Talk:GlycoRNA

Student program peer reviews

Topic Peer Review 1 Overall, this group has done a good job highlighting what is known and unknown about GlycoRNA. Given that these biomolecules were recently discovered, it is appropriate that most of the article discusses speculation about how they are synthesized and what cellular roles they fulfill. The introduction is concise and devoid of jargon, but would be improved by adding a sentence defining GycoRNA at the beginning, as is customary in Wikipedia. A comment at the end of the introduction about the specific ways in which GlycoRNA will "usher in a new era of RNA biology" would be informative. There are no figures in the article, and a ChemDraw scheme of GlycoRNA structure would be a nice addition to the introduction.The "Future Implications" section could be split into two sections regarding "Formation and Cellular Function" and "Implications in Disease" for greater clarity. I'd suggest altering the writing style to resemble an encyclopedia entry, since some parts of the introduction and the latter parts of the "Future perspectives" sections read like a scientific research report or Invited Perspectives article. Examples of this latter structure/ tone include phrases like "usher in a new era", "GlycoRNA sequencing will allow us to study..," as well as explicit questions like "What binds these RNAs to the membrane?" A more formal tone/ word choices may be more appropriate for the "New Discovery" section. Links to related Wikipedia pages are appropriately provided and there is good coverage of scientific literature in the references, but there are fewer than 10 sources since one scientific report is cited thrice in the references(refs. 1,2, and 4). Maybe a press release/ newspaper article about the discovery of GlycoRNAs would help diversify the reference source material.Chemkoach1 (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Chemkoach1 Topic Peer Review 2 I believe that this group did a phenomenal job explaining GlycoRNA, especially given the fact that this page did not exist beforehand. This is a newer and more complex concept, and they were extremely effective in delivering this to a general audience. I think that the introduction gives great background information on the possible modifications that RNA can undergo, with RNA glycosylation being the main focus. It was great to add how this discovery could bring a new era to RNA biology; however, I think that it would be beneficial to give a further explanation in detail on how the glycoRNA is formed in this section. The new discovery section is really good and I believe it serves a great purpose. I also think that the future perspectives section is well written, but I believe it should have two subsections within it titled “GlycoRNA Function Determination” and “Links to Diseases”. Throughout the article, most of the important terms are linked to their respective Wikipedia pages and this is an effective approach to enhance the reader’s understanding. Some terms I found that I think could be linked were lipids and proteins (found in the New Discovery section) and lupus (in the Future Perspectives section). Another comment I had was that there were no figures on this page. I think that a basic figure of a GlycoRNA structure generated from ChemDraw would be a good addition to the introduction. Lastly, I noticed that there were 10 references at the bottom of the page and all seemed like credible sources. The first reference relates really well to the background information in the introduction and this is cited properly. This reference seems to be the exact same as reference #2, so I would take a look into that to see if an error was made. Nonetheless, this area definitely represented a strength in their work. Overall, I believe that this is a really good Wikipedia page as a rough draft and with minor edits, it will only become better. Nhamama (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Nhamama Topic Peer Review 3 I really enjoyed reading this groups page about glycoRNA because it was very easy to follow and was very informative. Their introduction section is very strong and sets up the rest of the page by giving an adequate walkthrough of why modifications to various biological molecules are important. The lengths of each section are perfect as well because they present all the necessary information in the most concise way possible. The references embedded in their page are very helpful and provide a way to easily get a deeper understanding of the topic at hand. The examples they brought up about the implications of different modifications were very meaningful to the understanding of the article. Their content is novel and does not duplicate existing pages either. There were no figures in the article which I think they should add. Specifically, I think a figure in the "new discover" section of the paper when they talk about what a glycoRNA actually is would provide the readers a well needed reference to know what they really look like. Their references are complete but in the "future perspectives" section of the paper they only cite two names when talking about papers that have more than two authors, so adding "and collegues" or "et. al." would provide more information as to