Talk:5S ribosomal RNA

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Content Coverage

• Might want to look at adding a section that would explain why 5S ribosomal RNA is important
• Protein interactions = would be good to explain why there is a difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes
• Are there any other sections to add?
• Good first start to your article!

Wikilinking

• I think you did a good job of linking other wikipedia articles. Keep it up as you continue to work on the article.

Referencing

• Many articles are referenced = good!

Writing categories

• I uncapitalized eukaryotes in the protein interactions section

Illustrations

• Good illustrations

Tmckenne (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have demonstrated some good skills in starting this article. Here are some recommendations about where to go from here:

1. The article is currently the size of a stub, and should be expanded with more paragraphical information.
2. Be careful not to squash text between images. This will be easier when more textual content is added to the article.
3. Pay attention to punctuation; there should be a comma after "At about 120 nucleotides in length", the period at the end of the purple image caption is unnecessary, etc.
4. The lead section of the article should only contain information that is also contained in other sections of the article. That way, no citations are necessary in the lead, as the lead summarizes the rest of the article.
5. It is important for the article to be readable by the general public; phrases like "cleaved from a 45S precursor transcribed" are likely to lose people.
6. It might be a good idea to add a list of books in a "Further reading" section.
7. All of the sources used in this article are only cited once. Can more information be drawn from these sources?

Great job in formatting the citiations! Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about my recommendations above. Neelix (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content Coverage

• Content is a good start, but needs to be expanded.

• More content on theorized roles and functions would be helpful to understand what it is and what it does in prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

• Take a look at “Eukaryotic 5S rRNA biogenesis” by Martin Ciganda and Noreen Williams. It has some great images, references to other articles that might be helpful and a lot of good info about 5S rRNA in eukaryotes. Here’s a link to the whole article [[1]].

• Perhaps creating sections that separate eukaryotic and prokaryotic 5S rRNA would be appropriate, depending on how differently 5S rRNA functions in each and how much information you can find in each.

• Check out the "sections" part of
  Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Style guide (gene and protein articles)
  for sections you should consider including in your article.

Wikilinking

• Great job on the wikilinking! It’s not overdone and the links that are present are helpful in understanding the content.

Referencing

• To go along with the expanded content, more references will be needed. See the reference I suggested above for a start.

Writing categories

• I added punctuation in the first paragraph, but no other changes to existing content were made.

Illustrations

• The images used are good. They help fill in some of the gaps and are referenced properly – nice job.
• One issue with image and text interaction is the numbers corresponding to the references overlap with the 2nd image on the left.

Overall, the article is headed in the right direction, but needs a lot more content. Tmo32 (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How do I make the text not overlap the image? Alpha centauri b (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alpha centauri, looks like just adding content fixed the overlap issue. Delete the space before the first words in the intro and structure sections to get rid of those weird text boxes. Looks like the article is already coming along nicely! Tmo32 (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks Tmo. I fixed those spaces. I'll work on more content also. 67.66.140.13 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How come when I put my four little squiggles =~= it didn't put my user name this time? 67.66.140.13 (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like your idea of making a separate section for eukaryotic vs prokayotic differences for 5S rRNA. How do I import a figure from on of those articles? 67.66.140.13 (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see now I wasn't signed in for the above comments. Sorry. Alpha centauri b (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good suggestions. I think adding more info about why 5S rRNA is important is a good idea. I also think there is a lot more info that I can use from the sources already cited, thanks. I agree, more content needed! Alpha centauri b (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall excellent presentation of information.

A suggestion of rewording; 5S ribosomal RNA (5S rRNA), a critical component of the large ribosomal subunit has an important role of signal transduction and translational activity (maybe expand a bit more here on its function). At only about 120 nucleotides in length, it is small compared to other ribosomal RNAs. Although it is present in both the prokaryotes (50S) and eukaryotes (60S)it is not found in the mitochondrial ribosomes of fungi and animals.[1]. A distinct feature is that Unlike other rRNAs the 5S rRNA can be found separate from the ribosome as part of a ribonuleoprotein particle (RNP)(I bit confused what you are trying to say here; is it part of the RNP or not?)

you have provided alot of details in the structure section, which is great but kind of hard to visualize, would it be possible to get an image that identifies all the features you mentioned?

maybe when you talk about the binding to tRNA in the function section you can expand a bit on the type of binding that goes on? if applicable, is it allosteric binding? competitive? again if applicable?

expand of what central protuberance (CP) is.

Wikilinking: maybe have a link to "tandem repeats" under the structure section. link for Phylogenetic studies, wouuld be helpful

hope you find these comments helpfulMishasubz (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Misha, I think you're correct that the wording is a bit confusing up in the first section. I'll try to make that more clear. I also plan to expand the part about the central protuberance (CP) quite a bit since this structure is formed, to a large extent, by our friend 5S rRNA. I'll explain what it is in more detail. Good suggestions. Thank you. Alpha centauri b (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think you guys have a very good article with detailed information on the topic. The lead section gave a good brief introduction to the 5S rRNA. Body of the article included many primary research sources.

I like the images, they are very helpful when you go into the detail about 5srRNA structure. It is a overall very informative and well organized article.

I have some suggestions listed below, feel free take them into consideration while working on this article.

