Talk:AB5 toxin

Cancer Treatment using AB5 toxins!

B subunits of the AB5 toxins have the affinity towards binding glycan which some type of tumors seem to possess making it an easy target. One example is that of StxB which specifically binds with CD77 which shows expression on the surface of cancerous cells such as colon, pancreas, breast and many more. Once StxB targets a cancerous cell, it delivers the A subunit of the toxin which eventually kills the cancerous cell. Yet another method is by using ER stress-inducing drugs which have been tested in mice to show positive synergistic responses. Please share any knowledge about any side effects of introducing AB5 toxins in human body? Mmehta10 (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bedoe article I have been referencing on the actual AB5 toxin page has talk of using these toxins as cancer agents. The dosage has to be maintained very closely to its predetermined dose or else normal tissues may also experience the toxicity. It also says that recent research has shown that fused SubAB toxins with EGF may help deliver the toxins to tumor cells. Gkaltam (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Four Families of AB5 Toxin

There are four main families of the AB5 toxin. These families are characterized by the sequence of their A subunit, as well as their catalytic ability.

• Cholera Toxin also known as Ctx
• Pertussis Toxin also known as Ptx
• Shiga toxin also known as Stx
• Subtilase cytotoxin also known as SubAB

Ctx and Ptx have the same mechanism where the A subunit is able to catalyze ADP-ribosylation of certain G protein alpha subunits. In doing so, the downstream effects of the G protein signal transduction pathway is disrupted . Stx's A subunit is able to inhibit eukaryotic protein synthesis with its RNA N-glycosidase activity . SubAB has an A subunit where it acts as a serine protease and cleaves Bip/GRP78, an endoplasmic reticulum chaperone . The cleavage of this chaperone causes cellular stress, and consequently death of the cell.

Gkaltam (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Klortho

You guys are off to a good start. Here are some comments that I hope can help you to make your article better.

• General
  • Fix section header case according to the style guidelines. Not "Four Families of AB5 Toxin", but "Four families of AB5 toxin".
  • Be consistent in your use of "AB5", in whether or not the "5" is subscripted. Right now, you have a mix.
  • Need more wikilinks. Every interesting term should be linked to another Wikipedia article the first time it is used.
  • I would suggest against using the abbreviations "CTx", "Ptx", etc. I think that the actual names are not too long, and you don't gain much by abbreviating them, and in my opinion, the abbreviations make it harder to read.
  • The whole article is at too high of a technical level. Try to make the language simpler, and spend more time explaining things. Remember that your target audience is a smart high-school student or college freshman. Try to avoid technical jargon. If you must use it, gloss it first.
  • Could definitely use some more content. I think, as it is, it is a little bit too short. It will get longer if you lower the technical level, but it still could use more information -- I am sure there are more interesting things that you could find to write about.

• The lead:
  • "where the B subunit is responsible for ..." - What are the "B subunit" and the "A subunit"? You should not just use terms like these without first introducing and explaining them.
  • What does "internalize within the cell" mean?
  • Could use some more wikilinks. For example, "catalytic machinery" -- you should be able to find a suitable Wikipedia page to link this to.
  • Try to add something to the lead about notability. Why are AB5 toxins important? What do they do, in general? Do they cause disease? Diseases in humans?

• Four Families of AB5 Toxin
  • You don't need to repeat the inline citation ([2]) so many times. Just put it once, at the end.
  • Fix your wikilinks to Cholera toxin and Pertussis toxin. If a link shows up in red, that means something is wrong.
  • You have left the section "List of AB5 toxins", from the original version of the article, in at the end. This seems to overlap "Four families", and I suggest merging them. But that means, of course, that you should make it clear where in the "four families" does, for example, heat-labile enterotoxins fit.

• Structure
  • In the first sentence you say that five proteins are "the B subunits". This is confusing. Is each of these five a separate subunit? In the lead, you refer to to "the B subunit" (only one). Maybe you should change the sentence here to read "five compose the B subunit".
  • In the sentence that starts, "The A1 chain for CTx catalyzes the transfer ...", it is not clear to me what you are trying to communicate, or why this information is here. It is describing the chemical function, not the structure. Is it supposed to be explaining why the A1 domain produces toxicity? If so, please make that clear (and put it into a separate paragraph). Maybe move it to "Mechanism".

