Talk:2015 Group Project 6

From Embryology

2015 Projects: Three Person Embryos | Ovarian Hyper-stimulation Syndrome | Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome | Male Infertility | Oncofertility | Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis | Students

Links to Project Discussion Pages: Discussion 1 | Discussion 2 | Discussion 3 | Discussion 4 | Discussion 5 | Discussion 6

This is the discussion page for your project.

  • Use this page to discuss online the project with your group members.
  • Paste useful resources here.
  • Remember to use your signature button to identify who you are when adding content here.
  • The following collapsed tables provide starting points for students during project work, you also have tutorials built into practical classes and practice exercises for individual assessmet items.
Group Assessment Criteria  
Mark Hill.jpg Science Student Projects
  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
  4. The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations.
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
  6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.
  7. Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki.
  8. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
  9. The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning.
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.
More Information on Assessment Criteria | Science Student Projects
Uploading Images 
Mark Hill.jpg First Read the help page Images

The following describes how to upload an image with all the information that must be associated with it.

The image must first be uploaded to the site.

  1. Open the left hand menu item “Toolbox” and click “Upload file” and a new window will open.
  2. Click the button ”Choose file” and navigate to where the image is located on your computer and double click the file.
  3. The window will now show the file name in the “Source filename” window.
  4. You can then rename the uploaded file in the “Destination filename” window.
    1. Make sure the new name accurately describes the image.
  5. Add a description of the image to the “Summary” window. Note the description must include:
    1. An image name as a section heading.
    2. Any further description of what the image shows.
    3. A subsection labeled “Reference” and under this the original image source, appropriate reference and all copyright information.
    4. Finally a template indicating that this is a student image. {{Template:Student Image}}

Images not including the above information will be deleted by the course coordinator and be considered in the student assessment process.

Students cannot delete uploaded images. Contact the course coordinator with the file address.

Referencing 
Mark Hill.jpg First Read the help page Referencing

All references used in making your project page should be cited where they appear in the text or images.

In page edit mode where XXXX is the PubMed ID number use the following code.

<ref name=”PMIDXXXX”><pubmed>XXXX</pubmed></ref>

For references not listed on PubMed, and text can be inserted between <ref></ref> tags.

Where the reference list will appear make a new section and on a new line the following code. <references/>

Plagiarism 
Mark Hill.jpg First Read the help page Copyright Tutorial

Currently all students originally assigned to each group are listed as equal authors/contributors to their project. If you have not contributed the content you had originally agreed to, nor participated in the group work process, then you should contact the course coordinator immediately and either discuss your contribution or request removal from the group author list. Remember that all student online contributions are recorded by date, time and the actual contributed content. A similar email reminder of this information was sent to all current students.

Please note the Universities Policy regarding Plagiarism

"Plagiarism at UNSW is defined as using the words or ideas of others and passing them off as your own." (extract from UNSW statement on Academic Honesty and Plagiarism)

Academic Misconduct carries penalties. If a student is found guilty of academic misconduct, the penalties include warnings, remedial educative action, being failed in an assignment or excluded from the University for two years.


Please also read Copyright Tutorial with regard to content that can be used in your project.

2015 Group Project Topic - Assisted Reproductive Technology
ART in Australia (2012)

Some Potential Topics

  • Your own selected topic (consult coordinator)
  • oocyte quality
  • spermatozoa quality
  • prenatal genetic diagnosis
  • frozen oocytes
  • in vitro oocyte development
  • assisted hatching
  • cryopreserved ovarian tissue
  • oncofertility
  • 3 person embryos
  • fertility drugs
  • Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)
  • ART for genetic disorders
  • male infertility
  • female infertility

Assisted Reproductive Technology

Journal Searches  
Below are shown some easy methods, with examples, for setting up simple searches of PubMed and other Journal databases. In most cases, you simply need to replace the existing term (embryo) where it appears in Wiki code with your own. Note there may also be additional "Advanced search" options available within these sites.


Students - read the paper first before committing to use/cite the material, to ensure you are using the information correctly and in context.


Reference Links: Embryology Textbooks | Journals | Journal Searches | Reference Tutorial | Copyright | For Students | UNSW Online Textbooks | iBooks | Journals | RSS Feeds | Online | Societies | Online Databases | Historic - Textbooks | Pubmed Most Recent | Category:References


Editing Links: Editing Basics | Images | Tables | Referencing | Journal Searches | Copyright | Font Colours | Virtual Slide Permalink | My Preferences | One Page Wiki Card | Printing | Movies | Language Translation | Student Movies | Using OpenOffice | Internet Browsers | Moodle | Navigation/Contribution | Term Link | Short URLs | 2018 Test Student


Please use the following as a guide:

  • Always when citing, identify reviews separately from original research articles.
  • Always identify copyright conditions allow your reuse of content before uploading.
  • If quoting text verbatim always include in "quotation marks" and reference, or additionally identify in brackets after the excerpt.


External Links Notice - The dynamic nature of the internet may mean that some of these listed links may no longer function. If the link no longer works search the web with the link text or name. Links to any external commercial sites are provided for information purposes only and should never be considered an endorsement. UNSW Embryology is provided as an educational resource with no clinical information or commercial affiliation.

