Talk:Polysomy

Additions to Polysomy Article

Users Ssumpf and DHayes14 are working together on expanding the Polysomy article as part of a Molecular Biology course assignment. We hope to collaborate with others who are interested in this topic and we are open to suggestions. According to the existing version of the Polysomy article, Polysomy is a condition in which an otherwise diploid organism has at least one more chromosome than normal and is usually caused by non-disjunction. There are a few wiki articles on specific types of polysomy, such as Trisomy 21 (Down's Syndrome), and we will incorporate information for these topics in their relation to polysomy. Polysomy is considered a stub-class article of high importance in the molecular and cellular biology portal, but of medium importance on the genetics portal. This article could be expanded upon drastically and as we begin researching this topic we will be focusing on developing subtopics that further elaborate on Polysomy. In its current state this article appears as though it is an expanded dictionary definition, and only uses a glossary as a reference. There are plenty of verifiable resources available that contain no original research that we can utilize to develop the article. There are no images on the current article page, which we can definitely expand on. So far the article is neutral, but not broad or completely verifiable and we will aim to maintain a neutral tone. In the article Talk Page there has been no discussion among any Wikipedia editors about writing more in this article, but hopefully there will be some thoughtful intellectual exchanges that result from our work on this interesting article subject!

We will consider adding the following subsections as part of our efforts to bring this article to a class B or Good Article (GA) category:

1. Polysomy Definition
2. Polysomy Types
     2.1 trisomy
     2.2 tetrasomy
     2.2a quadrosomy
     2.2b quatrosomy
     2.3 pentasomy
     2.4 heptasomy
     2.5 hexasomy
     2.6 octosomy
     2.7 nanosomy
     2.8 decasomy
3. Polysomy in Animals
     3.1 Polysomy 13 in Canines
     3.2 Germ line polysomy in the grasshopper
     3.3 Heterochromatic polysomy in the cricket
     3.4 X-chromosome polysomy in Drosphilia
     3.5 Polysomy in humans
          3.5a Polysomy X (both male and female)
          3.5b Polysomy Y
          3.5c Polysomy of chromosome 7
          3.5d Polysomy of chromosome 8
          3.5e Polysomy of chromosome 17
          3.5f Trisomy 21
          3.5g Quadrosomy 4 & Quatrosomy 13
          3.5h Tetrasomy 9p
          3.5i Tetrasomy 18p
4. Polysomy in Plants
     4.1 Ornithogalum umbellatum L. (Liliaceae)
     4.2 Ophioglossum reticulatum
     4.3 Conifers
5. Polysomy in Fungi
     5.1 Saccharomyces cerevisiae
6. Terminology
     6.1 Aneuploidy
     6.2 Polyploidy
     6.3 Karyotype
     6.4 Paralogous
     6.5 Homologous
7. See Also
8. References
9. Further Reading
10. Links

Comments from Previte01

This article is coming along very nicely. I can tell that you have put a fair amount of work and research into it. Your lead section introduces and summarizes the topic of polysomy efficiently. I imagine that as your expand upon your article, you will want to revise your lead section and update it as you see fit. It was important that you included a reference to Down syndrome in your lead because it helps emphasize to the reader the importance of the article. I did a brief search for information on polysomy and one condition that is notable to include in your lead is Kleinfelter's syndrome. I am also intrigued by the fact that when you have polysomy on chromosomes 3, 17, and 31, there is an increased chance of certain cancers[Source]. It's unfortunate that terrible ailments are what catch people's attention, hence the reason for our news networks reporting on what they do. I apologize for the digression. I agree with Mnemcek in regards to the lead being neutral. I'd also like to add that you haven't used any complicated terms without providing an internal wiki link. The exception to my previous point would be the use of translocation in your lead. There is a wiki link that you could use, since it may be a word that is not understood by your audience.

I was able to visit your third source which was Griffiths, AJF; Miller JH, Suzuki DT, et al. (2000). The information you pulled from there was an accurate representation of the material. I hope you are able to find more sources to pull your information from. The section of further reading was a great idea and will hopefully inspire others to continue researching.