• Mechanisms
  • What is a "G protein"? Terms like this need to be glossed and linked.

• References
  • Please fix your references to always include PubMed (pmid) and PubMed Central (pmcid) IDs, when they are available. You should get these for free if you use the pmid to in the "cite journal" dialog box when creating the citation in the first place.

Klortho (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Klortho! We will pay close attention to these and will try to accommodate them as much as we can. I am having a bit of trouble currently since few of our sources mention AB5(5 subscript) whereas some use AB5 in the paper. For the sake of consistency, do you suggest we keep it AB5(without subscript)? Mmehta10 (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not sure. I think there's probably something in a manual of style somewhere, but I don't know, and don't have a preference. You decide. Klortho (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments Klortho. I think we will try to make the article less technical and be sure to link to other wiki pages. Gkaltam (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes thank you Klortho! We will keep working towards making this article more readable and informative! I did want to ask one question if I may, I found some pictures in journal articles which are freely accessible to public. Do we still need copyrights to use these in our article? Mmehta10 (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Kneal0627

Great job on your article so far! Below are some concerns and suggestions:

• AB5 toxins and Medical uses

-According to your Reference Wang et al., the primary function of the B subunit is to interact with glycan receptors. Is this always the case?

• Four families of AB5 toxins

-I think this section could use some expansion. It states that each family is characterized by its sequence of the A subunit and its catalytic activity. This section could be improved by further discussing the characterizations for each family. Also, rather than having a separate section listing specific examples of AB5 toxins, it could be incorporated when discussing each family type. Using a specific example for each family would help the audience better understand the characteristics of each family. Reference no. 3 Beddoe et al. provides several specific examples as well as the type of medical condition resulting from each. Adding medical conditions would benefit this article since it is discussing toxins.

• Structure

-Like Klortho stated, your target audience is a high-school student or college freshman. The language for this section is very technical.

-This section would greatly benefit from more images to better explain the typical structure of an AB5 toxin. Staying consistent with examples throughout the article, you could use a specific example already mentioned, such as Escherichia coli to show a complete AB5 toxin with six protein units. Another idea is to create a generalized structure for an AB5 protein.

-The article states that a complete AB5 toxin contains six protein units. Does each unit have a name? (This would be an opportunity to use a generalized structure of an AB5 protein.)Reference no. 5 shows crystal images and discusses the structures in great detail.

• Mechanisms

-This section would greatly benefit from images. Also, this section is also too technical. I agree with user Klortho that it should be broken down to more simple language and should also contain more wiki links.

-Another improvement on this section is discussing how the toxin of each family is transported into the cell. Reference no. 5 discusses the retrograde transport via the secretory pathway of the Ctx and Stx toxins. This reference also discusses each family of toxins; however, they are named differently than in your article.

• Medical uses

-Reference Wang et al., states the primary function of the B subunit; however, it also states that B subunit-receptor interactions may disrupt cell signaling pathways as you discussed in this section. This reference is careful to note that in these circumstances, the B subunit may contribute to pathogenesis independently of the toxic A subunit. This is something to consider in your discussion of disruption of cell signaling pathways.

• Table below references

-The purpose of this table of toxins and how it relates to your article is unclear.

Kneal0627 (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kneal! Thanks for your comments and suggestions. We will try to make the language less technical. Unfortunately we cannot take the images from our references because they are not open source. Gkaltam (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kneal, I agree with comments from Gkaltam. Also, the table below references shows where our topic 'AB5 toxins' lie in the grander scheme of things related to toxins (since not all toxins are bacterial). Thanks for all your suggestions. This will help us form this article more readable and informative.Mmehta10 (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely! I hope you found them beneficial. I've found that the use of wiki-links throughout the article is very helpful. It allows you to not go into as much detail. Typically, I have a separate Wikipedia window open when working on my article. I type various phrases into the search bar to see if there is already a Wikipedia page for that subject. If so, I link it to my article. You may find this helpful on the remainder of the project. Ah, I understand regarding the pictures. Perhaps we can find some from other sources or create with a diagram. Thank you for explaining the significance of the table. Kneal0627 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments form Wpeissner

This article has really made a good start! I would like to contribute the following comments and suggestions:

Writing style / typos

• There seems to be a typo right at the beginning of the first sentence: "The AB5 (or AB5) toxins..."; the "AB5" appears twice, before and inside the parentheses.
• Try to avoid general or vague statements. For example, in the lead section: "a number of pathogenic bacteria", "a similar mechanism for entering target host cells", and "the host cell's regular functions" - making these statements more specific and detailed would make the content more interesting and easier to follow.
• In section "Medical Uses" there are also phrases of similar vagueness, like "some type of tumors", or "certain immunological responses". The reader looking for information about AB5 toxins might probably want to know more details about these topics.

