User:Z3291643

From Embryology

Lab 4 Online Assessment

  1. The allantois, identified in the placental cord, is continuous with what anatomical structure?
  2. Identify the 3 vascular shunts, and their location, in the embryonic circulation.
  3. Identify the Group project sub-section that you will be researching. (Add to project page and your individual assessment page)



--Z3291643 12:55, 28 July 2011 (EST)

Lab 1 Assessment

1. Identify the origin of In Vitro Fertilization and the 2010 nobel prize winner associated with this technique.

‘in vitro’ fertilization is Latin for ‘in glass’ fertilization and is a treatment for infertility, whereby the sperm fertilizes the ovum outside the body and is then implanted back into the patient’s uterus. The first successful IVF birth, Louise Brown, occurred in 1978 with the help of Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards. Edwards was awarded the 2010 nobel prize in medicine for his achievement.


2. Identify a recent paper on fertilisation and describe its key findings.

The aim of this paper was to investigate whether age <=25 played a role in the reproductive outcome of women undergoing IVF. Infertile patients aged between 19 and 25 years of age were compared to infertile patients aged 30-35 years to determine primarily fertilization rates and the number of top quality embryos. The results were unexpected as the younger subjects had lower fertilization rates and reduced embryo quality.[1]


3. Identify 2 congenital anomalies.

Trisomy 21 and cleft palate


--Mark Hill 10:01, 3 August 2011 (EST) These answers are fine.

--z3291643 13:02, 4 August 2011 (EST)


Lab 2 Assessment

1. Identify the ZP protein that spermatozoa binds and how is this changed (altered) after fertilization.

ZP3 acts as a receptor for the sperm. This is followed by the acrosome reaction, whereby acrosomal contents digest the ZP and allow the sperm surface proteins to bind to the ZP2. After fertilization, cortical reaction takes place where cortical granules are exocytosed. This results in the removal of carbohydrate from ZP3 and cleavage of ZP2 to harden the ZP. These changes occur to prevent polyspermy.


2. Identify a review and a research article related to your group topic.

This research article showed genotype-phenotype correlations in Angelman Syndrome (AS). They have concluded that deletion patients had worse developmental outcomes than non deletion patients.[2]

This review article is really comprehensive and gives a good background knowledge of AS.[3]

--Z3291643 12:42, 11 August 2011 (EST)

Lab 3 Assessment

1. What is the maternal dietary requirement for late neural development?

Iodine. Zimmermann found that maternal deficiency of iodine can result in cognitive disability in the offspring, most severely characterized by cretinism. Fortunately, mild to moderate iodine deficiency can be corrected in primary school aged children to improve cognitive and motor functions.[4]

2. Upload a picture relating to your group project.

UBE3A colocalizes with ASPM at the centrosome throughout mitosis.[5]

UBE3A colocalizes with ASPM at the centrosome throughout mitosis

Abnormal cytokinesis and apoptosis in UBE3A knockdown cells.

UBE3A colocalizes with ASPM at the centrosome. (A) Indirect immunofluorescence of HEK293 cells at interphase and different phases of mitosis stained with antibodies against ASPM and UBE3A (anti-UBE3A-sc-8926). Note colocalization of UBE3A with ASPM at the centrosome throughout mitosis (arrowheads). Note weak centrosomal staining of UBE3A in an interphase cell (arrow). (B) Indirect immunofluorescence of A549 cells stained with antibodies against UBE3A (anti-UBE3A-sc-8926) and ASPM at metaphase and telophase. Note colocalization of UBE3A with ASPM at the centrosome (arrowheads). Scale bar=2 µm.


Copyright Singhmar, Kumar. 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.

--z3291643 11:08, 18 August 2011 (EST)

Lab 4 Online Assessment

  1. The allantois, identified in the placental cord, is continuous with what anatomical structure?

The allantois is endodermic in origin and is the extension of the yolk sac into the connecting stalk. It's connected to the superior end of the developing bladder


  1. Identify the 3 vascular shunts, and their location, in the embryonic circulation.

1. Ductus arteriosus; connects left pulmonary artery with the descending aorta 2. Ductus venosus; connects the portal and umbilical veins to the inferior vena cava 3. Foramen ovale; between left and right atria


  1. Identify the Group project sub-section that you will be researching. (Add to project page and your individual assessment page)
4 Aetiology (genetic inheritance); Julia
5 Pathophysiology; Julia (as it's quite linked with aetiology anyway)


--Sang Lee 12:59, 25 August 2011 (EST)

Lab 5 Online Assessment

  1. Which side (L/R) is most common for diaphragmatic hernia and why?

Posterior left side,possibly due to the fact that the left pericardioperitoneal canal is larger and closes later than the right.

