User:Z3415779

From CellBiology

Lab Attendance

(talk) 16:34, 12 March 2015 (EST)

(talk) 16:05, 19 March 2015 (EST)

(talk) 16:08, 26 March 2015 (EST)

16/04/2015 My student log-in was blocked by IT UNSW and therefore my attendance on the day could not be recorded. The issue was mentioned to Dr. Thomas Fath on the day.

(talk) 16:10, 23 April 2015 (EST)

(talk) 16:15, 30 April 2015 (EST)

(talk) 17:21, 7 May 2015 (EST)

(talk) 16:51, 14 May 2015 (EST)

(talk) 16:06, 21 May 2015 (EST)

(talk) 16:08, 4 June 2015 (EST)

Cell Biology

Introductory Lab - Practice

[2] Pubmed]

[3] Eukaryotes & Prokaryotes]

<pubmed>25513760</pubmed> <pubmed>25744690</pubmed>

Cell interaction network 01.jpg


Lab 1 Individual Assignment

Salmonella Influenza generating mechanisms.jpeg

File:Salmonella Influenza generating mechanisms.jpeg[1]

Constructing Influenza Virus within Salmonella.jpg

File:Constructing Influenza Virus within Salmonella.jpg[2]


<pubmed>25742162</pubmed>

Copyright: © 2015 Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Lab 2 Individual Assignment

Nucleus Image:

Nuclear Characteristics.PNG

File:Nuclear Characteristics.PNG[3]

Copyright: © 2015 Voldgorn et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Confocal paper:

Viral analysis occurs at a nano scale previously beyond the scope of traditional microscopic techniques. With the invention of super-resolution microscopy the smallest aspects of biological function is now readily accessible. The researchers of this paper used confocal microscopy to further study the Hepatitis C virus via a technique they invented to achieve a spatiotemporal analysis. This new technique is specific to ssRNA and is able to accurately detect its prescience. Its detection was tested at different time points post infection and was found as early as 2 hours after the initial infection. This can be used on any virus that is characterised by ssRNA. [4]

Lab 3 Reference Searching

Material Safety data Sheet - MSDS

Paraformaldehyde

Harmful properties:

  • Solid
  • Flammable
  • Toxic by inhallation
  • Can cause burns at high concentrations

Uses:

  • Biological Preservative & Fixative
  • Cross-linking ptoteins (maintains structure)

Lab 5 - Cytoskeleton

Expression of Phenotype in Wild Type Vs. Altered Actin Cytoskeleton.png

Lab 6 - Immunochemistry

Antibody: HMB45

Species: Mouse (monoclonal)

Working concentration: ready to use (Immunotech, Marseille, France)

Secondary Antibody:

Paper: <pubmed>17490399</pubmed>

Lab 8 - Confocal Microscopy

Lab 9 - Human Culture

ATCC:

Human: http://www.atcc.org/Products/All/CRL-9853.aspx

Culture Medium: Iscove's modified Dulbecco's medium with 4 mM L-glutamine adjusted to contain 1.5 g/L sodium bicarbonate and supplemented with 0.05 mM 2-mercaptoethanol, 0.1 mM hypoxanthine and 0.016 mM thymidine, 90%; fetal bovine serum, 10%

Mouse: http://www.atcc.org/Products/All/CRL-8022.aspx

Culture Medium: The base medium for this cell line is ATCC Hybri-Care Medium, Catalog No. 46-X. Hybri-Care Medium is supplied as a powder and should be reconstituted in 1 L cell culture grade water. To make the complete growth medium, add the following components to the base medium: fetal bovine serum to a final concentration of 10% 1.5 g/L sodium bicarbonate for use with 5% CO2 in air atmosphere.

EACC:

Human:https://www.phe-culturecollections.org.uk/products/celllines/generalcell/detail.jsp?refId=10012801&collection=ecacc_gc

Culture Medium: RPMI-1640 + 2mM Glutamine + 10% FCS

Mouse: https://www.phe-culturecollections.org.uk/products/celllines/generalcell/detail.jsp?refId=08062516&collection=ecacc_gc

Culture Medium: DMEM + 2 mM glutamine + 10% Foetal Bovine Serum (FBS) HAT (0.1 mM hypoxanthine, 10 µM aminopterin and 16 µM thymidine) Cells can be cultured without HAT provided they were cultured inbetween in HT medium for 3-4 days

Peer Reviews

Group 2 Peer Review:

You guys have made great progress so far and overall i would say the majority of your project is complete and only final refinements are needed to make it perfect. The structure of your page is clear and logical and makes for an enjoyable reading experience. I really enjoyed the tome of your writing as all your concepts were well explained in language that was easy to follow and understand. The information was good as was the use of images and videos - a really interesting touch. From a formatting point of view, you have made really good decisions. As a recommendation though, I would consider adding a heading and image before the contents of your page. I feel this would give the reader an immediate context to your topic and page and grab their attention. Also Your introduction read as though it was unfinished. I'm not sure if this is the case but if you intend to end it as is, it would probably be best to round it off better. The hand-drawn image that included looks great but the lighting of the photograph isn't great so I would re-take the photo in a better lit environment to make sure its clear to see and read. Also if theres time, adding some colour would be good. Another suggestion id make is to reconsider your discovery section and the timeline that follows later on. Having both separated is a bit redundant and id rather see them side by side so the timeline is more of a visual aid for the discovery section. Or you could just transfer the information from paragraphs into a more detailed timeline. either way i just think having both in their current positions is unnecessary. I hope this feedback is helpful. All the best & good luck!