Categorization of AB5 toxins in section "Four families of AB5 toxin"

• I find this section quite confusing. The first part regarding toxin families does not use the the word "family" where I think it should: The first four bullet points list toxin families, right? If yes, this should be stated explicitly.
• The "list of AB5 toxins" does not assign the actual proteins to their respective family.
• I suggest combining the list of families and the list of proteins into one, and presenting it in form of a table or an illustration. The review by Fan et al. has a great illustration on page 661, figure 1, that gives a nice overview of AB5 toxin families and their structural homologies. If you cannot directly use this illustration, there may still be the option of using the content of this review for an informative presentation of toxin family relationships.
• Another illustration, similar to the one mentioned above, and an additional table of bacterial AB5 toxins can be found in the older review by Merritt and Hol.

Toxin mechanisms

• The toxin effects could be made more comprehensible for the average reader be explaining that most of the AB5 toxins stimulate secretion (through their A unit by ADP-ribosylation and modulation of the cellular cAMP system ) after binding to mucosal surfaces (via the B units). The increased secretion results in mild to severe enteritis and diarrhea (E. coli's LT, LT-I, LT-II and shiga-like toxins, cholera toxin, shiga toxin ) or respiratory inflammation and severe coughing (pertussis toxin).

AB5 toxins as adjuvants in vaccine production

• The immuno-modulatory effects of AB5 toxins make them powerful adjuvants in the design of vaccines. This topic is only mentioned very shortly at the end of the last paragraph. The article should include more details on this interesting topic in a form understandable by a non-expert reader.
• Adjuvants are important for vaccines containing purified antigens, since many of these antigens cannot trigger a sufficient immunologic reaction of the immune system on their own. This goal can be achieved by the addition of a suitable adjuvant, which is said to "boost" the immune response.
• Some AB5 toxins, e.g. the type-II heat labile enterotoxins, are known as very strong adjuvants in induction of mucosal and systemic immunity. The efficient interaction with mucosal surfaces seems to be caused by high-affinity binding of these AB5 enterotoxins to gangliosides on mucosa cell membranes.

References

Wpeissner (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wpeissner. Thank you so much for your comments and suggestions. The references you provided will be a wonderful addition to the ones we already have. We will continue to expand our article with your ideas in mind. Gkaltam (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks so much for your constructive criticism Wpeissner. We will try our best to include your recommendations in the coming weeks. Mmehta10 (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gkaltam and Mmehta10! I like the additions an clarifications you made in the meantime. Just on minor point: In the section on "Medical Uses" you seem to discern between "adjuvant" and "conjugate"; are these two words for the same thing or two different concepts? Bests, Wpeissner (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I love the additions and restructuring of the "Families" section. It's now really a pleasure to read. I just think that the placement of figures in the middle of the page is somewhat unusual and produces lots of "white space". Great article! Wpeissner (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SSumpf