where the citations came from. All the numbered citations in the text are great. I love the overall presentation of the article, but the addition of figures will make the article look more visually pleasing and easier to follow. All the information in the article was informative and cited making it easy to understand. I think the group did a great job explaining their topic, the addition of the figures will make it complete. keerthya (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)keerthya1 Topic Peer Review 4 After reading this group's Wikipedia post, I enjoyed understanding more about glycoRNA, however, I feel that there are some revisions that are necessary before it is a complete and cohesive piece. I would also like to note that glycoRNA does not have its own Wikipedia article, thus, it cannot be compared to any existing pages. I will outline in this peer review the strengths and weaknesses of this Wikipedia page. First, the introductory paragraph is decent. However, I believe that defining particular phrases such as, "are now known to carry out a variety of reversible and dynamic alterations that impact biological activity" should be explained further as it is quite general. To be specific, readers who are unfamiliar with this area of science may find it difficult to understand the meaning of "reversible and dynamic alterations." Some ways to accomplish this is by providing brief examples of these alterations so that the terms are defined while also keeping the introductory information brief. In addition, "biological activity" is a brief phraseology that would need to be defined further into the specific processes or activities that are being affected by glycoRNA. Besides those revisions, the remaining portion of the introductory paragraph is well phrased.   When looking at each section in its entirety, I noticed that the lengths of each section vary greatly. First, the introductory paragraph is kept brief and with he edits I prescribed, I think the length is well-served at its minimal length. In the new discovery section, I thought the length was slightly unreasonable for the content present. For instance, the last section of the section states, “understandably so, given that their presence defies accepted principles of well-established cellular biology.” This statement needs to be elaborated upon since the principles of biology that glycoRNA goes against should be briefly stated along with the introduction of the finding. This should not lengthen the section too much further and would serve well as a brief paragraph. Finally, the future perspectives section should be modified as well. To start, the first paragraph contains a redundant phrase of “autoimmune diseases” and “attack its tissues and cells.” To shorten this paragraph, this group may want to consider simply linking autoimmune disease to its respective Wikipedia page. The second paragraph serves the article well. However, the remaining paragraphs should be edited to include links to terms present in other existing articles. To name a few, RNA, glycolysation, N-linked modifications, dolichol phosphate, protein folding, glycoproteomics, ER-golgi complex, and glycoprotein should all be linked to their respective Wikipedia pages so readers are not confused. Lastly, there is a spelling error in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the future perspectives section. The word that is misspelled is “gylcoRNAs” and should be edited to read “glycoproteins.” This group highlighted particular terms and publications on the article that I feel were important to the explanation (oligosaccharyltransferase, macromolecules, and glycans). The revision that would be made is for the other terms I mentioned earlier to be added. This article was in no way reiterating any other Wikipedia articles from my knowledge as a glycoRNA article has not been added to the online encyclopedia. The article lacked figures entirely including ChemDraw images. I would suggest the group to include figures that potentially demonstrate glycoRNA from the information that is currently available as well as include relevant Chemdraw images to maintain originality in the figure presentation. Note, adding figures is only appropriate when the corresponding text is benefitted from its addition. This article contains 10 references exactly yet they all seem to be solely publications from research journals. I would suggest this group to diversify their sources to obtain other forms of references as well if possible. To summarize, this Wikipedia article covers the recently discovered glycoRNA. Its introduction includes information regarding glycoRNAs modification potential, relevance to autoimmune disease, and its growth in epigenetics. If this section was elaborated upon in its phraseology, then it would be complete for novice readers of this topic. The article continues by touching on the new discovery of glycoRNAs in which researchers identified their structure to be similar to that of lipids and proteins. In the final future perspectives paragraph covers how limited research is available for glycoRNAs and how understanding the function of glycoRNA requires exploration into reversible RNA modifications. The group also covered the structure of glycoRNA while