User talk:Z3223095

From CellBiology

Individual Assessments

Lab 1

Bacterial tree reconstructed.png Bacterial phylogenetic tree reconstructed from a concatenated alignment of 50 nearly ubiquitous r-proteins.

The article speaks about the use of different cells; prokaryote ans eukaryote and how they can affect the topology of phylogenetic trees. --Z3223095 (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2013 (EST) journal.pone.0036972.g002.png Reference [1] Prokaryote Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

   Note - This image was originally uploaded as part of a student project and may contain inaccuracies in either description or acknowledgements. Please contact the site coordinator if the uploaded content does not meet the original copyright permission or requirements, for immediate removal. Phylogenomics of Prokaryotic Ribosomal Proteins Figure 2. Bacterial phylogenetic tree reconstructed from a concatenated alignment of 50 nearly ubiquitous r-proteins.

Lab 2


2.In vivo confocal microscopy in chloroquine-induced keratopathy.

In the living, confocal microscopy is becoming a mandatory examination in order to study corneal abnormalities. Using this method, we can discover a drug deposit in systemic disease. This article refers to a woman diagnosed with fibromyalgia on systemic choloquine going for an ophthalmic examination. Confocal microscopy was performed using multiple highly reflective deposits in the epithelial basal cells which were found, that were consistent with choloquine. Using confocal microscopy information could be provided on corneal metabolism and physiology.


--Mark Hill (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2013 (EST) I have fixed the code for your reference to appear correctly below.

  1. 1.0 1.1 <pubmed>2261586</pubmed>

Lab 3

1.Observations on Mitochondrial structure

This paper talks about the occurrence of wrinkles on the membranes of the mitochondrial cristae. It discusses the structure and placement of the cristae and how that changes its function. It goes on to talk about where it may occur; for example: an exaggerated expression of this tendency for angulation of the internal mitochondrial membranes is found in certain bat muscles where some of the cristae take the form of parallel bundles of prismatic tubules which are triangular in cross-section. Mitochondria

2. Complementary RNA and protein profiling identifies iron as a key regulator of mitochondrial biogenesis.

This paper discusses how Mitochondria are at the epicentre of metabolism and how the mitochondrial function must adapt to the ever changing cellular environments. The biological signals that start the mitochondrial changes and the cellular processes that drive this adaptive response are largely obscure. All together it talks about how their work reveals that cellular iron is a key regulator of mitochondrial biogenesis, and provides quantitative data.


3.Mitochondrial disorders as windows into an ancient organelle.

This paper discusses the mitochondria within patients who have respiratory chain disorders. These disorders are rare syndromes which present in unique ways. It goes on to discuss further on the disorders and in the context of mitochondrial evolution, biochemistry and genetics.


4. A chemical screen probing the relationship between mitochondrial content and cell size.

This paper discusses how the cellular make up of mitochondria undergoes many changes during development and also in response to external stimuli. It continues to explain how they went about identifying probes and pathways that control mitochondrial abundance. They screened 28,786 small molecules and observed their capability of increasing or decreasing the cellular content of mitochondria according to cell size, which exposed control of these parameters.


Electron transport chain.png

lab 4

--Z3223095 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2013 (EST) ve-cadherin-antibody The VE Cadherin antibody Product code ab3316 is a polyclonal antibody raised in rabbit. The antibody reacts with mouse, chicken and human and may also react in cow and pig. The applications that can be used with this antibody are; western blotting, flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry ofparafin and immunofluorescence.

The following articles have been referenced using this antibody:

Zhang W et al. Perivascular-resident macrophage-like melanocytes in the inner ear are essential for the integrity of the intrastrial fluid-blood barrier. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:10388-93 (2012). ICC/IF, In-Cell ELISA ; Mouse. <pubmed>22689949</pubmed>

Holtz ML & Misra RP Serum response factor is required for cell contact maintenance but dispensable for proliferation in visceral yolk sac endothelium. BMC Dev Biol 11:18 (2011). IHC-P ; Mouse . <pubmed>21401944</pubmed>

--Z3223095 (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2013 (EST) --Z3223095 (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2013 (EST) I am now officially enrolled in the course and can receive all the emails I need in order to do the work i need to do. Thankyou. --Z3223095 (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2013 (EST) File:Http://

Lab 5

--Z3223095 (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2013 (EST)

Lab 6

--Z3223095 (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2013 (EST)

Lab 7

--Z3223095 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2013 (EST)

Lab 8

Peer Assessment

Group 1

I thought that the project was clear and easy to read and the table is concise. Each subheading is explained well throughout the page. The structure of the content is well organized, but I think with some more images it will help create more excitement with the page and finally a few issues with grammar, but nothing that can’t easily be corrected.

