Talk:Lujan–Fryns syndrome/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Issues

Lead.

The lead should give the reader a basic understanding of the topic. I would fold the one-sentence definition of Marfanoid habitus into the first paragraph, and move the second sentence to the section on marfanoid habitus below. I would also include in the lead that the disease is an x-linked dominant due to a mutation in MED12. In the second paragraph I would be looking for a brief review of history and treatment, such as, "LFS was first described in 1969 by John Lujan of the Basel Institute for Medicine based on a study of a small family presenting with similar symptoms. The genetic defect was identified in 2007 by Fred Smith and colleagues. Only 14 cases in 5 families have been described in the literature, the population incidence is unknown. There are no treatments for the underlying genetic defect at present, the disease is managed by [whatever you do to manage the various symptoms]." (as an example of style and things to include)

Characteristics

Generally good. I'll think about this some more later.

Pathophysiology

Needs some copy editing, for example, "LFS is caused by a missense mutation" rather than "has been shown to convey". In general simple direct language is better. I would specify that N0017S means a substitution of serine for asparagine at position 17 (hopefully I have not just embarrased myself). Remove the extended definition of animal model (especially there is no reason to talk about the value of macaques and other animals since you only quote zebrafish research), again, go for simple and direct. "The exact mechanism by which a dysfunctional MED12 gene leads to LFS is not known. However, in the zebrafish animal model, the N17S mutation leads to abnormal developement of..." At some point when you talk about MED12 being involved in both LFS and FGS you should probably indicate what symptoms or findings are not in common. Something like, "FGS, another form of X-linked retardation, is associated with a different mutation in MED12. The diseases have some similarity, but patients with FGS are ...... while patients with LFS are ......."

Differential diagnosis

Copy edit, move the first sentence down into the paragraph. The discussion of FISH as a diagnostic tool in other diseases is not relevant.

Alterations

I don't understand the relevance of Chr5 and telomeres. Probably should be removed. The UPF3B is interesting. However, it is only associated with LSF in one reference, not the 3 you cite. This needs a rewrite to make it clear the relationship between UPF3B and MED12, since MED12 is part of the differential diagnosis and UPF is not. Is there published speculation that the mechanism of LFS might also involve the NMD pathway? This seems like a natural thing to suggest in writing a journal article, but constitutes original research if written by a wikipedian. You might begin, "A study of 3 families with X-linked retardation, 2 with LFS and one with FGS, found an additional mutation in the gene UPF3B. This mutation results in ....etc." and then if someone else has published speculation that MED12 might also be related to mRNA stability or NMD, you can note this with a citation.

Move the schizophrenia comments up to Psychiatric.

History and etiology

I would have a history and etiology section as the first section after the lead. Disease was identified by Drs. A and B in 19xx from studying some families. Expand on what was in the lead. Disease usually presents at what age, what symptoms are first or most common. This would be a good place to note that diff diagnosis is often delayed because marfanoid habitus does not appear until adolescence. You can also include epidemiology here (a comment that disease is rare, frequency of mutation is unknown is sufficient if that is the current state of knowledge).

Genetics

Too much detail on X-linked genetics, that's what wikilinks are for. Keep is simple and related to LFS specifically. Note that it is believed to be X linked dominant even though a heterozygous female had symptoms, that it is not formally proven, and that sporadic cases are known.

Eponym

remove this section header, add the info to the History and Etiology section.

• A very good start. Hope these suggestions help. (I could so some of the copy editing myself but then I think I would be barred from completing the GA review.) Thatcher 20:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing... it's probably somewhat of an inconvenience, so I appreciate you doing it. I cleaned up the Genetics section, and the animal model stuff. The rearrangements of info., etc., will take a couple days or so.

