Talk:CH391L/S14/QuorumSensing


 * --Dennis Mishler (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2014 (CDT) Great job, Mindy. A very good explanation/introduction to the topic.  My one critique would be in the synthetic biology section.  I would love to see a figure relating to one of the examples mentioned.  I would also like to see another example of using Quorum sensing for some purpose, such as heading toward bacterial consortia.


 * Jorge Vazquez (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2014 (CDT)Excellent job! Very little to improve. I would probably like to see an expanded section on the examples of quorum sensing in synthetic biology. Probably explained more in detail? But this is just my preference. I think the wiki is very well done.


 * Ashley Kessel (talk) 0:21, 21 March 2014 (CDT) Really well done article! Very easy to read, and not much needs to be done in terms of improvement. Also, maybe the "benefits of quorum sensing" section would be better suited in the introduction, and Just a small revision, I think "includes but is not limited to" could be changed to just "includes."


 * --drewtack (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2014 (CDT)This is a very nice wiki. I don't know if this is required, but I think a future section could be useful. You clearly lead into several possibly applications of Quorum sensing and some newly recognized forms of quorum sensing (pathogenic bacteria), maybe just an bringing all of these together would be enough for a future section.


 * --Mindy (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2014 (CDT)Thanks for the suggestions :)

--Dennis Mishler (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2014 (CDT) Gabo's critique

Overall Format and structure: I think you really laid out things really well. I liked that I could find links all throughout if I wanted more information on other concepts. I found paragraphs clear and concise.

Introduction and background material: Good intro and background material.

Methods and main body/concepts: When describing autoinducers, you mention that AI-2’s are used mainly in intraspecies communication. Is this any different than the use for AI-1’s or are AI-1’s also used mainly in intraspecies communication? If so, why not mention it for AI-1’s or simply say “also” for AI-2’s? Under the description for AI-1, since Luxl proteins do not directly synthesize HSL or AHL, I would clarify by saying “are responsible for the activation of synthesis of these lipids”, instead of saying that these are “responsible for synthesizing these”. I would take out “Both –” from the beginning of the sentence under AI-2, it makes it confusing and it’s redundant since you already mention it in that sentence. The next sentence can be improved by a slight change, exchanging the word “following” - the 2nd one - for “then” and it will flow better I guess. Also, is it really necessary to say “cell-specific”? Last sentence under Benefits of Quorum Sensing you mention bacterial-eukaryotic (interspecies) communication is important in pathogenic bacterial strains, but what the paper says is that communication is important for non-pathogenic interactions. In the case of pathogenic bacteria I think they rather say “signaling” is important. Relation to iGEM and future directions: Amazed by the pretty cool stuff iGEM teams have been doing with quorum sensing. I liked it very much and seems like there will be much more to come on this subject.

Figures, Figure legends, and citations: I think your report was well referenced and that images were good and helpful.


 * --Mindy (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2014 (CDT)Thanks Gabo :) I tried to go in and fix some of the stuff that didn't make sense- the intra/intra was a typo, fixed the synthesis and double followings, cell-specific I left, just because there are so many different types of modifications, and signaling and communication in bacterial culture usually is taken as the same thing, but I fixed it just so people don't get confused when reading the sentence and then clicking on the paper.