Group 3 Peer Review

Hello group, I really enjoyed reading your page. The structure and overall order of your information is the best in my opinion of all the projects. You've been very intelligent in your layout. Some points of potential improvement for me include revising your introduction section. I'm not a fan of your image there, its boring and not very informative. Something more eye-catching or colourful would be a better choice. Also you seem to just jump straight into your topic, its really helpful to put your topic in context first, just so the reader can orientate themselves. A history section would really help you out with that. In the middle sections of your page, there are big chunks of text that are really bland. Including more images would help break this up and might even allow you to transfer or cut some of the text and instead have visuals to help explain. One section i was really impressed with was the assembly one, even though there is a block of text, i felt the images were chosen well and really complemented what was written. The histological images are towards the end of the page are also good, they're interesting to look at and well formatted to fit on the page in an non-obstructive way. As a group, you are almost done with your page. Keep going with the great work and good luck.

Group 4 Peer Review

This page is both well-informed and well presented. You have made a solid effort at producing a really well-rounded project. One thing I would say about the page is that its appearance is boring and bland. You can't underestimate the effect visuals have on engaging your audience. Certainly at the top of your page a clear & colourful diagram would really help liven it up a bit. But also throughout your page there are massive blocks of solid text. It would be to your benefit to alter this a break them up with diagrams and sourced images. You will need to hand-draw one anyway as a requirement. The images you have used seem appropriate and well sourced but just plonked on the end of the sections more as an afterthought than as a complement to the text. Overall, smaller in size, included within the section and more in number would be my advice. The information is well written and researched. you're references section is a beast so good work there. One point of confusion was the section including the dot points about Fn I, II & III. This layout as is is not the most effective way of presenting the information. maybe consider a table here as a way of better organising it. Also a glossary at the end might be a good inclusion to make sure you have explained all the technical terms you have used. Overall you guys have done really well, the page just needs a few minor tweaks to make it engaging for the reader. All the best & good luck!

Group 5 Peer Review

You guys have done a mammoth amount of work and the page looks really good. I do have a few points for you though. Your contents is the first thing i see on your page and its a mess. Hopefully as you refine your page, this comes into order. An image in your intro would really help break it up and give me something to look at other than text. the history is also a bit bland. Im not sure what it needs but maybe an image or a change in format would help make it more appealing. The references situation is really weird. I think all the groups started out like this but considering how late in the semester it is, its probably a good time to move them. Also another oddity is the copyright you have all included after your images. This should be included on the actual image page and should have been done when the image was uploaded. Its unnecessary to have it on the project page. Also a point of misunderstanding must have occurred in the antibody lab we had, i believe this should have been included on your individual pages and not on the project page. Clarify with Mark if need be but it looks weird where it is. The overall structure of the page is good and concise allowing for an easy read of your information. Each section is really well written and heaps of effort has clearly gone into them. The structure section is probably the most complete and it has good images that have been used really well. The Function section underneath it is however incomplete. This isn't really a concern as I'm sure you have more to add here but I'm a bit worried about the layout of the section. a separate paragraph under each heading would not be the best way of presenting the information. Maybe discuss with the group and brainstorm how best to do this. You guys have done a great job, good luck with the rest of it!

Group 6 Peer Review

This page needs a little work before its finished. You have obvious sections that are yet to be written but thats okay as long as you get to them eventually. Your introduction is clearly one of these. Keep it simple and clear and try to get an eye-catching image in there to liven it up a bit. As a secondary note about images on the page, 3 throughout the whole page is nowhere near enough so definitely consider doing an image search and adding more in there. The function section needs more images as well. I can see the heading you've put in as a guide of what you are planning to include and it looks good, just keep going. The abnormalities section is way too short so maybe do some more research or just write a bit more from the papers you have already. The current research you've included right at the end should be moved to before the references list. I'm not sure why you have included the antibodies from the lab here. From memory this should have been added to your individual pages but maybe clarify this during the lab this week. there is no context for it to be there so it looks a bit weird. Your glossary is a nice inclusion but in terms of the layout and format, it looks a bit clumsy. If you get time, reviewing this would be good. I hope you guys put in the effort to really refine this page and finish it off. Its looking good so far, all the best!

Group 7 Peer Review

This is a really good project page, really well done guys. Just from looking at your contents i can see a very well con structured format for the page. its well organised and laid out. its an interesting topic you've chosen and your introduction certainly does it justice. i appreciate how you've kept it simple and included a great picture alongside it. The history section is obviously not quite complete but i can already your layout for it and i like it. its appealing to the eye and not overloaded with information. It seems to have a good balance. One thing i would like to see if a more orderly current research section. If you get the time, this might be good to make it easier to read. Your function and abnormalities sections seem to be mostly complete already. They read really easily and well so good job there. I also really liked the images you've chosen to go with your text. the formation/ structure section however needs some work to get to the same level of completion. the structural components bit in particular might need a bit of a change when its done. if its just heading with a few dot points underneath then a table might be a better way of expressing it. just a suggestion. the overall tone of this section is just as good as the rest of the page so keep going! Lastly your page is wonderfully researched, you have heaps and heaps of references and it validates what you've written because you obviously know what you're talking about. Keep up the great work and good luck!

Lab 12 - Microaaray

<pubmed>21156791</pubmed>

Microaarays were used by the researchers to try to identify specific genes in fibroblasts those expression was suppression in the presence of specified proteoglycans.

References

  1. <pubmed>25742162</pubmed>
  2. <pubmed>25742162</pubmed>
  3. [1] Nuclear Characteristics] <pubmed>25775427</pubmed>
  4. <pubmed>25822891</pubmed>