1. Overall, I think you guys should use less ambivalent expression. There are many "maybe" and "suggested". In my opinion, you can just state the facts. For example, you can say "Based on crystallographic studies, 5s rRNA can interact with 5s rRNA binding proteins and other proteins."
2. In the structure section, it might be better to present the RNA using the order of primary structure, secondary, tertiary, etc. It will be easier for readers to understand.
3. Maybe you can consider taking the 5S rRNA in ribosomal assembly and Interaction with La family and put them under function, because you discussed about their importance in a system biology perspective.
4. Lastly, try add on some more wikilinks throughout the article. Luyao Kevin Xu (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've started adding more wikilinks. Thanks for the input. Alpha centauri b (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I replaced some of the ambivalent expression with more direct phrases. Androidhu (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a plagiarism check on the article when beginning my review and found plagiarism from Ciganda et al. I have removed all of the plagiarism I can find. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your help with this. I'll be extremely careful about this from now on.

Alpha centauri b (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for bringing attention to this. I checked the removed part and cited them properly with Ciganda et al source to avoid plagiarism. Androidhu (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Overall, I think this is a pretty good article. I like the structure, and you have a good amount of content and some nice images, and it is well referenced. However, I did find some plagiarism, which is not good; esp. since I see that Keilana pinged you on that before. Below are some general comments.

• Could use more wikilinks.
• Not sure what "RNAs." is doing at the very end of your lead paragraph.
• I removed some content from your "Function" section, plagiarized from Ciganda and Williams and from Ammons.
• Note that there are other parts of the article that are a bit too closely paraphrased from Ciganda and Williams, but I did not remove them. You should take another look and rewrite those bits.
• For your Ammons reference, notice that it [was] duplicated three times. You should use named references to avoid this.
• The paragraph beginning "Eukaryotic 5S rRNA is synthesised ..." is written at too technical a level, and I'm not even sure that it belongs in the "Function" section.
• There are a few other places that are also written at a very difficult technical level. It would be really nice if you could make those more comprehensible to a lay reader.

You are on the home stretch, and I think that with a bit more concerted effort, you could make some significant improvements. Let me know if you have any questions. Klortho (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Klortho, You're right that some of the language seems too technical. We will work on putting it in terms that are easier to understand for the layperson. Alpha centauri b (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you klortho. Especially, thank you for bringing attention again to the issue with plagiarism. I worked on Function section, and I thought I was citing sufficiently to avoid plagiarism but I guess I was not. Also, I agree I used language that might have been two closely paraphrased from these resource. I will work on them to rewrite these contents. Androidhu (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on your article so far. I like the layout, the pictures provided and the depth of information.

• You don't need to cite sources in your intro paragraph as there shouldn't be information listed here that's not also listed in the main part of the article.
• As mentioned before, "RNAs" is randomly at the end of the paragraph; probably left over from removing other content.
• Your structure section has no wikilinks.You should wikilink the techniques mentioned in the mapping section.
• The pictures on the right are very small. You may want to space them out more as well, or maybe alternate right/left so they aren't all clustered.
• Maybe it would be helpful to add a picture of an entire ribosome that includes the 5s component so it's easier to visualize where this part is?
• Does TFIIIA bind the actual 5S rRNA or bind the gene or both? I agree with other reviewers that these more technical paragraphs could use some work and jargon removal (ex. uridylates).
• There are a lot of sentences that state a fact without any follow up explanation. An example would be the last paragraph, which consists of only two sentences. Why are these interactions important? What do they mean/do? I would suggest expanding those before your final submission as a way to let the reader know why that information is being included in the article.
• You could add a "see also" section of links at the bottom.

Overall, I would suggest expanding the article and trying to remove jargon as much as possible.Rmiller587 (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I didn't see that "RNAs" sitting at the end of the paragraph before. Alpha centauri b (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great job rewording paragraphs so they're easier to read. I also think the article flows better now. My only other suggestion (if you catch this in time) is that you have a citation in your lead paragraph still. Great article! Rmiller587 (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for good suggestions. I added "See Also" link at the end. Androidhu (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is nicely organized. The article flows nicely and is easy to follow.
2. Lead section: Have “RNAs” on its own. Delete it if it is not required. You do not need to reference the lead section. If possible, use that reference in other sections of the article.
3. Structure section: You may want to include information on the Eukaryotic 5s RNA and how its structure compares to that of the prokaryotic structure. This would tie in nicely with the information you have on the Eurkaryotic ribosomal assembly.
4. 5S rRNA in ribosomal assembly: you may want to expand by explaining how the 5S combines with the 23S rRNA to make up the large subunit of the prokaryotic ribosome, etc. This would tie in with the information you have on the prokaryotic ribosome in the structure section.
5. Function Section: refer to experimental data that is not provided in the article. You may want to reword the information to state a specific fact e.g. reword “The accumulated experimental data supports …”. Expand on the functions indicated, e.g. how does 5S RNA acts a mediator responsible for coordination between functional centers of the ribosome?
6. As the other reviewers have commented, you may want to add more wikilinks to your article. Some suggestions are sedimentation, nucleotides, immunostaining (which has a section on immune-electron microscopy), exonucleases.
7. Good structural images; As Rmiller87 suggested an image of the whole ribosome with the different components is a good visual aid.
8. You may want to add a “See Also” section. Some suggestions for this section are 50S, Translation
9. References: good job on the references;
10. Overall, great job on the article! SabFernMB (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions, SanFernMB. I will work on 5S rRNA in ribosomal Assembly and Function sections and try to adopt your suggestion (adding more elaborations and providing reference to the experimental studies). Androidhu (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per your suggestion, I created "See Also" section with 50S and Translation. Also, I corrected the Function section and added more contents to elaborate as you recommended. Androidhu (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]