From CellBiology

My Student Page


Z3330991 (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2016 (AEDT)

Z3330991 (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2016 (AEDT)

Z3330991 (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2016 (AEST)

Z3330991 (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2016 (AEST)

Z3330991 (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2016 (AEST)

Z3330991 (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2016 (AEST)

Z3330991 (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2016 (AEST)

Z3330991 (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2016 (AEST)

Z3330991 (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2016 (AEST)

Z3330991 (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2016 (AEST)

(Additional attendance- forgot to log attendance twice- sorry! )


Group Projects
This year's main topic is Blood Cell Biology. Each group should discuss with group members the specific sub-topic that will be covered by their project.

Here is a list of some of the cell types (Structure and Function)

Cell Type (PuMed citations)

Below are the groups to which students have been randomly assigned. You should now on the project discussion page add your own suggestion for a specific topic. Once your group has agreed on the topic, add this as a heading to the project page before Lab 3.

2016 Projects: Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 | Group 6 | Group 7

Group 1: User:Z5017493 | User:Z3330991 | User:Z5020043 | User:Z5020175 | User:Z3489355

Group 2: User:Z5018320 | User:Z5015980 | User:Z3376375 | User:Z3461106

Group 3: User:Z5019595 | User:Z5019962 | User:Z5018925 | User:Z3461911

Group 4: User:Z5020356 | User:Z3463895 | User:Z3376502 | User:Z3423497 | User:Z5021149

Group 5: User:Z5015719 | User:Z3462124 | User:Z3463953 | User:Z5017292

Group 6: User:Z5018866 | User:Z3329177 | User:Z3465531 | User:Z5105710

Group 7: User:Z5021060 | User:Z5016365 | User:Z5016784 | User:Z3414546 | User:Z3417773

Group Assessment Criteria

Group Assessment Criteria

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
  4. The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations.
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
  6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of cell biology.
  7. Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki.
  8. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
  9. The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning.
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.
Individual Lab Assessments
Lab 8 Assessment
2016 Lab 8 - Lab 8 Assessment (to be completed before Lab 9)
  1. Add your peer assessment to your own student page to the site.
  2. Add your peer assessment to each project discussion page to the site.
Lab 6 Assessment
2016 Lab 6 -
  1. Identify an antibody against your group blood cell protein that is commercially available.
  2. Add a link to the original data sheet page and identify the type of group blood cell protein.
  3. Include the following information: type of antibody (polyclonal, monoclonal), species raised in, species reacts against, types of application uses, and if available any reference using that antibody.
Lab 2 Assessment
2016 Lab 2 - Super resolution microscopy
  1. Find a recent research article (not review) that uses super resolution microscopy technique.
  2. Write a brief summary of the paper (referenced) and what the super resolution microscopy technique showed.
    1. This should not simply be the abstract of the paper.
    2. This can be 2-3 paragraphs no longer.
  3. Include a super resolution microscopy image from the paper.
    1. Therefore the paper must be from a source that you can reuse.
    2. Image uploaded as in Lab 1 (summary box - description/reference/copyright/student image)
    3. Image should appear as a "thumbnail" (thumb) next to your paper summary (with citation legend) See Test page
Lab 1 Assessment
2016 Lab 1 - Lab 1 Assessment (to be completed before Lab 2) The test page I set up in the Lab
  1. Add your own student page to the site.
  2. Add your signature for Lab attendance.
  3. Add a sub-heading.
  4. Add an external Link.
  5. Add an internal Link.
  6. Add an image from PubMed, PloS or BioMed Central journal related to prokaryote cellular component. Make sure it includes both the reference and copyright information, with the file and where it appears on your page.