I'm not quite sure about the importance of the "Terminology" and "See Also" sections of the article. Perhaps they are useful as your are working on adding on to the article. I have been to several older articles such as down syndrome and HIV/AIDS and neither of these well established wiki pages have sections like this. They do however have an "external links" section toward the bottom which I imagine will replace one of these current sections.

The gaps in the content are quite obvious due to this being an early draft of the article. Rather than point out what's missing for sections that you already have listed, I'd like to make a few suggestions for future sections related to polysomy. Signs and symptoms, causes, diagnosis, screening, history, and society and culture are just a few possible additions you could add on. I understand if you already have planned on these and just not had the time to put them into the article. It will be interesting to see how you eventually end up managing all these different topics for plants, animals, humans, and fungi. Humans will be the one that requires the most work being that the tools for diagnosis and screening are more tailored towards humans.

I look forward to reviewing your progress and wish you the best of luck. I hope my critique was able to offer you a helpful perspective for your future endeavors. Previte01 (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Previte01! You have given us many good suggestions and food for thought. Given that I am encountering some challenges to finding important information on plants I will be talking to my groupmate, Ssumpf, about the possibility of adding other topics such as: diagnosis, screening, and history. I am wondering if signs and symptoms can be incorporated into the "Humans" section and can complement the Downs Syndrome, Kleinfelter's Syndrome, and other syndromes. Our article is definitely a work in progress and I like having the freedom to explore and add to new areas of Polysomy if I reach dead ends in other areas. Thanks again for reviewing our progress! DHayes14 (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Previte 01! I appreciate your feedback and will be adding more to the lead section during the next round of article contribution. We modeled our page from the polyploidy page, which specifically relates to polysomy. We may change the outline based on your feedback depending on the group consensus. Your critique was extremely helpful and we have already incorporated some of your suggestions! Thank you --Ssumpf (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

First peer review from Mnemcek

Great progress so far on this article! I think you have kept the language neutral/unbiased and informative without going into too much detail. In terms of layout, I like the way you organized it with multiple examples of different types of polysomy. I am assuming you will fill in the “Polysomy in humans” section in the coming weeks. Will you be expanding the “Polysomy in Fungi” section as well? It might be good to add a short description of the polysomy in the fungi you have listed (Saccharomyces cerevisiae).

I would also suggest possibly making a separate section (maybe towards the end of the article) that explains the difference between –ploidy and –somy in more detail. The small description you have in the lead section might be a little confusing for some readers.

I think the lead section does a great job of laying out an accessible overview of the topic. The first sentence seems to be a little bit redundant. Consider taking out “the number of a particular chromosome is not diploid”. I think the first part of that sentence implies this already. The second sentence is slightly confusing as well. You start by saying “genotype or phenotype” and end by saying “as compared to the natural genotype”. Maybe take out phenotype in the first part, since you are actually referring to just the genotype.

The image you have included in this article is a great way to show a potential cause of polysomy. If you add more images, a polysomic karyotype might be interesting to show to readers (something similar to this: http://www.glowm.com/resources/glowm/cd/pages/v5/ch089/framesets/001f.html)

Your references are a good mix of current and historical information from reputable sources. The only one I would question is the second reference to a blog. I’m not sure if this is necessary, but I can’t find the source from which they got their information on polysomy.

My last comment is on your “See Also” section. I’m not sure where Sympatry and Speciation fit into this topic. Will you be expanding the article to have information related to these two topics? They seem like they're more ecology-related as opposed to genetics. Mnemcek (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Mnemcek! We appreciate your constructive comments and appreciate this opportunity to get your feedback as we move forward with expanding this article. DHayes14 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mnemcek. After further investigation and reflection I wanted to let you know that I have taken your advice and have removed the Sympatry and Speciation parts in the "See Also" section. DHayes14 (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Mnemcek for your feedback! I have changed the lead section sentence as suggested and also deleted the word phenotype. We are busy filling in the remaining sections of the outline and will be re-visiting suggestions and filling out the lead as part of our final contribution. The blog came form a scholastic resource, so I will discuss with my partner for replacements in the future. I appreciate the helpful commentary!--Ssumpf (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Klortho