Group 2

This project was well structured. The facts are well presented and formatted excellently. The images are well explained which enhances the understanding of the research. Overall the page is well done, concise and easy to understand. The only things that I would fix would be to add diagrams, add some colour and it will really make the page look more attractive.

Group 3

I think this project is good. The table is well presented; it is full of colour, good points and well researched. Diagrams need to be added to spice up the page and enhance the information presented. It is also lacking some references when key points have arisen. Overall, I think the project is well written, it just needs a few more features to support the information presented on the page.

Group 4

I think this project is well written. The images support the information and the table is well presented, although lacking the 80’s section. Overall, the page has a lot of good information and is easy to understand. It just needs some quick fixes like filling in the gaps on the table and fixing up certain diagrams to make the project look better.

Group 5

I think that this project has a lot of information. We can see this by its overwhelming amount of text presented. I think it needs images to provide backup the text or replace some of the text to make it easier for the reader to take in. The table is well presented; full of colour and easy to understand facts. Overall, the project is well researched and presents a lot of information on the topic, it just needs to have more images to support it and display more concise information which will be simple for the reader to understand.

Group 6

I think that the project is presented well. The introduction presents the page and the table is attractive, but lacking some information. The information is easy to understand and the images are a good source of support. The information goes into good depth and is cited well. Overall, the project is easy to understand and has a good flow about it. It just needs some referencing on the images and to slightly fix the layout of the page.

Lab 9

--Z3223095 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2013 (EST)

Lab 10

--Z3223095 (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2013 (EST)

--Z3223095 (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2013 (EST) --Mark Hill (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2013 (EST) I can only see your previous year's work and lab attendance on you student page. Where are the assessment items from Lab 1 and 2? Lab Assessments

  1. lab 1
  • lab 1
  • lab 1a
  • lab 1b


Red White Blood cells 01.jpg| bla


Red White Blood cells 01.jpg


Red White Blood cells 01.jpg

[1] google Cell_Biology_Introduction lab 1 lab attendance lab 1

--Z3223095 (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2013 (EST)

--Z3223095 (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2013 (EST)

--Z3223095 15:02, 3 May 2012 (EST)