--Sang Lee 12:48, 1 September 2011 (EST)

Lab 6 Online Assessment

  1. What week of development do the palatal shelves fuse?

Week 9 of early embryonic growth

  1. What early animal model helped elucidate the neural crest origin and migration of neural crest cells?

Migration of neural crest cells have been studied in quail-chick chimeras - transplanted quail cells have obvious nucleoli compared with chicken. It was first done by Nicole Le Douarin in the 80's

  1. What abnormality results from neural crest not migrating into the cardiac outflow tract?

Tetralogy of Fallot; when the outflow tract is not aligned properly, it is seen as a nonwedged aorta. Nonwedged aorta indicates tetralogy of Fallot. In addition, past studies using chick embryos have outlined that cardiac neural crest cell ablation led to this malalignment. In contrast, Farrell et al have shown that the introduction of cardiac neural crest aligned the outflow tract properly. [6]

--Sang Lee 12:49, 15 September 2011 (EST)

Lab 7 Online Assessment

1. Are satellite cells

  • necessary for muscle hypertrophy?
No
  • generally involved in hypertrophy?
Yes


2. Why does chronic low frequency stimulation (CLFS) cause a fast to slow fibre type shift?

At the molecular level, there are exchanges of fast and slow type protein isoforms, such as calcium regulatory system, myofibrillar apparatus. The final step in CLFS induced fiber shift is the upregulation of slow myosin from the conversion of myogenic cells to slow fiber phenotype. [7]It is also known that satellite cells contribute to CLFS-induced transition of fiber types shown by the fact that CLFS increases type I fibers only after fiber necrosis. [8]


--Mark Hill 10:42, 16 September 2011 (EST)

I would like each student to now also look at the following online page before the next Lab and write a comment based upon the group project assessment criteria.

http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Trisomy_21 Paste your comment on the Trisomy 21 discussion page and also on your own student page.

Group Assessment Criteria

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
    • Good and concise explanation of the subheadings,however, I would've liked to see some attempt to further explain how the asspcoated congenital abnormalities occur.
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
    • Lots of images, graphs and table used effectively to help reader better understand the disease. They also gave the project page some colour to make it more pleasing to the eye. Unfortunately, some images were placed (eg. John Langdon Down)in the wrong sections and interrupted the flow of the project page.
    • In addition, some of the images were not referred to within the project page.
    • Furthermore, the overall structure and layout of the page could be improved, such as putting the Diagnostic Links under diagnosis instead of the introduction
    • I also felt American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Recommendations could've been a subheading under 'screening'
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
    • The very first image does not provide any information on the permissions to reuse the image (open access).
  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.
    • Would've been better to include more self drawn diagrams and tables to further illustrate the group's knowledge of this disease
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
    • Lots of Pubmed articles have been used to make this page more credible and reliable
  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.
    • More words need to be explained in the glossary, such as 'tandem single nucleotide polymorphisms'
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines

--Sang Lee 22:50, 21 September 2011 (EST)

Lab 8 Online Assessment

attendance: --Sang Lee 13:04, 22 September 2011 (EST)

Group 1: Turner Syndrome

Firstly, nice progress with the group project. After reading your page, I have a good general knowledge of Turner Syndrome, so thanks. Overall, most sections were well done, though the writing style and layout could be more consistent, but you could work on that when you've finalised the content of the page.

