Talk:Viral transformation

Viruses Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses 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.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I would like to open a conversation on how to improve this article. First, the article needs to be expanded through the use of multiple reliable sources. Through these sources, the article can be expanded to provide more details beyond a basic description of the topic. A few recommendations on how to begin improving this article include addressing how viruses are prepared prior to injection into a host cell both in vivo and in vitro; how transformation of the host cell affects the cell at a physiological, biochemical, and genomic level; assay types; and medical and biotechnology applications, such as personalized medicine and drug delivery. Second, the article needs to be supplemented with images. Possibly one of the most helpful images would be one that illustrates how a virus is prepared and then transforms the host cell, but I have had difficulty finding such an image. Looking forward to any input. Richarnj (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to improve this article. My initial plan is to add improvements while leaving the existing text as I look for sources to verify the content. If it cannot be verified, I plan to remove it. I am however, considering removing the Genetic Engineering graphic as it is not referenced in the article. Additionally, although it mentions viral transformation it does not seem to be particularly relevant to the article at this point. Richarnj (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Would a history section be beneficial? We could possibly add information on new discoveries and processes, maybe important scientists and images showing them or their work.

- That might be a good idea to summarize in the beginning but we can't concentrate too much on it. CarpeDiem90 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Can images from http://www.mcb.uct.ac.za/cann/335/Trans1.html be used, or are they not properly licensed?
2. A turnitin report indicated that the original lead section was a verbatim copy of a web source and was uncited. It should be removed or cited and summarized.
3. I plan to to a turnitin report of the other original material to ensure that it is not plagiarized as well.
4. Images could be added for the assays

- We will start compiling properly liscenced images for the article CarpeDiem90 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. We may want to consider they different types of viruses as they may transform cells differently, DNA vs RNA viruses, retroviruses.

Richarnj (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A second turnitin report indicates that the entire Virus-induced malignant transformation from the original article was also copied verbaim. This should be one of the next things to be addressed. Richarnj (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your article is off to a great start. Your lead section is informative and unbiased. The outline is great and I think the organization is good. The article will flow nicely once it is completed. I know you mentioned images will be added, which will be nice to see visuals reinforcing the written text. Hopefully, you will be able to find images you can use to or create your own on inkscape. It was a good idea to use turnitin to check the original work and you already mention that will need to reference that material so, I won't go into details on that. I listed some possible improvements below, but it's nothing major.

1. In the first sentence of the lead section, it looks like you quoted a source website of a quote they used from another source. Perhaps, it may be beneficial to look at the original source of where it came from for more information. I know many sources can reference other sources on wiki and it's sometimes hard to find that original source.
2. For the second reference, it looks like you used an e-Study guide perhaps you could add the chapter or page number of where you read the information from. Sometimes I use sources referenced on wiki for projects and it may be helpful for others researching this topic to know exactly where to look.
3. I noticed the assay reference link doesn't actually go to the article on wiki. (not sure if this matters, but for thoroughness maybe directly linking article to reference in reflist)