Database Example search Wiki code (note - copy text when in Read mode)
Pubmed (all databases) embryo [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/gquery?term=embryo ''embryo'']
Pubmed embryo [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=embryo ''embryo'']
Pubmed 5 most recent references[1] <pubmed limit=5>embryo</pubmed>
Pubmed Central embryo [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=embryo ''embryo'']
Pubmed Central (images) embryo [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=embryo&report=imagesdocsum ''embryo'']
PLoS (Public Library of Science) embryo [https://www.plos.org/?s=embryo&submit=Go ''embryo'']
BioMed Central embryo [http://www.biomedcentral.com/search/results?terms=embryo ''embryo'']
BMC Developmental Biology embryo [http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcdevbiol/search/results?terms=embryo ''embryo'']
Biology Open (BiO) embryo [http://bio.biologists.org/search?submit=yes&titleabstract=embryo&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=&submit=yes&submit=Submit ''embryo'']
About Journal Searches
The following general information is about the above online databases and journals.

External Links Notice - The dynamic nature of the internet may mean that some of these listed links may no longer function. If the link no longer works search the web with the link text or name. Links to any external commercial sites are provided for information purposes only and should never be considered an endorsement. UNSW Embryology is provided as an educational resource with no clinical information or commercial affiliation.

  • PubMed - comprises more than 24 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full-text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.
    • PubMed Central (PMC) - is a free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM).
  • Public Library of Science (PLOS) - is a nonprofit publisher and advocacy organization founded to accelerate progress in science and medicine by leading a transformation in research communication.
  • BioMed Central (BMC) - is an STM (Science, Technology and Medicine) publisher of 291 peer-reviewed open access journals.
    • BMC Developmental Biology - is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on the development, growth, differentiation and regeneration of multicellular organisms, including molecular, cellular, tissue, organ and whole organism research.
    • Reproductive Health - is an open access, peer-reviewed online journal focusing on all aspects of human reproduction.
    • Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology (RB&E) - aims to act as a forum for the dissemination of results from excellent research in the reproductive sciences. RB&E represents a global platform for reproductive and developmental biologists, reproductive endocrinologists, immunologists, theriogenologists, infertility specialists, obstetricians, gynecologists, andrologists, urogynecologists, specialists in menopause, reproductive tract oncologists, and reproductive epidemiologists.
  • Biology Open (BiO) - is an online-only Open Access journal that publishes peer-reviewed original research across all aspects of the biological sciences, including cell science, developmental biology and experimental biology.
  1. Note the references appear where the code is pasted and will be updated each time the page is loaded, and may occasionally list articles that do not appear directly related to the search topic.


You can paste this template on your own page for easy reference. This current template is also available as a plain page.



Assessment

Group Assessment Criteria 
  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
  4. The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations.
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
  6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.
  7. Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki.
  8. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
  9. The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning.
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.


Editing

Total Edits - 384 Aug to Sept - 107
  • 5088434 - 203
  • 5020317 - 94
  • 5017878 - 93
All 2015 Student Edits 
Group Student Edits
6 5088434 203
1 3251292 180
5 3463890 152
2 3415911 149
3 3460352 133
5 3463667 131
1 3345331 119
1 3292373 109
4 3462297 106
5 5015534 101
6 5020317 94
6 5017878 93
2 3372824 92
2 3374116 82
3 3459224 80
4 3462124 62
4 3463514 39
3 3416054 29
3 3462166 28
4 3462833 8
2 5016784 5
5 5015752 0
This is not an assessment of content or addition/removal.

Images

  • 5088434 - 9 images
  • 5020317 - 3 images
  • 5017878 - 1 image

Video



Science_Student_Projects

Abnormal Development - Genetic FISH Image [1] associated copyright [2] fish data - [3] [4] [5]


--Mark Hill (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2015 (AEST) OK this is such an easy project to find resources for, so where are they? Everyone in research, support groups, genetic inheritance are talking about this topic and the techniques. But this is not on your project page.

Like my comments for the other project pages, animal models and media, graphics, statistics, graphs to support the project information???? Your project is not ready for peer review.


--Mark Hill (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2015 (AEST) I would like to see some content (sub-headings) on your project page.

Peer Reviews

1

I’ll start by saying, you have an extremely extensive list of references. Well done! It shows you have really done your research and made good use of it. Your citations are consistent throughout the page and most paragraphs have multiple sources. I would suggest to perhaps include a hand-drawn image somewhere on the page as well as a video. Aside from the section “biopsy methods”, the page could use a few more illustrations. From what I can see, the image under the subheadings “FISH” and “future/current research”, does not appear to have been added correctly according to the guidelines Mark gave us a few weeks back. There is no caption for the image like there are for the other images.

I really like, how under the “diagnosis” heading, you have made the table of applicable diseases for PGD an expandable table. It helps keep the page clean and easier to control. Perhaps though add a little blurb below the table describing it. You have a great set of heading and subheadings that all relate back to your topic. Given that, you have addressed all important areas pertaining to your topic. May I suggest, that in the introduction section, which I am assuming is yet to be done, you add some epidemiological information and perhaps a video speaking briefly on the topic as it can be quite complex.

Well done on the section titled “future/current research”. It is really useful for students seeking a higher degree of information on this topic as it goes into great detail. However, some direct references in the text to some papers would be good. I also suggest adding a glossary of words to the bottom of the page to cater to those who read the page, with a lower level of embryology knowledge than you or I. In addition to that, it may be good to try and break-down some of your paragraphs as there is a lot of text and it can be hard to take in for some people. Bullet points and tables are great. The page does however, focus well on embryological learning aims.