• This article is coming along nicely with over 15 references and the three images that you have. Great job! The language is neutral, unbiased, and informative. I actually wouldn’t mind knowing what “certain pathogenic bacteria” you are referring to. The image you have is great with the example of the AB5 structure. In addition to that image, it may be helpful to add images for all four families.
• The lead section comes before the table of contents and the first heading, so it follows the style guidelines. Terms such as cholera, dysentery, and hemolytic-uremic syndrome are appropriately wikilinked. In fact, I am curious what is considered an appropriate amount of wikilinking myself! I am also curious about disambiguation links as “host cell” could be explained with a wikilink, but the wikilink is Host (biology). It may be helpful to explain the terms in addition to just the wikilinks so someone new to those concepts could understand them in the lead.
• The writing is clear and comprehensible in the lead section. I am curious what “specific targets” are in the structure section, so you could expand on that sentence. It may be helpful to add more wikilinks for terms such as “non-covalent interactions”. Also, the” Vibrio cholerae” wikilink does not exist.
• It may be helpful to create subsections for each of the four families so you can build on them further as well as easily link to them in the contents box.
• You may want to think about adding a diagnostic techniques or a “discovery” section. It may be inspiring to see how AB5 toxins came to be of medical use.
• I am curious if the lead section only has one source? It may be worth it to add more sources there. Also, in the end of the lead and the beginning of the structure section, there is repeated information, but the sources are different or unclear. It may be worth trying to explain it in a new way with an additional reference or in more detail in the structure section.
• The first question I had when I looked at the article was in regards to the table and wondering how it related. If you add the word “Examples of AB5 toxins” it may help clarify that they are not just random associated toxins. Also, “SubAB” in the mechanisms section could be developed or explained more. In addition, the medical uses section could have additional explanation, introducing or expanding on details such as “LT family” or “StxB” in addition to its’ wikilink. Also, including definitions in the various sections (for example, “conjugate vaccine” or “systemic immunization”) may help the article become easier to read. Great job overall!

--Ssumpf (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments Ssumpf! We will continue to wikilink interesing terms, and try to fix the dead links. We will also try to find more images especially for the Structure section. If they cannot be found, we may try to draw them ourselves. We are currently trying to expand the sections but this is an umbrella type topic that expands into smaller subtopics. Gkaltam (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ssumpf, Thanks for your comments! I just checked the link to Vibrio cholerae and it seems to be working now; perhaps there was some problem in that page when you tried? The diagnostic techniques are being incorporated under section 'medical uses' itself but we will add some more detail so that this is clearer. I do agree with adding more references overall and will work on this for the upcoming weeks. Thank you for the suggestions! Mmehta10 (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! All the links work for me now. I love the information included in the "medical use" section. It is very interesting and definitely peaks my curiosity. I also like the discovery information in the "four families of Ab5 toxin" section. I would love to see an image with all four families represented.--Ssumpf (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I am working on a mechanism one right now, but Inkscape is a hard program to use! Will update soon!Gkaltam (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I would love to know how that goes! Good luck - I also wanted to mention I thought it was interesting you have a section "Recent areas of research" which is a great reminder to stay current! Ssumpf (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Great progress on your article. One last thing I still suggest before the final post is in regards to the table to add the word “Examples of AB5 toxins” in order to clarify that they are not just random associated toxins. You might also want to play with image size and locations to see what looks the best. Ssumpf (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! Gkaltam (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

Since this is a fairly big topic with several different kinds this article can only be a summary article and should not get right down into the detail. Howeer I think this is achieved. More things to link to include: enterotoxin, heat-labile enterotoxin (I am surprised but there is an article called this), Sambhu Nath De, Vibrio cholerae(needs a spelling fix), Diarrhea (luckily there is no article on watery diarrhea), whooping cough, gram-negative bacterium, Pertussis vaccine (for vaccination), Jules Bordet (please fix spelling mistake) Octave Gengou, Hemolytic-uremic syndrome (variant spelling), Escherichia coli, (spell fix and italic style for species), hemorrhagic colitis (which may have other names), Protein domain, kDa (although the target is not too great), guanidino (nneds an explanation as where its linked to does not say), signal transduction pathway, ion transport, glycan, ER stress (is this right target?), IgG2a, (perhaps one of Immunoglobulin superfamily but needs explanation as Wikipedia does not address it elsewhere) IgA, and Th17, Nasal administration, Antibody mediated immune response.

Links in the see also section that are not in Wikipedia should go into an External links section with more reference like information. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

For a template you could use the Template:Pfam box to describe the family. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

For the medical uses are these actually used or just research ideas?