Overall, great job! Keep up the good work!Tatabox8 (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I will look into the suggestions you made with regards to our sources. The e-Study guide was the source from which the original article copied. The information used in the article was good, but I am hoping to replace that source since I only have access to it through the free preview on Google books. I am unfamiliar with inkscape, but if we are unable to find images hopefully that will be a good alternative. Richarnj (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The additions to your article this week are great. The writing is comprehensive and I feel like anyone researching this topic will get a good understanding of the topic. For the types of transformation section, have you thought about perhaps making each one into a wiki table? The information written is good, but the structure of it not being a paragraph makes it stand out a bit.(Not a bad thing, it's just different) Also, I was told by Keilana that we dont have to cite the same source twice in a row. (Definitely check with OA on that, since the info is written in sentences and not paragraphs the rules may be different) The images you added are relevant to your article. There are wikilinks in your article and perhaps you can add a few more such as, HPV, protease, hep B and C... When I add wikilinks I try to imagine the person reading my article has no science backgound at all and link any info that they may need to look to comprehend what I'm writing. Thanks for adding the direct link to the Assay article! I looked over your references and nothing seems worded too closely. Since we are continuing to work on our articles I hope to see more applications and examples in your article. Once again, you guys did a great job! Keep up the good work!Tatabox8 (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I like the idea of adding a wiki table. I agree that the content looks a little strange as it is formatted now, but we needed more detail than I originally provided in the summary. That could also help with the citations. Also, we definitely have plans to continue adding applications and examples in the future. Richarnj (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried putting a lot of the information from the types section into a wiki-table, but I am unable to achieve formatting that I am happy with. Was the direction that I have gone what you were intending? Do you think this is a useful approach or would another format be more helpful to a reader? For the moment I have left the previous sections I am trying to replace. Thanks Richarnj (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your article is coming along nicely. I do like the wiki-table, but I know what you mean by making the formatting as close to what you want is hard. I think the content in the table is easy to read and straightforward for anyone looking for a summary or an overview. Perhaps, you could ask one of the OA for suggestions about formatting the wiki-table. I'm still not familiar with all the functions on wikipedia and learning as I go. Do you know why there is overlapping lines on the right side of the wikitable for the cytocidal and persistent rows on the wikitable? Also, for the morphological, biochemical and physiological section you may want to make the dash line separation for the given information across the table so, that readers can just read across the table without guessing what stage/section they are reading info for. I also notice opening the article in different screens the formatting can change for the wiki-table. Having it open on my 23 inch screen it looks perfectly normal, but on my 13 inch laptop the table is more condense and the dashes wrap down. I"m not sure if this make sense, but let me know and I can send you a screen shot of what I see. Also, in the cytocidal section under morphological it says "Rusion with adjacent cells." should it say Fusion? Cytocidal->physiological "rormation of secondary messengers"="formation of secondary messengers"? I didn't want to assume and make those edits so, I thought I would check with you first. I also, made a minor edit removing a source that was cited back to back in he retrovirus section. Overall, great job on your article! It's very imformative and straightforward. People will definitely get their questions answered reading over your article.Tatabox8 (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions! It is quite queer that on your screen it is shown to have some formatting problems, but I will look into it and fix it if possible.CarpeDiem90 (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your article looks great. I like the addition of the HIV and cancer treatment sections.Tatabox8 (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the help Tatabox8! We incorporated a lot of your suggestions to improve our article! CarpeDiem90 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, good job so far. Let me know in my email or on my talk page if you have any questions about the suggestions I've given you! Thanks.

• The references section needs to go before the genetic engineering template.
• Typically we don't have citations in the lead - it should summarize facts that are cited elsewhere in the article.
• Saying "Concentrate cell changes in 3 ways" isn't necessary, just launch right into the next 3 sections.
• Obviously the virus-induced malignant transformation needs citations.
• I'm not sure "Applications and examples" is a great way to organize this, perhaps just have each subsection stand alone.
• You did a good job explaining what an assay is - keep up that good level of glossing difficult concepts throughout.

All the best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for suggestions with regards to following the wiki style. Being new to Wikipedia, it is helpful to receive concise feedback rather than searching through all of the style pages. The section without citations is still from the original article and we are working to verify the information. Richarnj (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the suggestions to improve the article! It helped quite a bit! CarpeDiem90 (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You guys have done a good job so far. The article looks good, is pretty well structured, has a good amount of content, and some useful images. The comments below are just my suggestions for a couple of ways it might be improved. Keep in mind that they are just suggestions, and if you disagree, or these conflict with other reviewers' suggestions, then do what you think is best.

• Need a lot more wikilinks. These are really important, as they can help curious readers learn more about specific topics that they might not understand.

• You could simplify the language in some places. Right now, some things read too much like a research article. For example, instead of saying, "Cells that have been virally transformed can be differentiated from untransformed cells through a variety of growth, surface, and intracellular observations." You could say, "Viral transformation can change a cell's growth patterns, it's surface receptors, or the way it interacts with other cells." (That's just meant as an example -- it needs work.)

--- Very true. What is the target audience for these articles? High-school students? I was just wondering so that we can improve on the diction and structure of the article. Thanks! CarpeDiem90 (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Similarly, the next sentence is pretty inscrutible: "The growth of transformed cells is impacted in ways such as growth not being impacted by contact with other cells, growth is less oriented, and a high saturation density." I really don't know what this means.

• As a proxy for this problem, I notice that you use the word "impact" four times in the lead. IMO, "impact" is one of those words that is used to make something sound professional or formal, but is almost always detrimental to the prose.