About the Alterations subsection, I chose that title as the content describes alterations to the differential diagnosis and individual features of LFS, and is also within the framework of the pathophysiology as associated with MED12. In regards to the 'chromosome 5/subtelomere deletion' phenotype, that is indicated as a suspect of LFS just by observation, yet not a diagnosis. I cited from this. PMID 12784307

As for UPF3B, it being a possible contributor to X-linked mental retardation in or outside of LFS is cited here; (PMID 17704778) the other refs I cite support my sentences, but are not always specifically pointed to LFS. But, sometimes extraeneous refs are needed in certain statements. Rcej (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to simply the references here, to avoid cluttering up the review page with reflist sections. ("PMID" is a magic word that automatically formats the following digits as a clickable link to PudMed even without the cite template.) The pace of the review is mostly up to you, I can check in about twice a day at most. Once you've made a first pass through my suggestions we'll see where we are. I may need to read up on LFS myself to understand issues like whether the discussion of Chr5 is really relevant to an article on this disease. Thatcher 15:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Update. I've made some of the discussed improvements to the lead and Differential diagnosis section; specifically, I removed/incorporated the Eponym section into the lead, and expanded some about the history of the disorder. If that would be better as a History section, though... I'll fix it. In the Differential-d section, I've indicated the phenotypical similarites between LFS and FGS, along with notable differences. I'll give more updates with further improvements to the article, ASAP.-- Rcej (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, I'll look in tonight when I have time. Thatcher 15:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Update. I've fixed the Pathophysiology section issues regarding the p.N1007S missense mutation. I also addressed the treatment/etiology/epidemiology issues by the addition of a new paragraph in the lead section. I think everything is about ready for the final review, but please make another inspection and that way I can fix any new things that need fixing.-- Rcej (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• There are a couple of places where the wording just sounds a little awkward to me, it's hard to describe exactly, so I'd like try some copy editing and see if I can find a phrasing that I like better, for you to look at. Also, part of the GA review asks that I check all the references so that will take a couple of days. Thatcher 12:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Second pass

Citations in lead

I'd like to remove the citation links from the lead paragraph as suggested in the manual of style, since all the topics raised there are also covered in the body. This would probably be easier for you to do since it involves moving the citation details to a later appearance, and you are more familiar with where the citations are. Thatcher 14:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Rcej (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd actually prefer keeping all parts of it cited, as per MEDMOS. I don't want anything in the article disputed by some editor in the future who's an overzealous ref freak...worse than I am. I've got to return them... I hope such a minor issue can be compromised on. I truly want a GA rating if it's merited, while keeping true to what feels essential, particularly in a medical article. --Rcej (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Final review

1. I did some copy editing and reviewed all the references. There are a few places where there were irrelevant references used; if you say "A, B and C" with references, and then say "Because of A, B, and C, then D" you don't re-cite references A, B and C, just cite the reference that connects A, B and C to D. (We want to avoid synthesis, a form of original research, where we the editor say "Because of A, B and C, then D". I can say that if I write a journal article, but I can't say that on wikipedia.)
2. I'm OK with references in the lead, it looks cluttered but MEDMOS like lots of cites, so I'll go with it.
3. The zebrafish is the only vertebrate with experimental results on MED12, so I clarified that. (There are results in C elegans (nematode) and Drosophila (fruit fly) that we don't mention.)
4. The families with UPF3B mutation were diagnosed LFS but they had the UPF3B mutation instead of MED12, not with MED12, so I fixed that.
5. Added a section on treatment. The only article to have this was Van Buggenhout, and it was a short paragraph, which made it difficult to write a non-plagairized version. But luckily, the journal is available on a free license so I can copy the whole paragraph as long as I give proper attribution. (I hope)

The only thing I need to do is double check the copyright status of the treatment section with some copyright experts, if it's good then the article passes, if not, we'll take it out and pass the article anyway. Thatcher 03:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for making this review process go so smoothly. Also, I went ahead and rewrote the treatment section in my own words... no need to deal with annoying copyright issues now.--- Rcej (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it reads less smoothly now. Sorry, just my opinion. And I think the CC-BY-2.0 license means the content is completely usable. Either way its fine. And in the future if another review comes out with more specific recommendations the article can be updated. Thatcher 12:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. But, do consider that the author from whom you copy-and-pasted is a seasoned professional. It would seem sad, though, if all Wikipedia articles contained borrowed content solely because it may be worded better...-- Rcej (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)