We could also do with a bit of a history section, if anyone has written about it. Who was the first to find that this was a family? Are evolutionary relationships between the toxins known? Is there more know about how to destroy the toxins? Heat is mentioned, but is UV or chlorine or other disinfectants useful? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The references could do with some improvement. Please do not abbreviate journal names, as we can only expect experts to be able to figure out what they mean. Article titles should use title case eg "Bordetella pertussis and Pertussis Vaccines". Include doi's whenever available eg doi=10.1086/644733. If you use cite journal template it will format consistently, with for example dates in parenthesis. If you know the authors first names, put them in too. But if only initials, use a "." after each. Use consistent separators between authors. If the reference is a book put in page numbers, otherwise it is very hard to find. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions Graeme Bartlett. We will continue to wikilink our article. There does not seem to be a history to AB5 toxins, but I will definitely look into it. The references were generated using the Cite Journal and either Doi numbers or PMIDs. So perhaps we will go back and see if we can fix them. Thanks!Gkaltam (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking out the time to review our article! Just to add to Gkaltam's comments, under medical uses we have included research ideas and actual uses such as vaccine development using AB5 toxin. We will work on making this aspect clearer. Thanks again!Mmehta10 (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Previte01

Lead section

Your lead section does a nice job of introducing the subject of AB5 toxins. It’s concise and easy to read. The second sentence sounded a little funny to me. It’s written as: “One component is known as the A subunit, and remaining five components make up the B subunit.” I think adding a “the” to make it “and the remaining five components,” may help with the flow of that sentence. I know others have commented on the fact that you haven’t included which specific pathogenic bacteria are responsible causing know human diseases. I could go either way on this. On the one hand, this is pertinent information that should be included in the article. On the other hand it grabs the reader’s curiosity and may have them reading for the sheer suspense of finding out, “who done it.” Either way, I think this is valuable information that will add relevant content to your article. It’s your choice where to put it.

Words you can wiki link in your article

• Dr Sambhu Nath De
• Robert Koch
• whooping cough
• paroxysmal could be linked to the wiki article paroxysmal attack
• Bordetella pertussis
• Jules Burdet is actually spelled Jules Bordet on the wiki article. Maybe a typo or an inaccurate source
• Octave Gengou
• Escherichia coli (spelling mistake)
• colitis
• cytotoxin could be wiki linked to cytotoxicity
• enterotoxins
• eukaryotic
• cleavage
• glycan
• IgA
• Th17
• Helicobacter pylori
• vaccine

Grammar Police

• Two items from above
• Sever should be severe in the 3rd bullet point of Four families of AB5 toxin
• First sentence of Medical Uses: “some type of tumors” should be “some types of tumors”

Structure

• In the third paragraph under the mechanisms section, I noticed you wiki linked Cholera and Pertussis even though you had wiki linked them earlier in the article. This is nothing major. Also, there is no need to capitalize the P in pertussis.

Content

You have a lot of really good sources and you do a great job of drawing from them in a neutral voice. The pictures are a great compliment to the article itself. I have provided a few additional sources that may help you.

• Multivalent Inhibition of AB5 toxins: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ja016305a This article specifically deals with E. coli’s Shiga toxin which I saw that you focused on in your article.
• Pathologic Changes in Mice Induced by Subtilase Cytotoxin, a Potent New Escherichia coli AB5 Toxin That Targets the Endoplasmic Reticulum: http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/196/7/1093.full.pdf html This is a really cool article that describes strains of the Shiga cytotoxin and how it affects mice.

Good luck and keep up the good work!Previte01 (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Previte01, and thank you so much for your suggestions. I have fixed the grammar issues that you have listed, and linked many of the things that you said to link. I also am very grateful for your additional sources. Unfortunately, the first link did not work when I tried to click on it. Thank you again for your kind words. Gkaltam (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Mechanisms section

Do you all think that the mechanisms section should be separated by each family rather than grouping similar functioning ones together? I feel like it may become a better flowing article that way Gkaltam (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Grittney, I agree with you but this would also lead to a lot of repetitions since the mechanisms have so much similarity! I would definitely love to hear from other readers and reviewers on this as well. Please add your comments here so we can make the article as clear and informative as possible.Mmehta10 (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I think it may make the article flow better, and it would certainly add length to this section. I understand your concern, Mmehta10. One way you could do address this issue is mention that it is similar in mechanism to another family and go into detail how it does/may differ. Kneal0627 (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Grittney. I also agree with you on this point and will work on this today. I think thats a great idea. It will make the article more clear as well as add more content. To avoid sounding redundant I think Kneal0627 makes a valid point that we could say they are similar and then focus on how they differ.ReeseLanger (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I see your point Kneal0627, we will work on making this section clearer. Thanks!Mmehta10 (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Neelix