Lastly, to conclude, I feel a though the table and image under “biopsy method” is a little cluttered and could be spaced out a bit more. Overall, this is a really good and detailed framework and with a little more work will be a great project.

2

A very snazzy wiki page so far! You have used a wide variety of images to convey the concepts of prenatal genetic diagnosis to those reading your wiki page. Copyright information and student templates were present for all the images which you provided which is great to see. A hand drawn image is absent, which is a requirement for every wiki page. It might be worth including the hand drawn image in the 'history section' as the information here could easily be represented by a hand drawn flow chart.

I commend you on your inclusion of a 'future/current research' subheading as this gives the reader a perspective of where the field of prenatal genetic diagnosis is heading in the distant future.

I see that you have included a table underneath the 'biopsy methods' subheading. It would be great to see you compile the advantages and disadvantages of blastomere biopsy and trophectoderm biopsy into a tabular format as this would make for an easier reading experience. Furthermore, tables may also be incorporated for the disadvantages and advantages of genetic techniques. I would recommend the inclusion of other forms of media such as a video or gif to assist in the conveyance of information under certain subheadings. A video/gif would fit nicely underneath the 'biopsy method' subheading, though this is just a suggestion.

Overall your assignment is superb so far. You have successfully covered a vast topic and made successful use of a broad range of sources to support your page. Your inclusion of images has been appropriate, however a hand drawn image is still required. Keep up the good work guys!


3

COMMENDATIONS

• Good reference list and in text citations throughout.

• Great table of advantages and disadvantages under “Biopsy Methods” (good comparison of the techniques). However, the ‘Blastomere’ row is missing information.

• All key points have been addressed, and it is evident that you have done a lot of research!


RECOMMENDATIONS

• A short definition at the beginning of your page would help the reader understand what your topic is about. I was a bit unsure as to what ART was when I first began reading.

• Your information could be organised under more subheadings, particularly in your “Polar Body Analysis” section; the information here is quite dense.

• More pictures or animations would be great; make sure you reference your pictures properly as well (the image under FISH is missing a reference).

• More tables – a lot of your information involves advantages and disadvantages. You could create more tables to make the information easier to read/follow. It would also allow you to cut down on details that are repeated, or those that you do not need.

• A self drawn diagram is also missing – maybe this could take the form of a world map and you could label the various countries featured under your “Laws & Legal Status” heading with their respective laws.


It is evident that you have put in a lot of effort into your page. Try and condense the information you have, and add more titles and images to create a more succinct end product. Good job so far!

4

This page contains a lot of interesting information regarding the chosen topic, and has been accompanied by some really useful images. I was particularly intrigued by the information you have provided for genetic techniques and hope to see some more images and videos to help your explanation. Especially for PCR, this is a widely used technique for genetic analysis and I am sure there are some really good videos on YouTube you can add to this section. For these procedures, you have also listed a great amount of disadvantages and advantages but it would be easier to read if this were in a table format.

I believe the headings are extremely relevant and cover the correct areas of focus for this topic. However, the use of sub-headings is lacking which makes it difficult for the reader to initially understand the areas that will be discussed on this page. You can easily change the bolded headings under “Indications”, “Preimplantation Genetic Screening”, and “Biopsy Methods” into subheadings with a minor edit. On that note, the table presented in the “Biopsy Methods” is quite confusing as the advantages and disadvantages of “Blastomere” are absent. Also, further elaboration on these headings is needed for the reader to gain an adequate understanding of the topic.

You have provided a really good framework to add more content on this page. This is especially required in your heading of “Diagnosis”. I think a more detailed explanation about how the diseases are linked to PGD is needed to avoid confusion. When I first read it, it didn’t make much sense so perhaps use an image of how these diseases relate to PGD could mend this.

The addition of a “Future/Current Research” heading is very well done. This demonstrates you have thought beyond the mechanics of describing PGD and are looking into extra sources. You may want to consider separating future research from current research to make the page more systematic, and to clearly show what scientists are looking to achieve later. The image in this section is also really good as it is clear and shows the process of extraction. More images, videos or GIFS may be needed to effectively convey the research and procedures to your audience.

Lastly, your reference list is extremely impressive. You have shown you have conducted numerous and successful literature searches and are utilizing them accordingly. An important thing to note is that you are lacking in-text references in a few sections, especially “Biopsy Methods”, and in your lists of advantages and disadvantages. Make sure to add these to avoid academic misconduct to allow your reader to do further reading if they wish.

Overall, this is a really good page so far. You have demonstrated great teamwork and strong efforts to make this page standout. I suggest you consistently edit your work, add more visual aids, and condense your information where possible to gain the mark you deserve. Fantastic work!


5

There is no introduction, not having an introduction would mean there is no overview of what this page would be about and what it will discuss in detail. If an introduction could be uploaded maybe consider an image or a short video that would be able to sum the introduction up. This must be done instead of just going straight into the “History “.It would make your page more appealing and professional if you followed through with an introduction. Other than that, I appreciate the detail that went through. There is great amount of reference at the end of each section which is great, however there is no in- text referencing in some sections like procedure of “Genetic Techniques”. Having in-text referencing will allow the audience to know exactly where the information was read from and for the interest of the audience can read that specific paper in detail. There is a great amount of information in almost every section with great detail however, consider more subheadings to make the sections easier to read and allows the audience to navigate the page effortlessly. This was the case for ““Polar Body Analysis” section”. The information here is quite dense therefore you could split or organize information into more subheadings.

