings. Thanks again! Tranas (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GAB2. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.neuron.org/content/article/fulltext?uid=PIIS0896627307003790&highlight=GAB2
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://download.neuron.org/pdfs/0896-6273/PIIS0896627307003790.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928120732/http://www.tgen.org/research/index.cfm?pageid=1065 to http://www.tgen.org/research/index.cfm?pageid=1065

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)