Talk:T-type calcium channel

Untitled

Note to Readers: We were unable to find a picture of a Calcium channel that properly fit our article from the Wiki-Commons. We included the tables within the article to help make up for this. Thank you. JamesBond34 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This topic is being edited as an assignment in an undergraduate neurobiology course. The course is participating in the Wikipedia Education Program. The revised article will be posted by March 24, 2014.

We changed the entire article.LJ112358 (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

There was an overwhelming amount of articles and information on this subject. We decided chop it off into sections, so as to give a generalized idea about the T-type calcium channels.Ngakona (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review #1

I thought this was a well-written article! In this review I will go through my comments by section.

Intro: I thought your introduction was good because you state right away the conditions in which the channels open but also show that these channels are involved in a variety of cells: this shows the reader that the topic is fairly broad. I also like that you explained the distinction between T-type and L-type channels because I think this helps to show that there are more than one type of calcium channel. The 1st article you cited does mention that T-type Ca2+ current refers to the fact that they are transient openings (pg 3) whereas L-type currents are for low-voltage activated currents. You could include this if you thought it would be helpful for remembering why they are named T-type and L-type. Also, I was a little confused when reading that sentence: perhaps you could reword it as: “these new channels were found to be much different from the L-type…” Also, in the intro, the part about the SA Node I think needs a citation, although you do cite it when you go more in depth about the SA node in a later section.

Function: I really like the first paragraph of the function section: it is very clear and would be easy for someone even from a non-scientific background to read. The section on the Heart is very interesting and is well explained. In the Fast-Acting section, I understood from this section that T-type channels allow for more frequent depolarization events, and I think that this section includes the right amount of information. I have a few ideas for rewording sentences to make them clearer. Where you say, “Due to the inactivation of the T-type channels are voltage-dependent” maybe you could change it to “Because the inactivation of the T-type channels is voltage-dependent…” for smoother reading. Also, I was a little confused in the last sentence of the fast-acting section: is it the fact that depolarization, inactivation, and deactivation events occur at the same time that there can be rhythmic beating of the heart and action potential propagation down the thalamus? My last comment is to maybe include a section on the thalamus just like you had a section on the heart. However, there may not be a lot of information on the channel working in the thalamus. I think the function section is definitely sufficient without it, but if you wanted to include more information this would be an area to add to.

Structure: The structure section is really nice: I like that you have 4 introductory sentences to start and then go more in-depth on the alpha subunit and auxiliary subunits. I thought it was a good choice to split these up, and it makes it really easy for readers to find information quickly.

The table is really nice.

Pharmacology: This section is great-you put in a lot of nice links and have good citations.

Current Research: I like this section because it shows that there is still a lot of new information being discovered about the channel. It is a good addition to the page.

I read your secondary source article entitled “Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels” because you seemed to cite that one a lot. I can see that you pulled information from the first few pages that were talking in general about calcium channels and then focused on the section starting on page 15 called “Cav3 channels and frequency modulation” since this is what deals specifically with the T-type currents. I think you pulled a lot of good information from this source. The only thing you could maybe think about adding would be information on the regulation of the Cav3 channels: the source mentioned that dopamine inhibits and angiotensin II enhances activation. If you were to add this information you could put it in the function section.

This is a really good article. I think it is easy for readers of all backgrounds to understand, is verifiable, and is neutral. I think it is also broad in coverage because you give introductions to where the channel is found and how it functions and then provide links for readers to get more information if they want to. I think the sections were well organized. I just have two ideas for additional subjects you could link: “driving force” and “thalamus.” I do not think you are really missing any information besides possibly including regulation, and adding a subsection in the function section to talk about the thalamus. Good job!Iutschig (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review 1

Thank you for your primary review. We went through the introduction section and added additional information on why the channels are either named T-type or L-type, as well as added a citation for the SA node sentence. In the function section, we reworded some of the sentences you mentioned as well and realized where we had sentences that did not make sense. We did not want to focus greatly on the function within the thalamus because we did not want to be too specific, so we only discussed the function in the heart because that is one of the more critical functions of T-type channels. When going through our sources we realized from your comment that we did not have a regulation section, so in the end of the main function paragraph we included how the T-type channel is regulated by both dopamine and angiotensin II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.160.176 (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #1