I also noticed that there is not enough information in historic findings; this is an important key point that needs to be addressed. Present some online research, add some images, some in text referencing and maybe a table or timeline, this should help shape the historic findings section. Finding information on historic findings might be a little challenging. A suggestion I can make is to search for old articles in PubMed (by adjusting the year). Review articles that summarise historic findings related to Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis may also be helpful. You also need to find information on current research as well. Other subheadings that are either incomplete or missing are “Ethics “and “Future/Current Research”. This can to be done in the same manner as the historic findings. The tables displayed in the other sections are great as they simplify information and is an effective way for students to study so well done! Keep in mind this is meant to be informative and easy to comprehend, so try and find that balance. Thus, consider some more images, diagrams, graphs and tables in each section, to make it more inviting and not overwhelming with just content. Captions should be added on the page for some of the images to state what the images are showing.

Try and look for a youtube video that can help summaries the content on your page. If possible try adding hand drawn images too. A glossary list should be incorporated in a separate subheading to define some of the technical words so that viewers can fully grasp the information.

Having said all those down side points, this page is coming along nicely with many positive aspects:

• Great amount of references at the end

• Concise in text citation except in some paragraphs

• Good use of images

• The use of dot points in different sections to format the info is very useful and provides clarity

• Great table of advantages and disadvantage in section “Biopsy Methods”

• The key points have been clearly described

• Having Future/Current Research” sub heading which is great


Overall, I can appreciate the difficulty of this topic. However if you work on the subheading within each section and add some images, videos and diagrams as well as some in text referencing I think that should make a significant difference by making this page more inviting, easier to navigate and also appear greatly organized. GOOD LUCK

6

This project page is very well done. Clearly, you have done huge amount of research on this topic. And all sections of the page are well balanced.

I appreciate that you include the advantages and disadvantages of each diagnostic methods, which not only indicates your thorough understanding of the topic, but also make it easier for readers to compare each methods.

Images and tables are well chosen in your page. It would be great if you can add more visual aids in some sections because there are large amount of texts in some section.

7

Your project page is coming along very well so far. You research into the subject seems very extensive and sufficient. You have many citations which have been cited properly. Your long list of references and the many in text citations are evident of the effort and depth that you have gone into your research. Furthermore, you have added a heading on future and current research which further shows the relevance and recent nature of your research beyond the teaching aspect. You have chosen relevant headings and figures so far, explained the key points well and taught the content at a peer level showing a good understanding of the topic. Its great that you have also chosen to include the laws and legal status to show how the topic is relevant to society and how it is being translated from research to the clinic.

While the images you have included so far are engaging and relevant I feel that much more is needed since your research into the topic is very widespread. More images, diagrams and graphs (maybe a graph on the rate of genetic testing use can be helpful) would help to break up the text, balance the page better and make the page more engaging. Also, try to refer to your files in text as well so they may complement your explanations and enhance understanding of the topic. Including your own innovative drawings and searching for relevant videos would also help to teach key points better. When adding your files try to maintain the same formatting, some of your images are added as thumbnails while others are not.

Additionally, you are still lacking an introduction. You have included a heading for it so I assume you will get to it, but make sure its included as its very helpful in orientating your reader and providing some background information for those without a significant scientific background. You should also consider adding a timeline to the section on history, it is more engaging to your viewer and easier to read. I would also recommend adding some more tables, they are visually appealing and also help to break up the text. I suggest you add a table of the diseases tested for, with a brief description of the disease, the specific genetic test used to detect it and at what stage its used. Animal models can also be included to show research into the topic beyond the teaching activities. Finally, make sure you reread over your work and edit your spelling and grammar in some areas.

Good effort overall, well done!

8

You have done a great job for your project! As we can see from the amount of your references, huge amount of research must have been done. The key points relating to the topic are clearly described. The page is organized very well and the use of expandable table keeps the page neat. The images and tables used are highly relative to your topic. I would recommend that:

1. Instead of using the acronym, the use of full form ‘Artificial Reproductive Technologies’ for the topic name maybe better.

2. The introductory part is missing. It gives readers an overview of the page and helps readers without background knowledge understanding the topic easier.

3. The layout for the Biopsy Methods part maybe reconsidered. More spacing between three different methods will make the page easier to read. And also, the background color for the table may be lighter. Since the table is a summary of the three methods, I will suggest moving it to the end of the three methods.

4. A hand-drawn image somewhere on the page or a video can be added.

5. For the legal status, it would be nicer if you can classify these countries according to whether they are permit or prohibit.

Overall, you have made a great page. Thanks for your effort.