Lab 1 Assessment

Search PubMed

prokayrotic cytoskeleton

PMID 26756351

Katherine Ann Hurley, Thiago M A Santos, Gabriella M Nepomuceno, Valerie Huynh, Jared T Shaw, Douglas B Weibel Targeting the bacterial division protein FtsZ. J. Med. Chem.: 2016; PubMed 26756351

M Srisurapanont, N Jarusuraisin Opioid antagonists for alcohol dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: 2005, (1);CD001867 PubMed 15674887

R Sinha How does stress increase risk of drug abuse and relapse? Psychopharmacology (Berl.): 2001, 158(4);343-59 PubMed 11797055

Rajita Sinha Chronic stress, drug use, and vulnerability to addiction. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.: 2008, 1141;105-30 PubMed 18991954

Thomas R Kosten, Tony P George The neurobiology of opioid dependence: implications for treatment. Sci Pract Perspect: 2002, 1(1);13-20 PubMed 18567959

BioMed Central


What I've learnt so far

During today's lab I have learnt how to create my student page. While creating my student page l have discovered how to add and edit what is on my student page. First I learnt how to sign in my attendance at the start of the class. Formatting subheadings, headings and uploading an image was a big component of todays lab. Additionally adding links that are both internal and external, that allow me to have easy access and direct link on my student page for references or simply for convenience. Creating a file for an image and the key components that follow the copyright rules and regulations was one of the last things I learnt during the lab and the most important.

How to make an in-text citation

Bacterial division protein FtsZ.[1]

Student image

Prokaryote .jpg

The difference in the division machinery of prokaryotic cells including mitochondria and chloroplasts across the three domains of life[2]

You can also set it to any size you want, this is 200px wide.

Prokaryote .jpg

The difference in the division machinery of prokaryotic cells including mitochondria and chloroplasts across the three domains of life[2]

Lab Assessment 2


STED imaging of Natural Killer synapse on planar lipid bilayer[3]

An increasing clarification in the understanding of the Immunological synapse in recent years is due to the advent of the variety of super resolution techniques. It is now possible to view the fine details of synapse structure due to the recent advancement in super resolution imaging. In this paper the Stimulated Emission Depletion (STED) is an advanced technique that is used to learn the composition of the Natural Killer cell synapses on the glass- supported lipid bilayer (SLB).

This experiment demonstrates the practicality and the application of combining the glass supported planar lipid bilayer system with the STED technique, as well as the intercellular structures at the Natural Killer cell synapse with super resolution. The development of super- resolution imaging techniques made visualizing molecular –scale structures more clear and fixed using electron microscopy. Previously the Standard illumination techniques used meant that the minimum resolution had been <200nm, which consequently hinders a fine image of important structures that constitute to the make up of the synapse. Furthermore results showed that the Anti-CD16 antibody on the SLB accumulates and in turn triggers the F-actin formation while polarization and penetration of the perforin happens through the F-actin mesh at the immunological synapse in the NK cells. This is clear in the image that displays the fluorescent microclusters of green (F-actin), red (Anti-CD16).

Lab Assessment 3

Models of mammalian adult hematopoiesis with respect to the megakaryocytic-erythroid compartment[4]

Article 1

Ondrej Svoboda, Petr Bartunek Origins of the Vertebrate Erythro/Megakaryocytic System. Biomed Res Int: 2015, 2015;632171 PubMed 26557683

Due to the great similarities between erythroid and thrombocytic, this article seeks to demonstrate the differentiation between the erythroid and thrombocytic as they evolved overtime from a single ancestral linage. This article compares the thousands of platelets per one megakaryocyte that is in the mammalian as opposed to nonmammalian thrombocytes which are much smaller and more flexible. Hematopoiesis suggests that mammalian megakaryocytic and erythrocytic cells probably evolved to increase their biological performance such as oxygen transport and homostasis, ultimately being an improvement of their ancestral cells. There is evidence found that the megakaryocytes are likely evolved as thrombocytic improvement. This is derived from the characteristics of the relationships between the zebrafish hamatopoietic progenitors and the mapping of their proliferation kinetics. Additionally despite the striking phenotypic differences between the megakaryocytes of the mammalian and nonmammalian thrombocytes, there is a distinct link between mammalian and nonmammalian erythroid and thrombocytic cells in terms of their molecular control and their proliferation potential.