touching on how the pathways of the protein remain unknown. Additionally, thoughts from the author Witty Tyagi were stated which I believe helps the piece since it provides relevant information from the limited literature available. The importance of the research in glycoRNAs was highlighted well in the article as the group members were able to coherently express why this new area of research is intriguing not only for public knowledge but also potential clinical applications. The group also did a good job researching the topic as the article contains in depth information in regards to the structure and description. The group was also well worded and concise in the first two sections of the article making this writing easy to navigate. I would suggest the authors to revise the article to include figures, Chemdraw images, a greater variety of references, term linking to other Wikipedia articles, and further corroboration on complex concepts to aid readers. After reading the 2022 article titled “Membrane linked RNA glycosylation as new trend to envision epi-transcriptome epoch” by T. W. Tyagi et al., I would suggest the group to add information on the surface localization of glycoRNA. This addition includes a figure that the group can reference while also elaborating on the surface interactions glycoRNA exhibits. Finally, the references should be diversified beyond peer-reviewed publications. This was a great piece and with these few revisions, it should be ready for final drafting. thattaia (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Advaith Thattai Thattaia (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC) MLIbrarian Feedback I worry that if something is so new as being discovered in May 2021, it is too early to be included in encyclopedia. As we know, encyclopedia is for established facts and not for new discoveries. Let's hope it stays but please remove hypothesis and suggestions that are plenty in the current version. 1) Article draft is not a title, so please remove it, so that every other section is not a subsection of this one. 2) I do not recommend naming section "New discovery" because if article stays, the new discovery will become old. I would suggest to start from "History" section. Here you can describe who noticed it first and how and when. 3) "their presence defies accepted principles of well-established cellular biology" - recommend rephrasing. Which principles? Why defy? For a person not familiar with the subject no details are provided. If there are no details to provide or reference to cite, it shall be removed. 4) sentences like "they may be linked to autoimmune diseases" or "Flynn and Bertozzi suggests" are not appropriate for encyclopedia. Remember, encyclopedia states established facts, no hypothesis. If there are no facts, it shall be removed. 5) This sentence "Glycoproteomics is a field of proteomics that studies the post-translational modifications of proteins, specifically glycosylation" is redundant. You are not supposed to explain any other concept in your article. It would be enough to link this concept to Wiki page on Glycoproteomics. 6) Please link your concepts to existing Wiki pages MLibrarian (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC) Nils Feedback near the finish line 1) I would already in the opening paragraph say that glycoRNA was discovered only in 2021. 2) Please make sure to link every instance of a keyword already in Wikipedia to its entry - e.g., "Dr. Carolyn Bertozzi" when she is first mentioned. 3) Work a little more on your grammar, clarity and consistency, e.g., "...postdoc Dr. Ryan Flynn used a metabolic tagging technique to label precursor sugars of glycans and, unexpectedly, discovered glycosylated, cell membrane bound RNAs." 4) Overall, it is of course somewhat concerning that glycoRNAs have not yet been reproduced by other labs. In your text you could somewhat hedge against it staying this way by adding where appropriate something like "Future studies will have to show how broadly distributed glycoRNAs and their biological functions are." 5) I am sure you have already thought about it, but if there is any opportunity to add further details to expand the article, you should take it. For example, what about the attachment chemistry of the glycans to the RNAs, what different types of RNAs have been found to be glycosylated, how stable would an extracellular RNA be etc. - It looks to me that you took the phrase that introduced Dr. Carolyn Bertozzi out, which I would not have done, but rather linking her name to her Wiki entry; and in most incidences her name is still not linked - I would try to avoid colloquial language such as "There's the question of whether it follows a similar process" - no contractions, more scientific expression - I would try to keep a more neutral tone - e.g., "Flynn and Bertozzi are two pioneering scientists of this investigation" is more evaluative than descriptive. (I.e., it is correct that they have offered the first description of glycoRNA, but I would not call them personally pioneering.) - Your figures are nice, but I agree that they should have RNA in them, which none of them currently do not ~ Ngwalter (talk)Nils Walter User:Ngwalter — Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)