You have done a great job with this article. Here are some suggestions for further improvement:

1. The title of the article should be bolded in the first sentence of the lead.
2. There should be no need to include any citations in the lead as the lead should only be a summary of the body.
3. All information should be sourced; the first paragraph of the "Structure" section and the last sentence of the "Mechanisms" section are currently unsourced.
4. There is no need to repeat the title of the article in section headings; "Four families of AB5 toxin" can be simplified to "Families".
5. There should be no bare urls, such as the one in the "External links" section.
6. It is redundant to include links in the "See also" section that are already in the navbox.
7. In order to be considerate of users with visual impairment, it would be beneficial to add alternative text to the images.

It is good to see how well this article has been progressing. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the above. Neelix (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Great suggestions Neelix! We will make the improvements based on some of your suggestions soon. Thanks for your feedback!Mmehta10 (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from DHayes14

The article is looking to be in great shape so far! I have reviewed your article and have some comments/suggestions that I hope you will find helpful. Please feel free to let me know if any of this information would benefit from further clarification.

I took an opportunity to compare the most current version of the article with the initial article and it looks as though you have really expanded on this topic quite a bit. Great job! I appreciate that you have clearly presented each category and that the categories are logically sequenced. Words and terminology are consistent throughout the document and the sentences used are short, simple, direct, and neutral. The titles, subtitles, and other headers help to clarify organization of the text.

I appreciate having the links included in the “See Also” box. This section organizes important links in one easy to find area. When I performed my own internet searches on AB5 toxin those same terms popped up frequently.

The graphics you have chosen to use so far are helpful in explaining the text, easy to understand, and seem as though they would be meaningful to the audience. The text and graphics go well together and they are simple and uncluttered. I agree with one of the other reviewers who suggested that the “Families” section would benefit from the addition of images for each type of family. DHayes14 (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive review DHayes14! Our next contribution should include all suggested improvements about images etc. Thanks again for your feedback.Mmehta10 (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback DHayes14! We will continue to try to find images for our Families section. Gkaltam (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that the images that you have added are terrific! I have only one minor suggestion, you may want to consider minimizing the amount of "white space" in the Families section by migrating photos to either the left or right. Otherwise, your article is looking really good! DHayes14 (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment DHayes14. I have reformatted the images so it fits better and reduces the white space as you suggested. Mmehta10 (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from PaleoBioJackie

Hi team, great job so far! Your article looks very nice. The illustrations are useful and extremely relevant, the overall grammar/spelling is great, and the overall organization is very easy to read and flows well.

I have just a few suggestions for you, please use as you see fit: Overall you have done a good job of making the article accessible to someone with only a basic biology background, especially the introduction which I feel is the most important section to be readily accessible to a non-expert. Throughout the rest of the article, a person can also look up Wikilinks to learn new terminology as they read the article. However, there might be some ways to make this article even easier to understand, by explaining some of the terminology. Specifically, the "Recent Areas of Research" section might be somewhat difficult to understand to a non-expert.

Great job Wikilinking so far! You have really covered a lot of them. Perhaps some more basic Wikilinks can be added, such as Calcutta/Kolkata, and 'infectious', among others. Some people visiting this site will be high school students, concerned patients, and scientists with English as a second language. Having words like 'infectious' Wikilinked might be useful to these groups.

Great utilization of your references. I thought the articles you chose were very relevant to your topic. I found that one sentence is a little ambiguous:"Whooping cough is spreading despite vaccination." When I initially read the Wikipedia article I assumed the rates were increasing because of decreasing vaccination rates among certain populations. However, the Millen citation you've referenced talks about how this is attributed to the relative inefficacy of the new acellular vaccines. Can you please specify here?

Overall, terrific job! If I were grading you today based on the rubric I would give you full credit in all categories. PaleoBioJackie (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words PaleoBioJackie. We will try to clarify those areas a bit more!Gkaltam (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I am loving the new figures of the toxins! Very nice additions overall! PaleoBioJackie (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive comments, PaleoBioJackie!I have made some edits based on what you suggested. Mmehta10 (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)