Difference between revisions of "User:Z3292017"
|(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)|
|Line 16:||Line 16:|
Lab 8 - [[User:Z3292017|Z3292017]] ([[User talk:Z3292017|talk]]) 15:35, 16 May 2013 (EST)
Lab 8 - [[User:Z3292017|Z3292017]] ([[User talk:Z3292017|talk]]) 15:35, 16 May 2013 (EST)
|Line 49:||Line 53:|
|Line 99:||Line 103:|
Latest revision as of 15:58, 15 June 2013
Structural features comparison of the proteomes in the three superkingdoms
Copyright Pancsa and Tompa. 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.
In this study the researchers used Super-Resolution Microscopy in order to attempt to understand the gag proteins and envelope recruitment and how exactly the HIV-1 virus is incorporated into the cell (which was previously not known). They were able to see the GAG assembly sites along with teh HIV-1 envelope proteins in the envelope expressing cells. It was discovered that the envelope accumulation outside of and surrounding the GAG assemblies (rather than directly being in contact with it) was able to assist the spread of the virus in vivo.
--Mark Hill (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2013 (EST) This is a reasonable summary of the article on Super-Resolution Microscopy. You may have considered explaining further why this technique was better than existing techniques, e.g. resolution, localisation. You have used as explained in class the Pubmed referencing format correctly.
Antibody against an adhesion junction protein - E-Cadherin
Data sheet: [E-Cadherin]
Type of antibody: Monoclonal
Species raised in: Mouse
Species reacts against: human breast carcinoma cell line T471
Types of application uses: detection by Western blotting, Immunoprecipitation, Immunofluorescence
References using E-cadherin antibody: <pubmed>PMC2907333</pubmed>
Do you see any change in the phenotypes between group A and group B?
Group A (Tm4 over-expressing cells) had a greater percentage of stumped phenotypes and a significantly greater amount of pronged phenotypes compared to group B (control group). Group A also appeared to have a significantly higher number of neurites than group B. Contrastingly, group B had a significantly greater percentage of broken fan phenotypes and a few pygnotic phenotypes were noted while group A had none. Group A and B appeared to have a similar percentage of Fan phenotypes. Notably, group A was seen to have increased branching and processing and brighter fluorescence when compared to group B.
If you see a difference, speculate about a potential molecular mechanism that has lead to this change, if you don't see a change, speculate why that could be.
Tropomyosin is associated with the Actin filament function regulation which stabilizes and increases the strength of the filaments. The Tm4 isoforms are found predominantly in the growth cones of neurons and subsequently when there is an over-expression of Tm4 in the growth cones then in turn it could increase the growth of the neurites . As noted in question one, there was an increased number of neurites in group A (Tm4) than group B (control) which would therefore indicate that the over expression of Tm4 not only increases the growth of the neurites in length but also increases the number of neurites detected. As tropomyosin stabilizes and increases the strength of the actin filaments, this in turn could therefore enable the actin chains to become longer and hence potentially increase the length of the neurites . Due to the increase in length of the neurites this could correlate to the increased number of pronged phenotypes and a substantially decreased number of broken fan phenotypes.
It is obvious that you have done a fair amount of research into the regulation of cell division. However something which stood out to me from the introduction was the lack of references. You should look at referencing every new point you make on the page, and the first two paragraphs of the introduction have no references listed. The references you have used appear to be referenced correctly and you have used journal articles as opposed to website. Your history section looks good, but I'm assuming it is still unfinished. I liked the brief description that you made for each date which makes it easy and interesting to read. The images you have used appear to be referenced correctly with the copyright information which is good. The only suggestion I would have is to have a title underneath the image on the actual page so that we know what we are clicking I.e. fig 1 shows this... Another suggestion is to add some more images as I find this breaks up the text and also helps us understand what you're writing about. In regards to your current research section, I'm not entirely sure why you were listing points? Was that what one research article was about or is that a list of articles? This should probably be made a bit clearer and again referenced. Another thing i noticed is that you dnt have a glossary which is a good way to explain uncommon words. I think that its well written and easy to understand but even in the introduction There are several words such as cell division and mitogens which would be good to put in the glossary section. Overall Ithink you've done a good job and if you fix up the images, glossary and the referencing then it should be a great page to read.
I think your introduction is very sound and easy to understand however it isn't referenced at all? The images you have included are a good way to show us. What you are writing about. Your history section might be a bit too brief, for example, what physical manipulations did Ray use? And the colours seem to be a bit intermittent, however what you have written is interesting and easy to understand. The mechanisms section is good and easy to understand. As there is a lot of content I would probably suggest adding some more pictures to break up the page and also make it easier for us to read. The two explanations of cytokinesis in animals and plants is good and simple t understand. The Cytokiensis failure section is done quite well with some good images as is the current research. Your glossary is quite in depth which is really good. The only other suggestion I would have is adding some more references to your page. Overall I think you've dne a good job!
I like how you explain in your introduction what you will be covering in the page. It sets it out really well. You have clearly Donna lot of research on the Golgi apparatus and have referenced it well. I noticed that reference 38 doesn't actually have a reference connected to it? The function section is really informative, the only suggestion I would have here is to add an image or two so that it's easier to read. I think you've done a really good job on the history section and it's well laid out. In the. Models for division section, if possible I would add some images there to show the differences. Apart form that the rest of the page is well written and researched with a good number of images to break up the text! Overall, I think you've done a great job on this page!
I quite like the image you have at the top of the page and think that it makes it more enticing for us to read! Your introduction is good but doesn't really discuss the spindle Apparatus nor is it referenced. I think if you added a brief paragraph of what you are going to be discussing on your page would be a nice idea. The images you have added are good and help break up the text. However I think you should have your own proper description of the images rather than solely using the authors one. The history section is well laid out but most of the dates dt have references. Also the first image in this table is rather large, you are able to make that image smaller on the page whcihc I think would be a good idea for that section. In the later dates I would probably suggest that you cut down the amount of content you have written or put it in bullet points so that it makes it easier to read. The structure section is good but again there is a lot of content, if possible I would try and simplify some areas or put them into bullet points. I think that you have made good use of your images in this section. The function is good but I would suggest that you add some images in this section if possible and also try to make sure that you reference at least every paragraph. Overall I think you've done a great job and if you fix up some of the things I've suggested then it will be an even better page to read!
You have clearly done a lot of research on this page, however I think perhaps there is too much writing. Perhaps try and either cut down on your information or put some of it in bullet points to make it easier to read! The hisotry section is nice and brief and is well referenced! In regards to the structure of the nuclear envelope, is there any other information you need to include to the outer nuclear membrane as it seems rather short when comparing to the inner nuclear membrane. What you have written is really good, the only other suggestion I have for you is to add many more images which help explain the text and also breaks it up. Your glossary section is rather limited so I would possibly suggest that you add some more words into that which make it easier for us to understand more difficult words! Overall I think its a great page and if you cut down on some of the information then it will even better!
I think your introduction is really succinct and easy to read. It really introduces the topic well! I think that the fucntion is really brief and has some good references there. This ensures that its easy to understand and keeps the reader interested! You've incorporated the images well with the text and it help breaks it up! Your history section is really extensive and impressive ! In your during cell division section, I think the content is really good but I would probably suggest that you add an image or two to help explain the text - the same with the mitochondrial fission and fusion. I think the diseases you have discussed are really good and really informative! Overall I think its a good page and the only things to mkae it even better would be to add some more images and to add a glossary!