Peer reviews

Group 1: In order for me to critique the work at hand I am going to take each sub-heading and do so accordingly: -Introduction: The introduction I thought was quite good, how it discussed and explained what testosterone is and how it works. Although I thought it was good, I also thought it was lacking an overview of what the page as a whole would discuss. -History: I liked the table. I thought it stood out on the page and easy to read. The information was short and sweet. EASY to read. -Biosynthesis: I thought this section was difficult to comprehend. It was hard to grasp. -Regulation: I thought this was well done. A diagram would be a great idea to go with the theory. -Signalling pathway: This area needs some work. I think it needs to be broken down into simpler form (as in this and that). Not into too many pathways. -Normal function: This was good. The information was good and I could see was researched. -Abnormal function: I thought this was well structured and easy to read. -Clinical uses: This was good, thought it explained a lot and did so very well. -Current and ongoing research: This section was researched well. It showed me that they understood what testosterone does and how it can be used for research. -I think this project was really good and shows the rest of us that we have to really pick up our game. Group 2: -Introduction: I thought the outline was good. It introduced the page content. -History: I thought the history was simple to understand and it was easy to understand the steps of how it got to what the research states today. -Normal function: I thought this was missing a lot of key elements (e.g. Structure, images). The contents was fine to understand but could have been made easier with diagrams. -Signalling Pathway: I thought the table was good. This with a diagram would have made it easy to understand. -Abnormal function: I thought this section was the clear stand out of all the sections, It was well presented, easy to understand and had a good use of diagrams. -Research: Therapeutic Applications I thought this section was well researched. -I thought that overall it was well written and easy to read and follow for the most part. Group 3: -Introduction: I thought this introduction was well written and easy to understand. I still think that the outline of the page format could have been a bit better and gone over briefly what will be touched on within the assignment. - History: I thought this was good and pointed out good findings.This section highlights the importance of each discovery and attributes the discoveries to the researchers. Links to the research papers would be good for further reading. -Signalling Pathway: This would have been much easier to understand with images or flow charts. -Function: I thought this was well researched. It just needed better structure. -There was no abnormal function, which is key to the project! -Current Research: I thought you gave us good current research examples. The importance of each research was well presented. - I thought that the project in its entirety was mostly good but lacked some pictures and some further research. Group 4: -Introduction: I thought that the introduction was very short, it lacked a good outline due to this. -History: I thought that the table was well presented. Easy to read and understand. I just thought there could have been more information throughout it. -Pathway: I thought that this section was very brief. This made some of it hard to understand. Also, a flow chart would have helped. -Proteins: I thought that this section was really good. It was easy to understand -Function: I thought that there was a lot of good research here and it was well presented. This was good. -Further Research: I thought this section could have been better. It didn’t really give a lot of examples of anything. - I thought overall it was very short and not well executed. They are on the right path, it just needs to be elaborated. Group 5: -Introduction: I thought that the introduction was well written. It really set the standard that something good is coming. -History: I thought the history was good. It was well researched and easy to follow. -Function: I thought that this section was short and simple to read. The pictures were good and made things easy to follow. The video really is a good idea and gave me something to think about for my project. -Abnormal function: I thought that the table really demonstrated the research they had done. It was easy to understand, brief and simple (not referenced). -Others: The other tables were a good idea and supplied us with extra information, proving that their research was sufficient. -Further research: I didn’t think that it was simple to follow. I wasn’t sure how or where they were going with it. - I thought that overall the project was well written and displayed the key concepts extremely well. It also demonstrated extra research. It did however lack some references. Group 6: -Introduction: I thought that the introduction was good. I thought the outlining of the project was easy to follow but the subheadings were not really necessary. The video was a good idea. I thought the insulin was explained well and the picture was a good find, but not referenced. -History: I thought that the history was well researched, but noit fully referenced. -Insulin Receptor: I thought that this section was good but wasn’t well formatted because the size of the picture (not referenced). -Signalling Pathway: I thought that this section was well presented. It was easy to read and good imagery (not referenced). -Normal function: I thought this section was very short. -Abnormal function: I thought this section was well done and demonstrated the research that was done. It was easy to read and well formatted. -Current Research: I didn’t really understand what the research was about. - I thought that overall it was a good job. It was well researched and you can see there was work. The introduction needs some work and some references on the images need to be done. Group 7: -Introduction: I thought that the introduction was good to read and well presented. The information was clear and the images were good (needs references). I think that it is on the way but not yet complete. -History: I thought that this section was really well done, well referenced. -Receptors: I thought that this section was good, but unfinished. It had a lot of subheadings, which I thought was ok, because it gave me a break and let me take in information a bit at a time, rather than a huge blob. The table was good, but very vague. -Pathway: I thought that the pathway was really good, missing some references. -Normal functions: I thought that this section is well done. It is clear and easy to read. -Abnormal function: I thought that this section was good. You can see it was well researched and on its way. It is still lacking some more research and a bit of formatting. - I thought that overall this project was good. It does need some more work and to be formatted correctly. Group 9: -Introduction: I thought that the introduction was very good. It was easy to understand. It did go off track a little bit. -Pathway: I thought that it was weird that this was before history. However, it was easy to understand and you could see there was a lot of research involved. It would have been a little better if it was shorter and a little less information. I think the summary at the end was a good touch and put everything together for me. -History: I thought that this section was good. It was easy to read and each year mentioned went straight to the point.. -Current Research: Again, I thought this was weirdly placed (not wrong, but different to all the others). The research was relevant but not well presented. -Normal Function: I thought that this section was well presented and well formatted. It was easy to read. An image would have made it even easier. -Abnormal Function: I thought that there was good research, but still needed to be further presented. - I thought that overall the project was good but needed more work with further research and more pictures.

