Difference between revisions of "User:Z3415735"

From CellBiology
Line 76: Line 76:
  
 
Complete Growth Medium Minimum essential medium (Eagle) in Earle's BSS with HAT (0.1 mM hypoxanthine, 400 nM aminopterin, 0.16 mM thymidine), 90%; fetal bovine serum, 10%
 
Complete Growth Medium Minimum essential medium (Eagle) in Earle's BSS with HAT (0.1 mM hypoxanthine, 400 nM aminopterin, 0.16 mM thymidine), 90%; fetal bovine serum, 10%
 +
 +
== Lab 10 ==
 +
 +
--[[User:Z3415735|Z3415735]] ([[User talk:Z3415735|talk]]) 17:18, 20 May 2015 (EST)
 +
 +
'''Group 1 Peer Review'''
 +
The page is really well developed and designed. There is a great balance between the use of images, and the use of text. The images of pathology and patients are a great inclusion that help to visually link the molecular-level defects with the medical conditions arising from them. I particularly liked the drawn structural images, which are very clear and easy to read. I'd say this is perhaps one of the best project pages out of all of them, I'm sure you'll score highly.
 +
 +
'''Group 3 Peer Review'''
 +
This page is super easy to read. I love the clear use of sub-headings, which really make the different sections easy to read. Especially for the clinical significance section, it's easy to look at the different ways molecular defects can correlate to medical conditions. Perhaps more detail on how elastin brings about the clincal problems of the disease is needed. The diagrams are simple and well used, and don't require too much deciphering - often times, diagrams for these sorts of complex molecular processes are super complicated and require a significant level of pre-requisite knowledge to interpret (e.g. knowledge of certain mediators, enzymes etc.). There is a fine balance between not being too simplistic and not being over complicated with regards to the diagrams.
 +
 +
'''Group 4 Peer Review'''
 +
It's not a bad page. Content is not lacking, but there is not an awful lot of content either. The structure section does seem to be very detailed, which is great. However, overall, the page is lacking from visual stimuli. The use of dot points for structure is great, because it helps in 'deconstructing' the structure of the molecule. Sometimes if structure is just explained in a paragraph, it can be confusing and overwhelming. Definitely though, it'd be a good idea to support structure information with visual stimuli. I'd say that the addition of a few more images or even videos would do wonders to this page.
 +
 +
'''Group 5 Peer Review'''
 +
It's clear that this page has a huge amount of detail, which is certainly not a bad thing. But overall, the page is largely disorganized. I can't judge what you consider important or non-important, but personally, the inclusion of such a massive list of laminins is perhaps not the most effective thing. I highly doubt anyone (specifically Mark, who will mark the assessment), will read through every single laminin and what it does. I'd probably choose around 5 most important types/variants of laminins and explain them. But there's simply too many types to have to list them all. The main issue though is the organization of the page. The references should really be fixed up so that they all fall to the bottom of the page. I'm sure your group will fix this with time, and it does look like there's been considerable research going on as the content and references certainly aren't lacking.
 +
 +
'''Group 6 Peer Review'''
 +
This page seems to be a real work in progress. What has been written is great, and the use of images match the text. But there are many sections that are blank, and overall the page lacks a lot of depth. It's quite hard to review this page as it's missing a lot, but this is probably due to the fact that your group hasn't gotten around to working on it yet. More detail could be written on the pathological abnormalities - the information given is quite vague and non-specific. However, if the rest of the project is laid out and written as the completed sections have, it should be a good page.
 +
 +
'''Group 7 Peer Review'''
 +
The page looks great so far. It does seem to be a little short on content overall. The structure section should really include an image - this is crucial. However, the use of images for the other sections is effective. The content is broken down into sub-headings very well, and this makes it much easier to navigate through and pick out information. The final section on abnormalities is very detailed and the use of images here is very helpful. I'd say that to improve the page, you'd have to add some more images (specifically to the structure section which definitely requires at least 1 image) and perhaps videos if you find it necessary.
 +
  
 
== Links ==
 
== Links ==

Revision as of 17:18, 20 May 2015

ANAT3231

Group 2 Project page[1]

Lab Attendance

--Z3415735 (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2015 (EST) --Z3415735 (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2015 (EST) --Z3415735 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2015 (EST) --Z3415735 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (EST) --Z3415735 (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2015 (EST) --Z3415735 (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2015 (EST)

Lab 1

Interconnections between S. Aureus and platelets

Bacteria.jpg

File:Bacteria.jpg[1]


Lab 2

The following article refers to a research study published in March, 2015. Research was focused around investigation of the cellular processes that contribute to the regulation of osmosis in mammalian cells. More specifically, they investigated the "swelling-activated pathways" for myo-inositol (a significant osmolyte i.e. a substance that influences osmotic rate) and how certain protein transporters may influence the transport of myo-inositol. Their data showed that swelling-activated proteins (SLC5A3) were substantially influential in the regulation of osmosis via transporting mechanisms.