First off, good job! You have a lot of information here. Some suggestions, seems like you only mentioned the Cav3.2 and how it has been found to influence diseases. Is there any more info on the Cav3.1 and Cav3.3? If there hasn’t been any link found to what these isoforms do then maybe just mention that. Also, I was curious as to how blocking the T-type channels cytostatic effects in cancer cells. Reading through the Fast-Acting section I got a little lost. Just make sure you go through that another time and clean up loose ends and grammar to make sure it flows a little better. Otherwise I think it was good.Ehart25 (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #2

Considering that you stated that there was an overwhelming amount of information for this page, I thought that this was a good summary. There are a few grammatical errors that should be looked over and some sentences seemed a bit wordy and unclear at times. Making the wording more concise would also help the article. In terms of the content, I thought that the breakdown of the article was useful in dividing all the information and created a strong focus on each of the different sections. Kudos on the usage of the gene boxes. If anything, it would be helpful to mention the specific differences between the types of channels (if known - if not, a generalized statement would suffice). Also, I think an image would be good to include in this article if possible. Sydval612 (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #3

The article was very well written and even more than that, it is very well organized. The sections seemed to be exhaustive and aptly-named. The only suggestion I might make is that there is a lot of information covered in the introduction that is covered in the actual body. It would be good to introduce the ideas, but I think there might be a bit too much included here. It makes the elaboration in the body a bit redundant. However, this is by no means a big issue in need of immediate attention. Well done! JBMarquette (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #4

Overall, this article is well written and extremely informative. The research surrounding T-type calcium channels is extensive and this article does a nice job of summarizing the main points and describing numerous aspects about T-type calcium channels. The function of the channels is thoroughly described, including where the channels is found and what type of tissues it is commonly isolated from. The type of ions that flow through the channel is discussed along with how the channels is stimulated and what results from the opening and closing of the T-type calcium channel. Improper function of the channel is very important and is discussed nicely in the article, along with pathologies which may be linked to a problem with such channels. My favorite part of the article is the accurate and detailed description of the structure of T-type calcium channels. The names of the subunits are all discussed, how these subunits form the channel is described, and the hypothesized biochemical mechanism for channel opening/closing is even presented. The various types of T-type calcium channels are discussed and the differences between their subunits, which is all excellent material! All of these fantastic facts are strongly supported by appropriate references. You did discuss L-type calcium channels in your article. The coolest thing about L-type calcium channels is that they do not allow for tetany of the heart, which may not pertain to your article but is super awesome nontheless. One critique I have is that the beginning of the article jumps straight into the material, instead of providing context and background information first. A reader who is not scientifically literate may have a hard time approaching this wiki page. Also, some pictures of the structure of the channel would be visually pleasing. Overall though, great article and a very informative wiki page. MU77 (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #5

Great job writing this article! It has a ton of information that was presented in a manner that a layperson could understand for the most part. The good use of in-text links was also a great plus, but there were sections in the article (especially towards the lead paragraph) that had some terms that could possibly be confusing without a link. Those terms (e.g. absence epilepsy, diabetes, SA Node, etc.) did reappear later in the article with the proper links to those Wikipedia pages, but it may be helpful to have those links earlier in the article, or in both the lead paragraph and later sections. Also, some sentences tend to run on making it difficult to follow. Try making those sentences just a tad more concise and to the point? Otherwise, I think it is a terrific and enlightening article. Umm517 (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review #2

Overall, the article is very well written and appears neat and professional. When compared to the L-type Calcium channel page, your article has so much more information. However, one recurring question that popped in my head while I was reading it was ‘What makes the T-Type calcium channel unique?’ In the introduction you state that they are different from L-type channels “due to their ability to be activated by more negative membrane potentials, had small single channel conductance, and also were unresponsive to calcium antagonist drugs that were present” but other than that I did not really get to know what made them distinctive from other types of calcium channels. Are T-type channels specifically found only in certain regions of the body? Are they composed of specific types of protein not found in other calcium channels? Some of the information appears to be very general and might be better in an article about calcium channels as a whole, and not T-type channels specifically.