9

This page has an impressive amount of content, this shows that you guys have done amazing research and deducing those which are relevant for this chosen topic. As your page is very content heavy, visual aids (detailed diagrams, videos, tables and flowcharts) can be a great way to lighten the content and keep the audience interested. Remember to add a hand drawn diagram! The heading used were very appropriate for the topic, but the overuse of subheadings makes it harder for the audience to understand. I would suggest to condense some of the subheadings as I think some are not necessary (Laws and Legal Status - it is fine just having the countries in bolding titles) I suggest having them in a table which will look a lot neater. In the subheading, it is clear that there is a lot of advantages and disadvantage; I suggest to have them in table format, making it easier to read for audiences. But it is also good to see that you have made use of bullet points.

Adding a glossary at the bottom will be very beneficial for the audience as there are a few terms that are not explained (IMSI, IVF and FISH etc). There are still a few headings and sub which have not been touched on; “Utilisation of Diseased Cell Lines” and “Ethics” I am certain with more research, no doubt the content of these will be great!

Your reference list is extremely long which is good! Showing you have done numerous and numerous of literature searches and put them to good use. Just to remind you that it is important to have in-site referencing in the body of the page.

Overall, the page was a delight to read! All the content seem to be integrated nicely which shows great teamwork. I am certain after condensing some information and including visual aids, your page will be awesome!

10

This is a very well organised and detailed analysis of the topic. An impressive amount of research has gone into delivering such an informative page.

You have the appropriate sub-headings which make it easy to understand the information, however there may be a few too many. See if you can try and merge a few sub- headings together. I particularly liked the breakdown of each biopsy method into the three minor headings of description, procedure and advantages and disadvantages. This is a good way to approach such a content heavy topic.

It would be a good idea to include more images and videos as there is a lot of text on your page. I could not see an original image on your page, so it would be good to hand draw an exisitng image or another image. You can also include more tables to break the monotonous style of reading paragraphs of text, especially when describing the advantages and disadvantages of the genetic techniques.

The laws and legal status section is a bit unnecessary as it is not an important part of this topic. A simple table would be good to summarise the current legal status for each country without having to write a paragraph for each.

I liked that you ended of by discussing current and future research, which not many groups have done. The last sub sub-heading for this section, "Utilisaiton of Diseased Cell Lines" does not have any text underneath it.

It would also be helpful for the readers if a glossary is included at the end of the page as there a few terms that are difficult to understand.

Overall, this is a very impressive page with an abundance of information. The topic has been covered comprehensively which is a mark of good teamwork as a lot of research has been done to cover such an expansive topic. Great job!

7

The Project is structured really well, with multiple headings and subheadings. This report contains a lot of citations and references which help with the clarity of the report. It was easy to follow because of the different headings included. Different sections either had tables, bullet point lists, diagrams or images that helped create an understanding of the information. It is obvious that a lot of research was done for this topic. Diagrams, tables, microscopic images, graphs, in vitro analysis, lists, collapsed tables are all a great tool to use besides just information.

The first half of the report is just information, until the diagrams are seen, possibly separate into subheadings, or bullet points as it may be unclear as there is just loads of information by themselves. The layout affects the clarity also, as it is a heading with sub information, possibly adjust the lining of the paragraphs so the headings and subheadings stand out. The citations and references are done extensively.

The introduction and ethics headings are left empty which obviously need to be filled with information, a glossary section may prove helpful if added for the reader’s benefits, and even a further reading section could help. Overall this report is good however the clarity and structure should be assessed in order to make this a better report.


8

The topic for this page is clearly broad and there is a lot of information that needs to be addressed, it can be inferred that a lot of concise research and time has been spent on this page. The students also do a good job to reference in text correctly and most of their images have correct copyright information.

There is a LOT of text used on this page – more attention needs to be payed to reducing and compressing the sections of text within the page – try adding different formatting styles to the way the text sits on the page, or putting some of the information into tables or possibly using a video where applicable to simplify the explanation of an issue. I would also recommend trying to keep consistent formatting/presentation of all images throughout the page. Some are in thumbnails, others don’t have descriptions etc.. Keeping consistency with the formatting will make the page look much clearer and cohesiveness.

The whole page will largely benefit from a greater increase in the number of media files used, particularly in the top section of the page. Readers want to be enticed into the page so having many images and media files at the start of the page will go a long way in keeping readers interested and encouraging them to keep working through the page.

The order of the text is also somewhat complicated and scattered – try to simplify the text where possible and link all subheadings together, making the page more cohesive as a whole. Irrelevant bits of information should be deleted and reduced as much as possible. The page is good and on its way to being an informative and clear page for students.

9

Fantastic job guys, this one hard to pick on. Layout is great, flows, logical topics, easy to read, nicely broken up with informative or interesting images. Just smashing. References appear to all be solid. So what can I suggest? You could try making up a table for the advantages and diss advantages so it’s easy to compare each tech. The PCR Cycle copies table is just a list of exponential growth and can go. Hyperlink some of your key words to the glossary or other pages so people can get background or further reading on topics involved. Change the heading to spell out Assisted Repro… etc. so that its stated before you abbreviate. Collect up the info to make your intro and so far you have the best project of the group. Pretty flawless guys.

