Note to reviewers: This article was written as part of PLoS Computational Biology's new Topic Page feature. The article was drafted on the PLoS topic page wiki, then peer reviewed and published on PLoS Comp Biol. Whilst I've nominated this article in its own right, I'd also appreciate any feedback as to how these Topic Pages can be closer aligned with WP guidelines.
"This method allowed for permutations to be introduced at arbitrary sites, and is still used today to design circularly permuted proteins in the lab." source?
"The Circular Permutation Database[8] contains 2,238 circularly permuted protein pairs with known structures, and many more are known without structures." I imagine this number will change, so perhaps "As of" would be useful here. Also, there shouldn't be an outgoing link in the article text.
In the "permutation by duplication mechanism" image (and accompanying text), it's not clear to me how the insertion of start/stop codons would cause the order of the genes to be swapped. Also, what does the "in place" part of "First, a gene is duplicated in place." mean?
"For a review on functional and structural features of saposin-like proteins, see Bruhn (2005).[17]" This type of reference isn't usual for a Wikipedia article. More common would be to put this in this "Further reading" section, or even better, to use the article as a source and cite it directly.
the references could use a bit of tidying; this is beyond GA-level requirements, so feel free to ignore (although I may clean them up myself in that case!)
journal titles should be in title case consistently (and please fix the ALL CAPS in Cheltsov 2001)
I've had a look at the recent literature in this topic and am confident that the article meets the criteria 3a ("addresses the main aspects of the topic") and 3b ("stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"). I've also verified several of the statements in the article and think the article complies with criteria 2a, b, and c. The images all have Wikipedia-compatible licenses. I'll be happy to promote to GA once the last issue with the lead is addressed. Sasata (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, all of my concerns have been resolved satisfactorily, and I am confident that the article meets the GA criteria. Good working with you, and I hope to see more of these computational biology topic pages here at GAN! Sasata (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]