Super-resolution microscopy was essential for the investigation of the cellular interactions present on the cell cultures grown in the laboratory. dSTORM was the specific method of Super-resolution microscopy that was used. This kind of microscopy falls under the category of "Stochastic super-resolution" microscopy.

Article reference:[2]

Additional information:[3]

Lab 3

Paraformaldehyde MSDS[4]

Integrin Structure and Function schematic.jpg

Structure of Integrins

<pubmed>25606594</pubmed> This article discusses the influence of Integrins in the development of mammary tissue, and particular, its role in the co-functioning with the ECM.


<pubmed>25837254</pubmed> Integrins are involved in the identification of RGD motifs, which are essential for ECM function. The article discusses the clincal relevance of this in relation to Helicobacter Pylori infection in the stomach.


<pubmed>25754646</pubmed> This article discusses how Talin (an intracellular protein) is an important factor in the linkage of Integrins and ECM to the actin cytoskeleton.


<pubmed>25368556</pubmed> Discussion of how Integrins (and other proteins) interact with ECM to influence synaptic plasticity in neurons.

Lab 9

http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/cellbiology/index.php?title=2015_Lab_9

http://www.atcc.org/Products/Cells_and_Microorganisms/Cell_Lines/Animal/Mouse/CRL-1636.aspx#generalinformation Mammary gland epithelium. Mouse. Female

Complete Growth Medium Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium with 4.5 g/L glucose and 10 mcg/ml insulin, 90%; fetal bovine serum, 10%


http://www.atcc.org/products/all/CRL-8304.aspx Osteosarcoma cell line. Human. 13 years old, Female. Caucasian

Complete Growth Medium Minimum essential medium (Eagle) in Earle's BSS with HAT (0.1 mM hypoxanthine, 400 nM aminopterin, 0.16 mM thymidine), 90%; fetal bovine serum, 10%

Lab 10

--Z3415735 (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2015 (EST)

Group 1 Peer Review The page is really well developed and designed. There is a great balance between the use of images, and the use of text. The images of pathology and patients are a great inclusion that help to visually link the molecular-level defects with the medical conditions arising from them. I particularly liked the drawn structural images, which are very clear and easy to read. I'd say this is perhaps one of the best project pages out of all of them, I'm sure you'll score highly.

Group 3 Peer Review This page is super easy to read. I love the clear use of sub-headings, which really make the different sections easy to read. Especially for the clinical significance section, it's easy to look at the different ways molecular defects can correlate to medical conditions. Perhaps more detail on how elastin brings about the clincal problems of the disease is needed. The diagrams are simple and well used, and don't require too much deciphering - often times, diagrams for these sorts of complex molecular processes are super complicated and require a significant level of pre-requisite knowledge to interpret (e.g. knowledge of certain mediators, enzymes etc.). There is a fine balance between not being too simplistic and not being over complicated with regards to the diagrams.

Group 4 Peer Review It's not a bad page. Content is not lacking, but there is not an awful lot of content either. The structure section does seem to be very detailed, which is great. However, overall, the page is lacking from visual stimuli. The use of dot points for structure is great, because it helps in 'deconstructing' the structure of the molecule. Sometimes if structure is just explained in a paragraph, it can be confusing and overwhelming. Definitely though, it'd be a good idea to support structure information with visual stimuli. I'd say that the addition of a few more images or even videos would do wonders to this page.

Group 5 Peer Review It's clear that this page has a huge amount of detail, which is certainly not a bad thing. But overall, the page is largely disorganized. I can't judge what you consider important or non-important, but personally, the inclusion of such a massive list of laminins is perhaps not the most effective thing. I highly doubt anyone (specifically Mark, who will mark the assessment), will read through every single laminin and what it does. I'd probably choose around 5 most important types/variants of laminins and explain them. But there's simply too many types to have to list them all. The main issue though is the organization of the page. The references should really be fixed up so that they all fall to the bottom of the page. I'm sure your group will fix this with time, and it does look like there's been considerable research going on as the content and references certainly aren't lacking.

Group 6 Peer Review This page seems to be a real work in progress. What has been written is great, and the use of images match the text. But there are many sections that are blank, and overall the page lacks a lot of depth. It's quite hard to review this page as it's missing a lot, but this is probably due to the fact that your group hasn't gotten around to working on it yet. More detail could be written on the pathological abnormalities - the information given is quite vague and non-specific. However, if the rest of the project is laid out and written as the completed sections have, it should be a good page.

Group 7 Peer Review The page looks great so far. It does seem to be a little short on content overall. The structure section should really include an image - this is crucial. However, the use of images for the other sections is effective. The content is broken down into sub-headings very well, and this makes it much easier to navigate through and pick out information. The final section on abnormalities is very detailed and the use of images here is very helpful. I'd say that to improve the page, you'd have to add some more images (specifically to the structure section which definitely requires at least 1 image) and perhaps videos if you find it necessary.


Links

PubMed [2]

Lecture 1 [3]

References