• General comments
  • Needs more content. You have a good start, but you especially need more prose content. I think you should be a little bit further along than this by now.
    • The latter part of this comment is not constructive. Please try to maintain a positive atmosphere as we are working hard to gather and produce information on this topic.--Ssumpf (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• The lead
  • Move your first "[1]" reference to the end of the sentence.
  • You use a lot of technical terms without first properly introducing them or glossing them. For example, in "The genotype or phenotype of an aneuploid organism ...", the term "aneuploid" should be introduced first. Even though the meaning becomes more clear later in the paragraph, put yourself in the shoes of a reader who doesn't know these terms. He/she should be able to read it without having to skip back and forth. Other terms like that: "karyotypes", "euploid".
  • "The genotype or phenotype of an aneuploid organism ..." - why phenotype? The rest of the paragraph just talks about genotype. Either explain/elaborate, or remove that word.
  • You are missing some wikilinks, for example: aneuploidy
    • Thank you for pointing out the missing wikilink. I believe that I have corrected all the missing ones but please let me know if there are others. Thank you! DHayes14 (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You'll have seen by now that I marked your image for deletion. Sorry about that! But, you have to be more careful to make sure that the images you select are free to reuse.
    • I have been in contact with the publisher and they are researching the use of the image. All other suggestions have been taken into consideration and edits were made accordingly.--Ssumpf (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Polysomy types
  • Could this section be merged somehow with "Terminology"? They both seem to mostly consist of a list of terms, with explanations. I don't think "terminology" is a good section -- terms should be introduced and linked as they are used, and I don't think there should be a need for a separate section.
  • I really like the cursory treatment in the lead, but this Polysomy types / terminology section could maybe go into more detail about how "polysomy" fits into the whole landscape of chromosome abnormalities. You should also somewhere link to the chromosomal_duplication article, which has a lot of overlap with this one.
  • More wikilinks, please. Most of these individual "somy" terms have their own articles.
    • Actually, pentasomy-decasomy do not have wikilinks.--Ssumpf (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Polysomy in ... sections
  • Rather than "polysomy in animals/humans/plants/fungi", why not just one section with a heading something like "Examples of polysomy"?
  • Try to avoid having lists of things. Prose is better for encyclopedia articles. You should be able to talk about and describe, at least in a sentence or two, each of the notable examples.
    • This article was modeled after the "B" stub-class polyploidy article structure as they are closely related, so we will most likely stick to something similar.We have added the link to chromosomal_duplication in the see also section for now--Ssumpf (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

All in all, it is a good start, but there is definitely room for improvement! Klortho (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback! Please keep in mind this article is a work in progress and this article is at the first stage of development.Ssumpf (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I neglected to put a header in for my comments -- fixed now. Regarding this edit, you shouldn't ever change a comment left by someone else on a talk page. The talk page, unlike an article page, should be a record of the conversation. Finally, as I mentioned on my talk page, keep in mind that my comments are just suggestions, and if you don't agree with any of them, feel free to push back. Klortho (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I always welcome helpful suggestions and constructive criticism. Please try to maintain a positive atmosphere as we are working extremely hard to gather and produce information on this topic. This is only our first post and our first time having to use wiki programming language. May I remind you, this is a work in progress in its' first stage of development Ssumpf (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Klortho, for taking the time to review our draft article and for providing feedback. We agree that prose will really help to add to the quality of this article and we are actively working on identifying reliable sources for meaningful information. The lists included on the article page, in most cases, are placeholders that will be further elaborated on throughout this semester. DHayes14 (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work you put into this article since I left these comments. It really shows! Klortho (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Klortho. We will continue to expand the diagnostics section and work on the lead, explaining terms such as aneuploidy and karyotype, before the final post. Much appreciated!Ssumpf (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to report that I am making good progress on expanding the "Diagnostics" section, and will publish my prose after submitting to Turnitin first. I have found great information regarding the use of microarray analysis, maternal blood sampling for fetal cells, RFLP analysis, and flow cytometry. I hope to add newly published information that isn't already included within pre-existing diagnostic tool wiki pages. DHayes14 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi DHayes! In reviewing the recent additions, it appears as though the diagnostics are written in relation to polyploidy rather than polysomy. Perhaps they could be clarified in how they are used in polysomy? 98.176.81.78 (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Additions and changes to Polysomy Article