This article can be used in describing the development of the megakaryocyte and how it evolved and the similarities it has to nonmammalian thrombocytes. [5]

Article 2

D Zucker-Franklin Megakaryocyte and platelet structure in thrombocytopoiesis: the effect of cytokines. Stem Cells: 1996, 14 Suppl 1;1-17 PubMed 11012198

This paper highlights the structure and function of megakaryocytes (MK) and platelets and how they are not identical. MK is unique for its enormous size and polyploidy. MK cells also produce their progeny cells called platelets via a mechanism called cytoplasmic fragmentation. It should be noted that platelets have no nucleus and usually lack ribosomes however they have a well defined structure. MK cells undergo endomitoses where the chromosomal DNA reduplicates to an average ploidy of 16 N while the cytoplasm never divides. During this process the nuclear membrane disappear, thus allowing for free exchange between nucleoplasm and cytoplasm. Further this article tackles the important concepts of when a MK matures and what happens; the platelet territories become separated within the MK cytoplasm, the separated membrane system is made up of a blend of membranes that are from different sources, before fragmentation happens the peripheral zone of the cell is absent of organelles, the organelles- free peripheral zone may unpremeditatedly form large veils or blebs and finally the fragmentation of MK is best observed when the cells are fixed in suspension. It is imperative to note that although the platelet membrane is demarcated within the cytoplasm of the MK cell, it is wrong to assume that the surface membrane of the platelet is identical. Additionally it can be seen that antigenic epitopes found on platelets may not be found on MK even though it stands to reason that there is a considerable antigenic cross-reactivity.

This article has proven to be important in the structure and function sub heading in the group research as it highlights the characteristics of a MK cell while addressing the similarities and the link it has to platelets. [6]

Article 3

E M Cramer Megakaryocyte structure and function. Curr. Opin. Hematol.: 1999, 6(5);354-61 PubMed 10468153

The article demonstrates the understanding of the structure and the function of a megakaryocyte. It explains that MK cells are known to be large polyploidy cells that are mostly located in the bone marrow. The main role of the Mk cell is to maintain normal blood platelet count by releasing platelets from the mature MK cells. Mk cells can be divided into highly proliferative MK burst forming cells or MK colony- forming cells. Through evidence it can be seen that at the end of the proliferative phase the Mk precursors undergo transformation in the cell due to the increase in ploidy thanks to the process of endomitosis. Endomitotic division is characterized by DNA replication and nuclear segmentation. The maturation of MK cells is driven by the emergence and appearance in MK’s cytoplasm which contains specific organelles and the precursors of important platelet structures. The knock out mouse models have shown to be extensively functional in the delineation in the capacity of growth factors, their receptors, and transcription factors in Mk differentiation. P45-NFE2 is a transcription factor that has proven to be essential for MK cytoplasmic development due to NFE2-/- mice fail to produce platelets even though the present MK cells are normally located in the bone marrow.

This article has proven to be effective enough to include in the subheading Structure and function as it addresses both headings in detail and includes pathology. It describes cytokine effect on MK development, proplatelet formation and transendothelial migration of MK cells. [7]

Article 4

R Hoffman, L J Murrav, J C Young, K M Luens, E Bruno Hierarchical structure of human megakaryocyte progenitor cells. Stem Cells: 1996, 14 Suppl 1;75-81 PubMed 11012205

This article address some studies that report a hierarchy of hematopietic cells that are competent of producing MKs cloned from both Adult bone marrow (ABM) and fetal bone marrow (FBM). The studies of in vitro megakaryocytopoiesis helped produce a hierarchy of MK progenitor cells. The hierarchy begins with the hematopoietic stem cells due to the presence of thromboproietin (TPO) alone produce MKs. The BFU-MK is a primative progenitor cell committed to the megakaryocytic linage. The properties of the BFU-MK allow it to be readily distinguished from the more differentiatied MK progenitor cell, the colony-forming unit- megakaryocyte (CFU-MK). The primitive HPPC-MK, BFU-MK and the highly differentiated CFU-MK cells are known as MK progenitor cells that’s are lineage- restricted. In the FBM a significant number of oligopotent hematopoietic progentitor cells are cabale in vitro of producing colonies composed of many hematopoietic linages including a subpopulation of MKs. It is still unknown the contributions of these mixed lineages progentior cells to megakayocyopiesis and the growth factors responsible for their in vivo development. It can be seen in the experiment that human bone marrow cells showed to express CD34 but not HLA-DR (which is known to contain a high amounts of hematopoiectic stem cells) was competent in developing MK progenitors cells for 10 weeks in the presence of various cytokine combinations.

