Talk:Circulating microvesicle

or

This article is part of an assignment from Saint Louis University in Spring 2013 (see the course page for more details).

Microvesicle vs. microparticle vs. nanoparticle/vesicle

What is the justification for using "microvesicle" instead of "microparticle" or "membranous microparticle"? The literature is not unanimous on classifying exosomes as microvesicles, and the term "nanovesicles" is also in use. My understanding is that microparticles are membranous vesicles that include both exosomes and microvesicles. SpectraValor (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments from MChapman5

• One thing that jumps out at me right away is that you seem to lack citations because of the way you created them. Instead of listing them all at the end of the paragraph, I would try and make more citations at the end of each sentence.

• There are hardly any wiki-links within your article. By adding links to other wiki pages, you will allow this page to be found more often and will be able to integrate your material with other pages.

• If possible, I would add a couple of figures, like in the section of Mechanisms of cMV signaling. Perhaps you can create your own image or find suitable open access images from some journal articles.

• It looks like you created a leading paragraph under Circulating microvesicle formation and contents. I would expand upon the knowledge here of what this entire section contains. That way, the reader will not have to scroll through all the detailed information if he is only looking for a quick, general explanation.

• Under Process of formation, do you think it would be a good idea to create a box or a list to compare microvesicles and endosomes instead of having all of it written out in paragraph style? Maybe you can break down this section into several more subheadings (ex: budding, endocytosis, migration, etc.)?

• I went through the article and deleted some words that I felt were unnecessary. You can look at the page history to see the specifics of what I did.

• I edited your sentence spacing throughout the document. There was an inconsistency of one space or two spaces after each sentence, so I made all the sentences just one space.

• I edited spelling and grammar. You can look at the page history to see the specifics of what I did.

• I double-checked several of your sources throughout the article. From what I can tell, it looks like you re-phrased the material nicely into your own words and integrated the information into an informative, understandable way.

• After reading the article, I feel like I am left wanting more information on the Clinical applications of microvesicles. You do a nice job explaining the aspects of cancer in clinical applications, but what about other disease states? Does it expand beyond cancer? Maybe you can add another section or two with different summaries or future research in disease models if these clinical aspects exist.

• The section on Molecular contents of cMVs seems a bit lengthy. You may want to consider splitting this up into several parts, like you did with your section on Mechanisms of cMV signaling. From what I can tell, the contents could spend sections such as: lipid content, protein content, nuclear content, etc.

• You do a great job keeping the information short, concise, and avoiding unnecessary prose. Nice work.

I will periodically check back on your article to see if I find any new corrections or have any more critiques. Great job so far! MChapman5 (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• The exosome article does not have a link to this page, but one definitely should be added.

• It would be helpful to respond to the merger discussion explaining why you think the articles should be kept separate. Then maybe the box can be removed. It has been unchanged with minimal discussion for quite a long time.Biolprof (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)