I have expanded on the "Fungi" section and have made several other changes based on commentary on the article Talk Page. After conducting further research I found some interesting information on the Diagnostic Tools used to identify polysomy. I have only identified one primary tool "FISH" but it seems to be an accepted and well-established diagnostic tool. Please let me know if you think a better header for this section would be appropriate. Feedback regarding the Fungi section is welcome too. Thanks! DHayes14 (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I found some information as well, so I am in the process of compiling informations to add to the section - I am happy with the heading, but I'm open to change if you liked something else better. I like the additions to the fungi section, especially the image. I would like to understand a little more about the genes RNA1 and LEU2 sequences because I do not understand them. We can add pulsed field gel electrophoresis to the diagnostics section and expand on it there as well. I think "Diagnostic Tools" should be it's own section rather than a subsection in humans. --Ssumpf (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Question about location of graphic in insect section

Hi Ssumpf! I love the graphic that you found to include in the insects section. I am wondering what you think about the idea of moving it to the left side of the page? I am not sure how easy this is to do but I wanted to hear your thoughts. I saw that you mentioned that you already resized the image and I would definitely not recommend making it smaller. I figured if we moved it to the left it would be less likely to creep into the plants section. DHayes14 (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Love what you did with the diagnostics explanation! If you could figure out how to move the picture the way you envision, I welcome any changes! I had zero success in my attempts. All it did when I tried earlier was move it down. Perhaps our wiki tech could help? I left you a note on the group talk page re: expanding the humans section from the bottom up and I could work from the top down of our outline. I think that section needs to be expanded. I also want to add at least 5 more pictures before our final contribution(I have a list from wikicommons). --Ssumpf (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I do like that image so I'll try to move it to the left even if I need to ask the wiki tech for help. As for the humans section, since it is such a big topic I will be happy to start working from the bottom up. Great idea! I am going to migrate over to the group talk page now to check out your message. Thank you for the head's up! DHayes14 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI- I successfully moved the image to the left side of the page... let me know what you think! DHayes14 (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi DHayes14! I have been playing with image locations and sizes, finding other articles that have various pictures and I LOVE the look of the insect image on the left! If you find any images you want to re-size just take a look at how the chromosome 7 image is coded for resizing. Feel free to move or delete images you are not convinced about, but I am happy with the ones I added today and actually had fun with it--Ssumpf (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Richarnj

I can see you have definitely put a lot of work into your article and it looks really good. I will start with some of my overall impressions before I go further into each section. Your article is unbiased and presents well-cited factual information; however, your writing seems a little too technical in many places. You have done an excellent job of wiki linking in order to further explain difficult concepts, but you may want to consider simplifying particularly the lead section. This may be as easy as simplifying your sentence structure; currently it is possible to get confused by all of the clauses within each sentence. Reviewing your sources, it also seems that you have accurately captured the information without restating the original articles. As I suggested before you may want to consider slightly simplifying your lead section. Keilana informed me during the last peer review that the lead section is meant to be a summary of the detailed information cited elsewhere in your article. This means that you do not need to have in-line citations in the lead section. I would also recommend adding a section to the body of the article regarding the differences between polysomy and polyploidy, as the lead section is the only place this is currently mentioned.

Your figures and the table are helpful in illustrating the material you explain in the text of the article and fit well within the headers under which they are located. I would however, question the value that the terminology section is adding. Most of the terms are referenced and wiki linked elsewhere in the article making the section redundant. Those terms that are not mentioned may confuse a reader as to how the term applies to polysomy. Perhaps you could consider incorporating all of the terms into the article and removing this section.

