User:Z3292017

From CellBiology
Revision as of 13:47, 9 May 2013 by Z3292017 (talk | contribs) (Individual Assessments)

Lab Attendance

Lab 1 - Z3292017 (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2013 (EST)

Lab 2 - Z3292017 (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2013 (EST)

Lab 3 - Z3292017 (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2013 (EST)

Lab 4 - Z3292017 (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2013 (EST)

Lab 5 - Z3292017 (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2013 (EST)

Lab 6 - Z3292017 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2013 (EST)

Individual Assessments

Lab 1


Difference between Prokaryote and Eukaryote Structural Features.jpg

Structural features comparison of the proteomes in the three superkingdoms

Reference

<pubmed>PMC3320622</pubmed>

Copyright

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.

--Mark Hill (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2013 (EST) Relevant article on comparison of prokayotes and eukaryotes.


Lab 2

<pubmed>PMC3585150</pubmed>

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.


Lab 3


Lab 4


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>


Lab 6

Tm4 cell graph.png

Questions

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 [1]. 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 [2]. 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.


References

  1. <pubmed>PMC1165423</pubmed>
  2. <pubmed>9143561</pubmed>