10

To start with, just looking at your table of contents alone, it looks extremely thorough. Your choice of headings and choice of subheadings are very extensive, and your subheadings and sub-subheadings are very diverse, making it easy to spot and read when specific information is required when reading your page. Pros

  • Your information and research is extremely thorough, exceeding the basic requirement of the assessment, which is really good and informative
  • Nice summary in “biopsy method”, especially in a section with a lot of writing in it

Cons

  • A short explanation in the introduction would help, and if possible, give it a video, to capture your audience at first glance.
  • In your genetic techniques, “PCR” “Advantages and Disadvantages” would look better if it was placed in a table. For long lists and dot points, tabulation would make it look more organized and readable
  • Watch out with your headings, sub headings, sub-sub headings, and sub-sub-sub headings, in “genetic techniques” they look all meshed together, its hard to distinguish, which sub-sub-sub heading and sub-sub headings belong to which section; it can look a bit messy and all over the place.

11

Skimming through the page, it is clear that a lot of research has been done to make this page what it is, each subheading is well thought out (maybe a overdone a bit by the additional sub-subheadings) and allows a transition. However there is a crucial part of the page is missing, the introduction. By not having an introduction at the beginning of the page, the project just jumps straight into information giving no clues as to what the project will be covering overall. It would be nice to have a concise definition of Artificial Reproductive Technologies (maybe replace ‘ART’ for the full word for the wikipage heading) The history has some nice information, but I think it can be improved by making use of tables or a graph for each of the dates, or even dot points to break the constant text.

Overall in the other sections, the pictures are nice and are references appropriately and the use of table is nice (might be a bit dark to see the writing clearly). I think that some of the information can be broken up into small paragraphs rather than having one paragraph with around 30~40 sentences as it breaks down the information into easily digestible parts considering the amount of information which has been provided.

The advantages and disadvantages of ART have been mentioned clearly without using lots of text, it makes the information easy to understand. I also think that more images are needed considering the widespread nature of the topic you have chosen, maybe some hand drawn images for those which you cannot find copyright information or a video to explain some of the procedures. Some grammar and formatting should be done before final submission to ensure that all sections are uniform in their font and sizing.

Great work on finding all the information and making this page so far!! Good luck

12

This wikipedia article is impressively organised and easy to follow. It is sufficiently detailed, and despite being content heavy it has a good layout as it is well spaced out. This article is well referenced as well, a testament to the work that has been put in.

I understand that the advantages and disadvantages are listed as bullet points. Have you thought of organising it in a table? It may be a way to include a 'visual aid' in order to reach a balance in terms of visual/text content. Generally, more diagrams will only improve this article. Cohesion between the visual and written text may be increased by referrals to the diagrams/images throughout e.g. human blastocyst biopsy as opposed to a caption only. Also, having a section directly comparing the genetic techniques/purpose/effectivity/results in a table may be interesting.

Overall, wonderful work. In my opinion this is definitely a frontrunner and particularly difficult to critique.

Discussion

Z5088434(talk Would the part you added in indication rather be part of the introduction since it pretty much sums up what the page is about? Maybe go into when PGD and PGS are applied? as for the multiple instances citations: first in text citation has to be like this: [1] and the following ones are like this: [1] (just check for the code in the edit mode, can't figure out how to just show the code without it actually configuring it...)

To Do List

Week 4

  • text book summary and some notes
  • journal article
  • 1 relevant media article
  • post in this discussion and on your own page under lab 3 assignment
  • for links or informal questions please use the facebook Group


Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis

Headings

  • Polar body
  • Genetic techniques
  • Laws in different countries and states
  • Cell extraction from zygotes, blastomeres, morula
  • How analysis is conducted e.g. PCR
  • Gene Mapping
  • Inheritance patterns
  • Conducted prior to implantation

In order (?):

  • Introduction (GP)
  • History/Development (include transition from post to preimplantation) (GP)
  • Indications, Inheritance patterns (SL)
    • Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)
    • Preimplantation Genetic Screening (PGS)
  • Cell Extraction Methods, side effect (SK)
    • Polar Body Analysis
    • Blastomere biopsy
    • Trophectoderm biopsy
  • Genetic Techniques (GP)
    • Fluorescent In Situ Hybridisation (FISH)
    • PCR
    • Array Comparative Genomic Hybridisation (aCGH)

PMID 26100406 PMID 24771116

    • Single Nucleotide Polymorphism

history explanation specific examples application


Next Generation Sequencing

  • Diagnosis (table, gene mapping) (SL)
  • Utilization of Diseased Cell Lines (SK)
  • Laws/ Legal status (SL)
  • Future/Current Research
  • Ethics

Content

Legistation for ARTS

Assisted Reproductive Technology Ethics

G12 Country Regulations of Assisted Reproductive Technologies


Cell Extraction Methods

Polar bodies: Applying PGD to polar bodies is desired as it can be used before conception. Since genetic testing can be conducted within twenty four hours this makes it possible for the transfer to the mother at the blastomere stage. However this method isn’t commonly used due to the fact that all oocytes must be tested including those that may not progress to mature and only genetic material from the female can be retrieved [2]

Cleavage stage: This involves the biopsy of the blastomere (6 to 10 cells) [3]. It is advantageous to work on blastomeres as they are totipotent, meaning they can give rise to a diverse range of cells. Studies have also shown that there is no increase in congenital abnormality rates caused by the removal of blastomere cells [2]. Contrarily, studies have shown that the standard removal of two blastomeres at one time will decrease its potential to develop into a blastocyst [4]. Along with the fragility of the cells at this stage, highly skilled embryologists are required to minimise poorly performed biopsies which could subsequently lead to impaired growth and a decrease in implantation. Unlike polar bodies both maternal and paternal genes can be tested if PGD is performed at this stage. [2]