I like how, from your outline, it looks like you are planning on making the bulk of the content example based. This is very informative, but I would also consider adding sections on how polysomy is detected and any research being conducted on the topic. You have a good start with the diagnostic tools section, although I am not sure if I would place that section under Polysomy in humans. If you continue following the structure of the rest of the article I would put examples of polysomy in this section and relocated the Diagnostic tools to a separate section possibly including other methods of detection. Richarnj (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful feedback, Richarnj! Regarding the use of wiki-linking throughout the article (and sometimes using it multiple times), I kind of like giving our audience the option of skimming our article for the specific information they are looking for and then they can easily click on the wiki-link within that section for additional information. I would hesitate to remove additional wiki-links unless for some reason it isn't following the style guide. Regarding the detection of polysomy, to be honest there just isn't a whole lot of information out there on the web and I have included what reliable information I have been able to identify so far. Since we have so much work to do on the humans section the plan is to work on doing a major expansion in that section and then we can add new sections as time allows. However, I do like your idea about relocating the "Diagnostic Tools" category and will talk with my partner about your suggestion. Thanks! DHayes14 (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Richarnj, for your comments. I agree about the article being technical in places. We will be working on defining terms more clearly and fine tuning the article before our final post. I have eliminated a few parts of the lead and will continue to work on simplifying it. I will also expand more on polyploidy as I could see how it could be confusing. I just deleted the terminology section as I think wikilinks have that covered. I also created a new diagnostic tools section and look forward to expanding it further. Ssumpf (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been making great progress on your article. The additional examples are really helping to expand the topic, and although still somewhat technical, much of the language is now easier to understand. I apologize if I suggested that you remove wiki-links; that was not my intention. I was mainly focused on simplifying the language. I would also recommend reconsidering the layout of the images in the Polysomy in humans section. Particularly the images in the section on sex chromosomes make the section difficult to navigate. I look forward to seeing your final article. Richarnj (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive feedback and for the suggestions regarding the images in the section on sex chromosomes. We will definitely take your suggestion under consideration! Best wishes, DHayes14 (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Wpeissner

• The article gathers a wealth of very interesting information, which is great!
• The definition of the term polysomy in the lead section is not entirely clear; some parts are potentially confusing:
  • I think that the most helpful way of explaining polysomy is by contrasting it with polyploidy. While polyploidy involves duplication or multiplication of the full set of all chromosomes (e.g. 4n instead of 2n, where n is the number of unique chromosomes in the haploid set), polysomy means that a single chromosome or only a certain number of chromosomes, but not all, are duplicated or multiplied.
  • Your use of the term diploid in the first sentence of the lead section seems to imply that the diploid state is always the norm. There are, however, organisms and cell systems (many plants, human megakaryocytes, ...) that are normally polyploid. You should clearly state that polysomy means a deviation form the norm involving specific chromosome(s).
• According to the above differentiation form polyploidy, a specific polysomy is explicitly denoted by stating what chromosome(s) are affected, for example "polysomy of chromosomes 7 and 13" or "X-chromosomal polysomy". You should consider adding the information about the affected chromosomes to the given examples, e.g. in the table under section "polysomy types".
  • The table of section "polysomy types" contains a minor error: "hexasomy" means six copies of a given chromosome, and "heptasomy" seven of them, not the other way around.
• Section "polysomy in canines" deals manly with the role of polysomy in cancer development. I think the acquisition of polysomy of a cell line as one of the contributing lesions in the development of cancer is much more relevant, than the fact that some of these observations were made in canines. I would suggest re-labeling this section to "polysomy in cancer cells", or similar.
• I also think that the layout and the section headings of the Polysomy article do not necessarily have to mirror exactly the layout and headings of the Polyploidy article: Polyploidy is a phenomenon that mostly occurs physiologically, so it makes sense to organize its treatment by animal species or organ types. Polysomy, on the other, by definition is an abnormal condition. So the organization of the article could also reflect functional topics, for example:
  • polysomy syndromes that occur in the oocyte or sperm and affect the whole organism (e.g. Down syndrome),
  • mosaic polysomy syndromes (polysomy affects only parts of the body, e.g. Hypomelanosis of Ito),
  • somatic mosaicism in cancer (cancer cells of (parts of) the tumor show polysomy, but not normal non-cancerous cells).
• The sentence of the lead section "Polysomy is usually caused by non-disjunction (the failure of a pair of homologous chromosomes to separate) during meiosis" has only one half of the full picture: Nondisjunction can also occur during mitosis in somatic cells. Mitotic nondisjunction gives rise to somatic mosaicism; this is particularly relevant for polysomy of cancer cells, which usually results from mitotic nondisjunction and leads to a polysomic mosaic, i.e. some cells of the tumor tissue show polysomy, but others not.
• The section about diagnostic tools could be clarified by describing for each of the techniques mentioned what samples or patients are examined and what diagnostic question can be answered.
• The section titled "polysomy in plants" is somewhat confusing: First it should be clarified that polyploidy is very common in flowering plants. Then you could comment on the association of polyploidy and polysomy in plants, if there is any: Is polysomy more frequent in (polyploid) plants? How do the consequences of polysomy in (polyploid) plants differ form that in (diploid) animals?
  • The term "karyotype reconstruction" is not sufficiently explained; consider more extensive explanations if this concept is important here, or removal if not.
• Many of the given examples have no respective inline citation: e.g. the examples in the table of section "polysomy types" or the list of plant species in section "polysomy of plants".