1. The article does not have any glaring grammatical errors, but some of the phrasing used was a bit off. For example, in the sentence, “The discovery of these new channels were much different from the L-type calcium channels due to their ability to be activated by more negative membrane potentials,” it sounds like the actual scientific discovery was different, and not the channels themselves. I think it would read better as “These channels were found to be much different from…”

Another change that I would recommend is the creation of two separate sections for what is currently under the “Function” section. As of now, that section sort of jumps around between the mechanical aspects of T-type channels (the movement of ions across the membrane and the like,) and their physiological role (such as what they do in the heart.) I also think the ‘improper function’ portion would work better if it were with the rest of the disorders/diseases in the pharmacology section.

2. The sources used all look appropriate and cited properly. The doi link for the second source leads to a ‘not found’ message, however. I also noticed that about 2/3 of the article relies on just two or three sources. Maybe you guys can find more resources to support the beginning sections?

3. The article was able to cover a wide variety of topics related to T-type channels, and although, like you said, the subject has a large amount of information related to it, you guys were able to condense it into a form that makes sense and is easily readable. Like I said before, I feel that some of the information was too general in the sense that it applies to all calcium ion channels. I think it would be beneficial to focus more on T-type channels themselves rather than a very broad class of channels. I think the pharmacology section was a good example of what I mean by focusing on aspects unique to T-type channels.

4. All of the sources used were neutral and I did not see any conflicts of interest.

5. I think it would be nice if you included an illustration showing the basic mechanism behind how T-type channels work, similar to the figures we look at in class. I recommend checking the Wikimedia commons for some useful images or perhaps checking to see if any of your sources had tables or images published with them. Although not technically images, I really like all the tables with the links to relevant sources and think they help to break up the wall of text that would normally appear.

I reviewed your source, “T-type calcium channels blockers as new tools in cancer therapies.” I immediately knew it was a reliable source due to its publication in a scientific journal. Its very recent publication shows that it is very much up to date, and is thus relevant and reliable. Good job with finding it. I noticed that you guys received much of your information about cancer from this section and think you did a very good job condensing all of the information about it in the paper into a more compact and more readable form in your article. Marq808 (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review 2

Thank you for your review. First off, within the introduction we added where T-type calcium channels can mainly be found. Within the second paragraph in the introduction we describe the subunit that is distinct for T-type calcium channels, and further in the page we go in more details on the subunits. We made changes to sentences that you thought sounded odd and hard to follow, and we made them more clear and concise. We also moved the improper function section to the pharmacology section because we agree it belongs better there. Illustration wise, we could not find any public images we were allowed to use that were distinct for T-type calcium channels or that were relevant to our topic in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.160.176 (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #6

The article was written very well! It was concise, hitting many key points and characteristics of this calcium channel. I imagine this may be difficult, but is there anyway images could be added? The page is fairly dense with text. I would like to think that there are some kind of computer generated images of the calcium channels. I also think that it would be interesting if a small section covering a simple history of this channel could be incorporated. The information included could be about the first time the channel was isolated, by who, and what significant past research studies involved this channel. If very little is found, it would even fit nicely into the introduction section. Overall, I thought the article was very well done!! NWcoffee (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #7

This article was very well organized and easy to read. I thought you guys made a complicated topic very easy to understand for the reader. Here are my suggestions:

• Watch out for complicated sentences, especially in the Function section. Try to make these sentences more concise.
• Possibly add some images of the channel either within the membrane or the computer-generated structure. Or both!

Overall, I thought you did an excellent job with this topic! MUhelb (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #8

Overall, the article was written very clearly and organised even though it seems you guys had an overwhelming amount of information to chose from. So great job on that! I noticed that in the description of the function of the T-type calcium channels there was no diagram or illustration as means of explanation. I feel like by adding some type of illustration that shows how the channel works will be very beneficial for the reader. Also, very good use of the info. boxes with all the pertinent links. I really enjoyed reading the article! Monibea11 (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Monibea11Monibea11 (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)