--Mark Hill 13:42, 17 May 2012 (EST) You have assessed each project in terms of structure well. I would have liked some assessment of the scientific content as well and you could have formatted your own comments so that they were easier to read, rather than a huge blob of text.

Lab 9

ATCC!! 1- homo-sapiens-acute T cell leukemia 2- cell type- T lymphocyte 3- original paper- [1]

Lab 6

The differences between phenotype A-over expressed and B-controlled:

-the controlled has less branching than the over expressed phenotypes.
-the controlled has individual processes that are longer and skinnier than the over expressed phenotypes.
-the cells in the over expressed phenotype tends to be more grouped together than the controlled.
-in the contolled phenotype the somas are often flatter and smaller than the over expressed.

If so, how could Tm4 over expression lead to this difference:

-The observation that isoforms are expressed in a tissue-specific way has pushed forward the theory that they contribute to the formation of how cells are structured. Tropomyosins studies have shown us that isoform specifics are regulated in response to a cell transformation. This tells us that different shape Tropomyosins have different functions, therefore explaining the fact that over expressed cells are different in appearance aswell as function in comparison to the controlled cells.This has correlated with the view that some isoforms of tropomyosin promote filament stability whereas others are associated with more dynamic structures. 


  1. <pubmed>6327821




He and I worked together on this lab, therefore we are both using this material!!

--Z3223095 14:16, 19 April 2012 (EST) CARMO-FONSECA.jpg --Z3223095 14:09, 29 March 2012 (EST) --Z3223095 15:13, 8 March 2012 (EST) welcome to cell biology!! heading

lab attendance


lecture 2 Yahoo!! rice lecture 3 --Z3223095 15:58, 15 March 2012 (EST)

Lab 2 - Microscopy work

Super-resolution imaging prompts re-thinking of cell biology mechanisms: Selected cases using stimulated emission depletion microscopy.

The use of super-resolution imaging techniques in cell biology has found a great amount of information involving cellular elements and processes that were unclear to normal microscopic imaging. It also challenges scientists whole outlook on the way they look at things, as it describe multiple functions, functional errors or lack of function for cellular elements


  1. <pubmed>9108196


Lab 3 -Fixation

Chemical product


Properties-liquid,colourless and weak alcohol like odor. Hazards-poison/flammable affects mainly these organs-Eyes, nervous system, optic nerve.


Group project

Novel insights into leukocyte extravasation

This article talks about the differences in the roles of intracellular factors and discusses how they work together to create normal function.


  1. <pubmed>22415724


The Role of the Tec Kinase Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (Btk) in Leukocyte Recruitment

This article talks about how normal function of leukocyte extravasation is important for times of overcoming inflammed tissue.


  1. <pubmed>22395664



Leukocyte-endothelial cell interaction is necessary for photodynamic therapy induced vascular permeabilization

The article talks about the neccesary interaction between normal leukocyte and normal endothelial interaction for greater vascular permeabilization.



Coordinate regulation of tissue macrophage and dendritic cell population dynamics by CSF-1

This article discusses the importance of normal leukocyte function in order to keep homeostasis.



Lab 4


Context-dependent regulation of Musashi-mediated mRNA translation and cell cycle regulation

Description- Musashi-mediated mRNA translational control has been implicated in the promotion of physiological and pathological stem cell proliferation



Musashi Antibody

Musashi Antibody detects endogenous levels of total Musashi 1 and 2 protein. Polyclonal antibodies are produced by immunizing animals with a synthetic peptide corresponding to residues of human Musashi. Source- Rabbit Molecular Weight- 35 kDa Anti-rabbit secondary antibodies must be used to detect this antibody. Recommended Antibody Dilutions: Western blotting 1:1000 Confocal immunofluorescence images which uses the second antibody of (Alexa Fluor® 488 Conjugate) Immunofluorescence (IF-F) 1:25 Musashi Antibody!!

Secondary antibody, Alexa Fluor 647 anti-rabbit IgG

-goat anti-rabbit IgG Alexa Fluor!!