I'm looking forward to following the progress of your article. Best wishes, Wpeissner (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback about our article! My partner and I will be talking about how to best incorporate your very thoughtful suggestions. We welcome your future feedback about our article and thank you again for putting together such detailed comments. DHayes14 (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful suggestions, Wpeissner. I agree about expanding on the explanations of polysomy and polyploidy and am having difficulty finding appropriate references that simplify them, but will continue working on it! The diploid reference is part of the original article, so my partner and I will continue to discuss how to best edit the lead, perhaps deleting the initial contribution. We are happy with the organization, but I am not opposed to change if I really bothered someone, especially since this is a public forum. I also like having polysomy in animals, etc… because it made it easier to organize as it mirrors a similar article topic of the class we are striving for. It may change in the future as more information becomes available. I have added a ton of references and edited the table – good catch! Thank you for all your helpful information on nondisjunction. The statement came from the reference, so I will look for additional references to include for the mitotic and other functional features of polysomy. Ssumpf (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi DHayes14 and Ssumpf, the article has made impressive progress with all those great illustrations! My only pain-point is still the section "polysomy in plants": I tried to read it multiple times but I still do not understand what these two sentences are saying. Wpeissner (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wpeissner! Regarding the "plants" section, I think that we were just trying to point out that polysomy occurs in plants as well as in humans and animals. I was hoping that there would be more literature available to further elaborate on the mechanism of polysomy in plants but this seems to be an under-studied area in the field to date. I am open to receiving suggestions for restructuring the existing prose to make it more easily understandable. DHayes14 (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps DHayes could expand a little on the plant section and help clarify the two sentences, including references for where each plant polysomy type came from in a similar manner to what I did with the table to help validate the resources there. Ssumpf (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi DHayes and Ssumpf, I'm certainly not an expert in plant biology, but maybe "B chromosomes" is a topic that could be relevant here: B chromosomes are supernumerary components of the genome of many plants. They have no known function and are sometimes even called "parasitic elements". B chromosomes seem to be more prone to nondisjunction and resulting polysomy than normal chromosomes. If you're interested you can look at chapter 10 of the book "Plant Genome Diversity" (ISBN 9783709111598) which is also available in electronic format from the JHU library. Wpeissner (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, Wpeissner! I will definitely check it out. DHayes14 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I published modified prose this evening, along with references for each of the plant species. I hope that my additions have made this section more user-friendly :) DHayes14 (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! You really managed to bring this whole article into impressive shape! There is just one minor thing I wanted to suggest this time: You mentioned "Tetrasomy 9p" and "Tetrasomy 18p" in the section on "Polysomy in humans". I suppose that these conditions involve duplication/multiplication of chromosomal parts instead of full chromosomes? Is it appropriate to use the term "partial polysomy" here? Maybe you can include the distinction between "full" and "partial" polysomies also in the definition of the lead section. Wpeissner (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme

• My first query is where did all the names like nanosomy come from? Nanosomy only seems to have been used as a term for some kind of dwarfism. Only up to tetrasomy were confirmed by the blog reference. Much of the Glossomics blog reference would not be counted as reliable, as you cannot tell where most of the information came from.