This article fits under the subheading structure as it targets the structure of the MK cells and the factors and the lineages associated with MK cells. Further this article tackles the commitment of pluripotent hematopoietic stem cells to the Lineage of MK cells and the changes in the MK progenitor cells. [8]

Lab Assessment 5

Comparison of the morphology of undifferentiated B35 cells over-expressing Tm4 and wild type B35 cells.jpg

Lab Assessment 6

Anti body Polyclonal Antibody

Commercial provider Abd serotec -

Data sheet Can be found

Species raised in Rabbits

Target species (reacts against) Humans

Types of application

Immunohistology - Paraffin(1)

ELISA (Suggested working dilutions are given as a guide only) 0.5 - 2.0ug/ml

Western Blotting (Suggested working dilutions are given as a guide only) 0.1 - 0.2ug/ml

This product requires antigen retrieval using heat treatment prior to staining of paraffin sections. Sodium citrate buffer pH 6.0 is recommended for this purpose.

Reference -

Lab Assessment 8

Peer Reviews

Group 2: Red Blood Cells

Going down the project page, the first thing I saw was the Red Blood Cells banner, which you guys put up. I loved the statement it makes, a very strong and detailed image and a great choice. Reading through the project page, I found it to be very informative and there was a great flow throughout, which I think could be because of the layout of the page. Further you guys have done a great job with the text and information I think you don’t need to add anymore context on your page anymore. However I do think that you can incorporate a little more visual aids to balance out the text to visual aid ratio. More visual aids like graphs, more images or even breaking town the chunks of information eg; the function section and making a table out of it would be beneficial to the reader and your project page. Overall, a solid job.

Group 3: Lymphocyte B-Cell

You guys did a great job on your page. Lots and lots of information on your page but my biggest critique is that there is more text than visual aids and I felt a little overwhelmed when I first scrolled down your page before I started to read. In saying that though the information is easy to read and you guys described the structure very well even though you have no visuals. Additionally having the development before the structure allowed me to understand the text further down the page, which I found helpful. So my biggest critique would be that there needs to be more visuals incorporated only because you don’t want to scare your readers you want to entice them to read and adding visuals helps do that as it balances out the text on your page. Mainly look at functions and types of B cells. Further I noticed that your references don’t flow as in the introduction you have put them in manually while other sections you guys used numbers (wiki referencing). Just be sure to have one style of referencing and not different types, this can benefit with the flow of your project page and also makes it look more presentable.

Group 4: Natural Killer Cells

Your page on Natural Killer cells has a great banner to start off the mood and the information is easy to read and the layout of subheadings I great creating a flow. However the layout needs a little fixing when it comes to the structure part there’s a picture that’s located awkwardly between the receptors under structure and function. Further I noticed that there was missing information on the receptors section under the structure. On the other hand I found that your page had a simplified and numbered summary of the main function of the NK cells under the function section which was great for quick and straight forward information and then you could read into each of the three points in details if you scroll down the page. Also the summary table of NK cells in disease is easy to read and a great way to use visual aid to help with balancing text. In saying this I found that there was little to no visual aids in the following sections – current research and abnormalities. Finally, great use of references.

Group 5: Mast Cells

Your group page is shaping up nicely, with a lot of information and a great balance of information to visuals and a collapsible tables and images that encourages the reader to click on a read further. Your group page is coming together nicely. I found it most interesting that your layout was different to the rest of he groups in that you had two major subheadings that flowed with the main points under each section. The subdivision between pathology and physiology allows for your group to be different and yet place all the information in chronological order while having all the information needed. Your page is easy to follow and to understand the information in each section. I noticed that you placed a treatment for patients with MCAD’s and a wide range or allergic disease with detail. Additionally the glossary was a nice add that shows that you guys have taken the initiative to start it but I think it’s a little unfinished and you can add some stuff in there. The visual aid used was great as it created a balanced page between the information and images used. The use of tables and collapsible tabs to open and close at the fingers of the reader allows for a control of mood on your page, not overwhelming the reader. Further a great deal of referencing which shows that you guys have done heaps of research! GREAT WORK GUY!