• You don't need to repeat the same reference multiple times within the same subsection. For example, in "Cytocidal infections", you could just put one reference to [1] at the end, rather than one on each sentence.

• In "Types of transformation":
  • I can't tell whether or not the three types are mutually exclusive or not. I think they are: cytocidal = kills the cell; persistent = lays dormant within the cell for a long time; tranforming = makes the cell cancerous. But I'm not sure -- could you work on distinguishing these categories more clearly?

--Sure CarpeDiem90 (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think you could do a better job in general of introducing the categories, before jumping in and talking about specifics. For example, rather than starting out, "Cytocidal infections can cause fusion of adjacent cells, disruption ...", try to explain what "cytocidal" means, and why it is one of the categories.

• In the "Cytocidal infections" subsection, and the others, "infections" should be lowercase.

• The "Cytocidal infections" subsection reads just like a list of random facts. I see that you got most of it from [1], and I think that in many cases it is too closely paraphrased. Could you work on rewriting this, and try to turn it into more of a narrative? Take a step back, and try to imagine what it is that you want to tell the reader. Try to organize it into a way that has a natural flow. And also please simplify the language a bit.

• In the "Process" section, I'd think you could drop the "Preparation for transformation" header, and just let the paragraphs there act as the intro to "Process".

• The "Applications" section needs an intro paragraph. Just one sentence would probably be fine, explaining that you're going to be talking about medical applications and technologies that exploit viral transformations.

• I'd suggest that you could get rid of the "Examples" section, and integrate its content with the rest of the article. I'd think the material from "Viral oncogenesis" could be merged with either/both "Transforming Infections" and "Transformation of the host cell".

That's it from me. Keep up the good work! Klortho (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for these detailed suggestions. We will take your comments into consideration as we continue to improve the article. Richarnj (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the suggestions! CarpeDiem90 (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on your article thus far! Please find my recommendations below:

• Your article is well-structured.
• Your article flows very well and the language is easy to read. I would suggest more use of wiki-links. Consider the following: tight junction, human papillomavirus (HPV), T-cell leukemia, Hepatitus B, Hepatitus C, viral replication, and morphology.

--Great idea! Thank you for the suggestions, we will add more external links to the article on scientific terminology CarpeDiem90 (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest changing the title of the section "Examples" to Natural transformation as touched on in the introduction. Other than the introduction, natural transformation is not used. This may be confusing to the reader. Also, perhaps you could provide more detailed mechanisms of how natural transformation occurs. I also suggest doing the same with transformation induced for medicinal purposes.
• Examples of natural transformation are outlined in the introduction but none is found for transformation via medical induction. You may want to add at least one example in the introduction to keep it consistent.

--We will find more resources on it and expand on it later in the article. thank you! CarpeDiem90 (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Because there is a lot of mechanisms discussed in this article, I would suggest more figures where possible. For example, when discussing the three types of assays, it would be beneficial to the visual learner to have a generalized figure for each. The same applies for the two mechanisms discussed for viral oncogenesis.

--Yes, I agree with this statement. Mechanisms can get overwhelming to read, especially when we go into such detail. Thank you! CarpeDiem90 (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In the section "Types of Transformation," specific examples could be given. Staying consistent throughout the article, you could classify the examples outlined in the introduction.

Kneal0627 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I hope you found these suggestions helpful. Your article is coming along rather nicely. Good job! The table you added to the types of viral transformation section is great! One thing I would suggest is shortening the title of "Type of Viral Transformation" to simply "Types." Because the topic of the article is viral transformation, I don't think you need to have it in the title of this section. Just an idea! Kneal0627 (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help! CarpeDiem90 (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nicole and Dhwani! Your article is in great shape at this point, I learned a lot reading it! I have a few comments on some things you may want to consider:

• I feel like the article is a bit light on Wikilinks and you may be able to incorporate a little more…for instance, lysogeny, HPV, Rous Sarcoma Virus, etc.
• You may want to add a few references to the intro paragraphs.
• Some sentences could become more clear with re-wording…for instance, the second sentence of the third paragraph: “The growth of transformed cells is impacted…and a high saturation density.”
• For the Cytocidal Infections section, I’m not sure reference [1] needs to be repeatedly referenced in each sentence.
• I liked the Process section and found it very easy to understand. One comment on the Physiological section-you mentioned phenotype changes, you may want to consider adding the consequences of these changes.
• Under Assays, I’m not sure the first sentence, definition of an assay, is needed (but if you keep it, I’m not sure reference [7] is needed—may want to check with one of the OA’s, but I’m thinking we probably wouldn’t need to reference Wikipedia in our articles, and that a Wikilink is probably enough). Additionally in this section, I would be interested in seeing an image or two of the types of assays you mention, if possible.
• If you have time to add more, Applications and Examples sections may benefit from a few more cases under each.
• Possible options for more content—maybe a section on History/what research has been done to lead up to the current understanding of viral transformation. Also, are there ways to prevent viral transformation? I did a brief search and found a few articles that may be of interest:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1931312810003835

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S193131281000377X

Like I said, your article is looking great-most of these are minor and I look forward to seeing future versions of it! -Amanaresi (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. We will definiately look into the references you recommended. As far as references in the lead section, Keilana had mentioned that the lead section should only summarize information cited elsewhere in the article. Richarnj (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional references! I see why you suggested why we wouldn't need to define "assays". However, we need to remind ourselves that Wikipedia is a public forum whose readers have scientific and non-scientific backgrounds, so to cater to both populations, it is helpful such definitions. This is merely my opinion. It is better to be safe than sorry. CarpeDiem90 (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it was just a suggestion! I like the table you guys added to Types of Transformation, nice work!-Amanaresi (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the help! CarpeDiem90 (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Wow - I can't believe how much info you've added to this article! I looked at the history and how the page looked when you started working on it. You've done a great job so far! Here are a couple of suggestions:

• Under types of transformation, I think it's interesting how you talk about the three types in 2 lead paragraphs before you break each one down into a sub-section. But I found myself going back up to the definition of cytocidal infection, for example, when reading about in the subsection. In addition, those 3 sub-sections are small. Consider moving most of your introductory types of transformation into the corresponding subsections, and just having the introductory portion contain a short definition and Table 1. This will also allow other pages to add a wiki-link to the appropriate subsection that will contain most of the pertinent information. I hope that makes sense. Let me know if I've just confused you.  :)
• You mentioned under Viral_transformation#Transforming infections that "The process for this transformation is outlined below." I'm confused as to what this sentence means. (Maybe because is topic is Viral Transformation and the infection type is Transforming Infection.) Is this process the same, similar, or different than the other types of infections? Will you add some text that describes how it's the same or different?
• You have the Transformation of the host cell as a sub-section under Process. Have you thought about making it it's own section after Process? It's not exactly part of the process, but it's what results from the process.
• Are there more types of medical applications you can add? Or even add some references to point the reader to journals? Also, should you have a citation in your first paragraph into Personalized type I interferons?
• Consider moving the Examples of Natural Transformation above the Examples of Medical Viral Transformation, since you say that it's the most commonly considered form of viral transformation.
• Add more wiki-links. A suggestion that we had for our article was to wiki-link a lot - even if there is no Wikipedia page. You could wiki-link the following:
  Burkitt's lymphoma, nasopharyngeal carcinoma

I hope these help! Jen Magladem96 (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing such detailed feedback in the final review. I believe I understand all of your comments and plan to implement as many as possible. Your suggestions about article structure is particularly helpful, so we can make it as understandable as possible for people that haven't been looking at it for weeks.

Richarnj (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the wikilinks, put the link on the first occurrence, also on the first occurrence on a section specialising in the topic. Also link to Anchorage independent growth even though it's red.

you mention gag = Group-specific antigen pol =Pol (HIV) and env = Env (gene), (should be linked) but they are just mentioned in the negative, that they are not involved in transformation. Perhaps we need to here the genes that are involved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these links and your suggestions on wikilinking. We are working to include these and similar suggestions. Richarnj (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the article page! There are just a few things that I could see to improve the article:

Additional Wiki links in the lead section:

1. transformation with Transformation (genetics)
2. Cell culture
3. Signal molecules with Cell signaling

Also, in the Medical applications sections, the section about Type I interferons seemed to be missing its citations.

Overall, I thought you did a great job. One last thing that may help would be to add an image to the Assay section to help readers get a view of what is happening during the process.Cchandu1 (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I will check into the Type I interferons section. When I was last editing I thought there had been citations, but that is a good catch. I also agree with you idea of adding an assay picture, but it has been difficult finding one with appropriate permissions. Richarnj (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]