I will eliminate Glossomics prior to the next post and add a dictionary or article reference for the terms as they are all valid types of polysomy. --Ssumpf (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for being so responsive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• When you use an article link like remission (medicine), use a pipe to make it say what you want in the text like this: [[remission (medicine)|remission]] to get this result: remission

Thank you. This is actually helpful!--Ssumpf (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Some terms need explanation or links: centric fusion mole-cricket (which=Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa) Drosophila (which should be in italic) metafemale (explained ok) Ornithogalum umbellatum, Ophioglossum reticulatum, Cultivar R570

Some of these terms do not have links. However, the ones that do, I will add and I will eliminate the ones that do not. --Ssumpf (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't fear the redlink. If the term is spelled correctly and it is a valid topic to write about then you can link to a future article. But you may have to explain it yourself if there is no article to read further. I am expecting if someone hs done research on a species, then that organism could get an article written about it. I was hinting here also to put the species and genera in italics. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Link the first use of a technical term like prostate cancer.

I will add that particular wikilink before our next post. Please feel free to help and add things you feel are important as this is a public wiki article. --Ssumpf (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This was letting you get the credit for it! Anyway the point was to link the first use rather than the second use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Flourescence in situ hybridization is a red link because it is spelled wrongly. No need to link it twice in the same paragraph anyway.

I will edit the term and will remove the second wikilink since it occurs within the same section. DHayes14 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• When you have a very non controversial statement you do not need fluff like "The merriam-webster dictionary states", it is quite adequate to leave this to the reference as many other references could confirm the statement.
• Instead of linking chromosome in "chromosome 3", it is much better to link to the more specific chromosome 3. Some of those links are not very useful, such as chromosomes. If people are halfway through the article already they probably don't need several links to chromosome in a paragraph.

I have updated the wikilink to send the audience to "chromosome 3". DHayes14 (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• The see also and terminology sections do not need to link to anything that you already linked to in the main text. So they can be trimmed.
• The P.M. Kirk reference [22] is a bit of a mess.
• The Glossomics reference [2] needs more expansion. (but if this is disappearing don't worry! But the others may get renumbered Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC))
• a stray [ in the reference [3]. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Amontei2 - Peer review 3

First of all I would like to congratulate you on the great article! The language is easy to understand, the illustrations are a great addition (including the table), and the organization of the article is easy to follow and it flows beautifully! I am not familiar with how the page looked before – Did it existed? If so, what was the status? In regards to what you have now, I don’t see anything that needs to be changed or improved as I think you aimed the main points on explaining what polysomy is.

• My suggestions are as follows:
  • Should you expand a bit on the diagnostic tools? For an ordinary person, how do you diagnose your fetus with polysomy. I didn’t see any info about amniocentesis, should you add it?
  • How was polysomy discovered? Maybe that would be another interesting section to add 

I hope this little comment helps, and I am sorry I didn’t add much as I honestly think your article is great as is now! Good luck finalizing it. Amontei2 (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! We must be on the same wavelength because I am really interested in expanding the diagnostics section. I know my partner, DHayes14, has researched polysomy discovery with no avail, but I may try as well before the final post is due because I am curious to understand how it was discovered as well. It may actually even add some insight as to how the diagnostics came about. The article had only 3 references and a few sentences in the lead when this project began. I really appreciate your input.Ssumpf (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Neelix

You have been doing a great job with this article. Here are some recommendations for further improvement:

1. Check the article for spelling errors; Edwards syndrome, for example, is called Edwards syndrome because it was named after John Hilton Edwards.
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. Avoid bunching text between images, as is currently occurring in the "Polysomy of chromosome 8" section.
4. The article would look better if the lead images were moved to the top of the article so that the images and text of the lead were side-by-side.
5. The "Links" section currently duplicates the functionality of the "See also" section; these two sections should be merged.
6. This article currently has only two incoming links from other Wikipedia articles. I would recommend linking to this article from other articles, either manually or by adding a link to a relevant navbox. You may wish to consider whether or not this navbox would be suitable.
7. There is no need to repeat the title of the article in section headings; "Polysomy in insects" can be simplified to "Insects", etc.

Thank you for developing this article so well. I hope you will contact me if you have any questions about the above. Neelix (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Neelix. I really appreciate your suggestions and have edited the article. I left the images in the lead as the location was helpful for me to understand the images after reading the lead section. I added the navbox. That was a great addition! Ssumpf (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from CarpeDiem90

Wow, I learned quite a bit from reading your article! Great job on the article! Here are a few of my suggestions: 1. I know that Dr. Ogg said to not worry about grammar too much, but please review your article before submission. For example, in the introduction, there is an unnecessary semicolon in in the first sentence after the ie. in the parentheses. 2. I agree with Neelix in that references and external links should be avoided in the introduction/summary paragraph. 3. I liked how you have organized the different types of polysomies in a table. 4. The pictures should be spread out more, instead of being bunched up. It takes the attention away from the text. 5. Personally, if time permits, I'd say you can expand on the "Diagnostic tools" area of the article. There has been a lot of ongoing research on such subject matter and it would be helpful to use that information in the article. Overall, great job guys! CarpeDiem90 (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing our article, CarpeDiem90! Several reviewers have mentioned that they would be interested in seeing more information in the "Diagnostic tools" section, and this is definitely one area that I plan to expand on in the few remaining days. DHayes14 (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, CarpeDiem90. I have edited the semicolon. We will also work to expand the diagnostics section. I have edited the images so they are not interfering with text, at least from the view on my laptop - I have noticed image views can change depending on the window you are looking through. If we have time, we will add a broader overview without references to the lead. However, from my understanding, it does not hurt to have references, but is certainly not "required" or necessary.Ssumpf (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The article looks great!! Great job on the edits and everything! CarpeDiem90 (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Amanaresi

Hi Sierra and Deborah-nice work with your article! Some comments:

• First two sentences in the lead section seem a bit repetitive.
• May want to explain karyotype (I wasn’t sure, had to look this up), like you explained non-disjunction in the next sentence.
• In the polysomy type section, is decasomy the highest polysomy type that exists?
• I feel like Polysomy in humans should be its own heading, not a sub-heading under Polysomy in animals (or maybe change the word animals to mammals).
• I think maybe the placement of the images in the Polysomy of sex chromosomes could be improved—and maybe briefly make mention of Klinefelter’s Syndrome as well before the images appear.
• May want to explain what nuchal edema is (shown in Down syndrome image)—I was unsure and had to look up.
• If you have time, I would be interested to see some more info in the diagnostic tools section, if this information is available.

Overall great job!! It was easy to read and informative.-Amanaresi (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful feedback, Amanaresi! One of my goals during this last week is to expand on the diagnostic tools section. Regarding the nuchal edema image, I think that what I was trying to show was an image of ultrasound being used to determine possible Trisomy 21 in utero. Your point is a good one though, and I don't want to unintentionally confuse our audience. I'll revisit this section and see what I can do to make things clearer. DHayes14 (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Amanaresi! I have made a few edits based on your suggestions, including changing animals to mammals, further identifying Kleinfelter’s syndrome as a type of Polysomy X, and better explaining karyotype aside from having the wikilink there. The first two sentences are important as diploid and aneuploid are introduced. However, we will be expanding the lead and diagnostics section for the final post. Ssumpf (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI: article copied on yahoo answers

This article was already pasted into a yahoo response (without credit/appropriate citation might I add) from user: Louis: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140328055835AAvxL26 --Ssumpf (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)