Group 6: T lymphocytes

One of the best group projects so far! The level of information and the layout scheme of things are very smart and different. No one else had this layout or the types of T cells followed by the detailed structure, function, development and clinical application for each. I think it best f you guys have an introduction under each subheading then add the function of each type of T cell in the collapsible tab with structure and development. Additionally maybe you guys should consider structure going first ahead of function. This a minor critique really but I fell that if this was my group that’s what I would do, just to polish things up and finish off the project page in a professional manner. The flow is one of the best flows and I think this is due to the layout of the page. Further your group has shown to present a great detail of information on their page balancing this with a large amount of visuals. However if you aim for one visual aid per section this should positively develop your page. I’ve noticed that T regulators and Cytotoxic cells need an image in these sections. Lastly a great amount of reference used and this mirrors the level of information present.

Group 7: Eosinophils

This group page had an overall balance in the ratio of information to images and it was one of the best throughout all group pages. The use of colour and the size of the images and the layout are fantastic. I felt happy to read on and made me want to keep reading, kept me engaged and did not overwhelm me at all. I believe this is due to the text to visual aid ratio. The banner is so vibrant and detailed it caught my eye right away, getting me excited for the page. Further I enjoyed the use of tables and the lots of images that used to help concrete the information that’s in text. Also the video was interesting and breaks up the mood of text and images, which was a nice change and was relevant. There’s information on the page but I feel like the other groups had heaps more. Maybe you can add collapsible tabs and add info in them so that you maintain the flow of the page while keeping the audience encouraged to read. Additionally I noticed that there was no great subheading of Function, even though the information is located on the page I feel that if you create a subheading with function, it’ll allow the reader to pinpoint specific information they request at a glance in order to direct themselves on the page.


  1. Katherine Ann Hurley, Thiago M A Santos, Gabriella M Nepomuceno, Valerie Huynh, Jared T Shaw, Douglas B Weibel Targeting the bacterial division protein FtsZ. J. Med. Chem.: 2016; PubMed 26756351
  2. 2.0 2.1 Shin-Ya Miyagishima, Mami Nakamura, Akihiro Uzuka, Atsuko Era FtsZ-less prokaryotic cell division as well as FtsZ- and dynamin-less chloroplast and non-photosynthetic plastid division. Front Plant Sci: 2014, 5;459 PubMed 25309558
  3. Peilin Zheng, Grant Bertolet, Yuhui Chen, Shengjian Huang, Dongfang Liu Super-resolution imaging of the natural killer cell immunological synapse on a glass-supported planar lipid bilayer. J Vis Exp: 2015, (96); PubMed 25741636
  4. Ondrej Svoboda, Petr Bartunek Origins of the Vertebrate Erythro/Megakaryocytic System. Biomed Res Int: 2015, 2015;632171 PubMed 26557683
  5. Ondrej Svoboda, Petr Bartunek Origins of the Vertebrate Erythro/Megakaryocytic System. Biomed Res Int: 2015, 2015;632171 PubMed 26557683
  6. D Zucker-Franklin Megakaryocyte and platelet structure in thrombocytopoiesis: the effect of cytokines. Stem Cells: 1996, 14 Suppl 1;1-17 PubMed 11012198
  7. E M Cramer Megakaryocyte structure and function. Curr. Opin. Hematol.: 1999, 6(5);354-61 PubMed 10468153
  8. R Hoffman, L J Murrav, J C Young, K M Luens, E Bruno Hierarchical structure of human megakaryocyte progenitor cells. Stem Cells: 1996, 14 Suppl 1;75-81 PubMed 11012205