Blastocyst: Performing PGD at this stage is the least common since many patients do not produce embryos healthy enough to reach this stage. Multiple cells can be extracted at this stage for biopsy producing more accurate results. This is possible due to the fact that biopsies have little effect on the development of the embryo. Genetic tests must also be conducted rapidly since implantation is optimal at this stage [2]

Textbooks

The Developing Human 9th Edition: Birth Defects caused by Genetic factors

[5]

  • Estimated to cause one third of all defects
  • Abnormalities in chromosomes are usually due to structural or numerical changes. These can occur in sex chromosomes or autosomes.
    • Numerical abnormalities are a result of nondisjunction. Nondisjunction is when a pair or chromatids fail to disjoin during meiosis or mitosis. E.g. Turners Syndrome, Trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) and Trisomy 18 (Edward’s Syndrome).
    • Structural abnormalities are usually a result of chromosome breakage followed by reconstitution in an abnormal combination. There are different types of structural abnormalities including translocation and deletion of chromosomes
  • Mutations cause 8% of birth defects. It involves the loss or change in the function of a gene which is permanent and heritable.

Williams Obstetrics, Twenty-Fourth Edition: Preimplantation Genetic Testing

[6]

  • two categories of preimplantation genetic testing: PGS (-Screening) & PGD (-Diagnosis); different indications
    • PGS: IVF procedure due to infertility without known genetic abnormalities in patients
    • PGD: IVF procedure & genetic testing chosen because of known genetic abnormalities in patients
  • Methods:
    • Polar body analysis: first and second polar body are extruded following completion of meiosis I and meiosis II
      • Advantages: does not harm embryo, can be used to detect 146 Mendelian disorders, reported 99% accuracy
      • Disadvantages: paternal genetic contribution is not investigated --> additional procedures
    • Blastomere biopsy: embryo is 3 day old, 6-8 cells stage, most commonly used, hole is made in zona pellucida to retrieve one cell
      • Disadvantages: 10% pregnancy reduction,"mosaicism of the blastomeres may not reflect the chromosomal complement of the developing embryo"
    • Trophectoderm biopsy: 5-6 day old blastocyst, 5-7 cells are removed
      • Advantage: no cells removed from embryo
      • Disadvantage: additional procedures may be necessary because of later stage of developing embryo (cryopreservation, implantation at later IVF-cycle)

Maternal, Fetal & Neonatal physiology: a Clinical perspective :Prenatal Diagnosis and Maternal, Fetal & Neonatal physiology: a Clinical perspective: Prenatal Diagnosis:

Prenatal diagnosis is the screening process that tests an early fetus for overall growth, complications of pregnancy, birth defects and chromosomal or genetic abnormalities within the first 2 trimesters. It aims to provide the parents with as information as possible to help them make an informed decision about the infants quality of life. In 90-95% of the cases negative outcomes occur; confirming the healthy state of the fetus, should a genetic abnormality be present, it provides the parents with the opportunity to investigate further with other tests, and possible fetal therapeutic treatments available as well plan and prepare for the disabled infant or to terminate the pregnancy.


  • Indicators for prenatal screening/ high risk factors include:
    • maternal ages > 35 years
    • paternal ages > 50-55
    • history of 2+ miscarriages
    • previous pregnancy or family history of a preexisting genetic or chromosomal disorder
    • suspected carriers of genetic disorders
    • maternal disease/condition present (high BP, diabetes)
    • abnormal ultrasound or serum test results within the first 2 trimesters
    • family history of neural tube or other birth defects


  • Ultrasonography:
    • high frequency sound waves are used to generate a image of the fetus
    • relatively non-invasion; its conducted transabdominally or transvaginally ( producing a higher resolution image)
    • It reveals the presence/absence of congenital abnormalities, characteristics of fetal growth and development, uterine development status; amount of **amniotic fluid, placental position, umbilical blood flow and the presence of multiple gestation.
    • (if abnormalities are detected further testing is recommended)


  • Amniotic Fluid Analysis/:
    • samples are obtained through amniocentesis
    • the amniotic fluid is analyzed for its biochemical composition
    • earlier in the pregnancy it can be examined for sex determination and to diagnose genetic or chromosomal disorders present.
    • Later into the pregnancy it provides an indication of fetal maturity and well being
    • Feta; cells recovered from the amniotic fluid can be cultured for specific karyotypes, to test for Chromosomal Abnormalities, and analysed for Alpha- fetoprotein (AFP) a biochemical marker of metabolic disorders and neural tube defects as well as other abnormalities.
    • Amniocentesis- occurs usually between weeks 14-20 as amniotic fluid has reached the optimal volume (150-250mls) allowing 20-30mls to be removed with a relatively low risk or fetal or maternal complication, and in time for a 2nd trimester abortion.
    • early amniocentesis ( before week 13) increase the risk of fetal loss, leakage of essential amniotic fluid and talipes equinovarus.


  • Chronic Villus Sampling (CVS):
    • occurs roughly 10-13 weeks after last menstrual cycle, ensuing a sufficiently developed chorionic villi but before the chorion laeve forms the definitive placenta.
    • ultrasounds is used to locate the gestational sac and implantation then a transcervial or transabdominal approach is used to aspirate living tropoblast tissue.
    • sample is analyzed for chromosomal abnormalities or with enzyme assay.
    • advantages: earlier diagnosis , decreased waiting period
    • disadvantages: risk of spontaneous abortion, bacterial infection, bleeding, leakage of amniotic fluid, inability to diagnose neural tube defects this early, early cleavage (before wk 10) is associated with increased risk of limb defects (due to insufficiently developed chronic villi)


  • Umbilical Blood Sampling:
    • can occur as early as 16 weeks
    • using the umbilical cord to obtain fetal blood samples - with real time ultrasound
    • used to diagnose inherited blood disorders, to detect congenital infections, to assess fetal anemia and in treatments such as blood transfusions.
    • disadvantages: risks of infection, preterm labor, thrombosis, bleeding & transient fetal arrhythmia


  • Fluroscent in Situ Hybridisation (FISH)
    • rapidly detects (within 24 hours of testing ) the presence of Trisomies 21, 13 and 8 and alterations in sex chromosomes in uncultured cells.


  • early diagnosis allows the opportunity for intervention with fetal therapies:
    • surgical intervention urinary tract obstruction ; aiming to reduce prenatal renal damage
    • fetal transfusions ( feta anemia
    • fetal medical treatmetn ( fetal cardiac arrhythmias,impaired thyroid function etc.) treatment occurs usually through the mother
    • infusions for hematologic conditions
    • stem cell transplantation
    • gene therapy
    • pharmocolic interventions


textbooks used :

  • Maternal, Fetal & Neonatal physiology: a Clinical perspective [7]
  • Langman's Medical Embryology (12th ed.)Chapter 9, pages 125-129 [8]

the following are two articles about a newly available and accessible prenatal non- invasive genetic test- Blood sampling:

  • Report on Cutting edge prenatal screening technology to become available in Australia [9]
  • Blood Test takes risk out of prenatal testing [10]
  • Prenatal screening and Diagnostic Tests Information Pamphlet [11]



Articles

<pubmed>24810687</pubmed>

<pubmed>23773313</pubmed>

<pubmed>26201722</pubmed>

<pubmed>26168107</pubmed> This article reviews the cytogenetic techniques and embryo biopsies required for PGD & PGS and gives an account on the differences in PGD for single gene defects and chromosomal translocations.


<pubmed>22723007</pubmed> This article gives relatively recent and detailed information on the three types of biopsy performed on embryos at different stages of development (before conception, after fertilization, and early cleavage or blastocyst stage)


<pubmed>24515905</pubmed> This article reviews indications for PGD focusing on single gene disorders.


<pubmed>20966459</pubmed> This article gives detailed laboratory instructions and guidelines for PGD procedures, which might be useful for the methodological part of the website


The following articles are about diseased cells/embryos derived from PGD procedures for further research: <pubmed>23242925</pubmed> <pubmed>22735930</pubmed>


Other articles <pubmed>21748341</pubmed>

<pubmed>26259216</pubmed>

<pubmed>26258137</pubmed>

<pubmed>22404048</pubmed>

<pubmed>26238130</pubmed>

<pubmed>26168107</pubmed>


IVF and prenatal genetic testing in Australia [[6]]

the following are two articles about a newly available and accessible prenatal non- invasive genetic test- Blood sampling: [[7]]

[[8]]

  1. 1.0 1.1 <pubmed>...</pubmed>
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Coward, K. & Wells, D. (2013). Textbook of Clinical Embryology New York: Cambridge University Press.
  3. <pubmed>11325751</pubmed>
  4. <pubmed>19773223</pubmed>
  5. Moore, K.L., Persaud, T.V.N. & Torchia, M.G. (2011). The developing human: clinically oriented embryology (9th ed.). Philadelphia: Saunders.
  6. Cunningham F, Leveno K.J., Bloom S.L., Spong C.Y., Dashe J.S., Hoffman B.L., Casey B.M., Sheffield J.S. (2013). Prenatal Diagnosis. In Cunningham F, Leveno K.J., Bloom S.L., Spong C.Y., Dashe J.S., Hoffman B.L., Casey B.M., Sheffield J.S. (Eds), Williams Obstetrics, Twenty-Fourth Edition. Retrieved August 25, 2015 from {http://accessmedicine.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?bookid=1057&Sectionid=59789152.}
  7. Blackburn, S.L. (2003) Maternal, Fetal & Neonatal physiology: a Clinical perspective (2nd ed.). Seattle: Saudners
  8. Sadler T.W.(2012) Langman's Medical Embryology (12th ed.) Philadelphia: Lipincott, Wiliams & Wilkins, a Wolters Kluwer Business
  9. Carbonell, R. Shinners, A. Amor, D. Mark, D. (2015) Report on Cutting edge prenatal screening technology to become available in Australia: Prepared for ABC news, PM with Mark Colvin. Retrieved from {http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2015/s4203200.htm}
  10. Begley, S. (05/07/2015) Blood Test takes risk out of prenatal testing. ABC Science. Retrieved from {http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/05/3539549.htm}
  11. Western Australia. Department of Health Genetics Council Prenatal Diagnosis Committee (2011)Prenatal screening and Diagnostic Tests. Retrieved from {http://www.health.wa.gov.au/docreg/Education/Prevention/Genetics/HP3131_prenatal.pdf}