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
    • Introduction: Good intro, very first image of the karyotype should include the actual statement of the 'Open access' not just 'copyright'
    • Epidemiology: Grammatical errors disrupt the flow of the content, in addition, graph has no copyright info, title could be improved
    • Etiology: Nice simple diagram of 22 eggs and 23 sperms, good example of when a picture can tell more than a thousand words! I feel there needs to be consistency either use Turner Syndrome or TS throughout the page
    • Clinical: liked how you have further classified the symptoms to its associated titles, nice idea; very easy to read, but a table would also be good
    • Diagnosis: image of TS maternal serum sampling doesn't contain {Template:2011 Student Image}, but a very good table
    • image of the TS X chromosome variations shouldl contain {Template:2011 Student Image}. Furthermore, if you use A-E in image descriptions, you should include A-E within the image
    • Research: very good layout and explanations, informative
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
    • Could include more images especially in clinical manidestations, and some images do not fit the requirements set by Mark, as I've highlighted above
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
    • seems to be cited well. However, although you have more than 100 referencees, a lot of them are repeated references, maybe you could try to use more pubmed articles, a greater variety
  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.
    • Glossary: could include more words such as echocardiogram
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
    • Although you have more than 100 referencees, a lot of them are repeated references, maybe you could try to use more pubmed articles, a greater variety
  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.
    • Although the content is informative, I'm left feeling like I want more variety of resources, so maybe some further research will improve the overall impression of your page
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines

"What would improve this project...."

  • consistency in writing style
  • more images and cited correctly

--z3291643 14:44, 24 September 2011 (EST)

Group 2

Hey Group 2, firstly, well done on putting in the effort to create this page, it really shows your dedication and cooperation as a team! Here are some points I thought you could improve on to take this page to that extra level

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
    • Introduction: Good overview. Image would look better with a border or as a thumb
    • History: Image too large, again maybe a border?
    • Epidemiology: Need to define velocardiofacial syndrome in glossary, also break it down into subheadings, eg. Incidence, Sex, etc
    • Etiology: Maybe better if in a table
    • Pathogenesis: I liked how you broke it doen into relevant subheadings. However, on a slightly negative note, the DG Pathophysiology Diagram looks rushed; I think it would've looked better if it was neater and easier to read.
    • Diagnosis: I felt citing was done poorly in this section, eg. the last 4/5 sentences in the FISH technique was not referenced at all, but again, this is very easily fixed. But good to see you have put in the effort and time
    • Clinical: Image of normal and cleft palate, if based on a textbook, I think you still need permission to adapt it (not quite sure, please ask Mark)? Table with 'How it is caused' would be better by itself as pathophysiology. Tetralogy of Fallot needs to be fitted into this section more smoothly, at the moment, it makes this section look very cramped. Also, the image regarding Tetralogy needs the correct format for student drawn images (ie. 'I (student no.)....)
    • Research: Maybe break it down into subheadings
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
    • Good images used with a nice range of self drawn images. However, no where in the page is there any reference to the images within the text.
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
    • I feel citation needs to be improved overall. Lots of the sections have missing citations, especially Diagnostic Tests. Also in the reference list, refs 33,40,47, 49 have nothing in it (is it meant to be like this?)
  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.
    • Nice drawings, though some could've done better with more effort
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
    • Nice range of references used
  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.
    • It's very clear to me that you guys have worked together well and there has been good team work going on here to create this page, so well done
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines

"What would improve this project...."

  • I feel your page is too heavy with the text, although there's a lot of images as well, it just doesn't quite balance out with the text.
  • Also felt the different colours used for the tables, although adding a splash of colour to your page, brought down the overall quality of the page. However, please keep in mind that others might really like this approach of table formatting, it's just that personally, I think you could benefit from keeping all table colours consistent.
  • Sometimes you refer to DiGeorge Syndrome as DGS and also as DS. Small and easy to fix, adds consistency
  • Please don't forget to add the {template} for student uploaded images
  • Definitely needs more words in the Glossary, such as Meiosis, de novo, microarray

--z3291643 16:02, 24 September 2011 (EST)


Group 3

Hi, overall, a nice project page with interesting information.

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
    • Introduction: Nice introduction, good flow and easy to read. However, image needs proper information and perhaps 'This disorder was first described by Harry F.' could be placed earlier on in the intro rather than in the middle
    • History: Nice section, very interesting
    • Epidemiology: First paragraph is good, but I feel the rest of this section doesn't quite belong here, such as the information on seizures, IQs, diagnosis. This section should focus on stats (sex/birth/ethnic/demographic/etc). Fig 2, 3 belong more in the signs and symptoms
    • Etiology: the '1:1000 male' contradicts the '1:500' given in epidemiology. Fig4 needs coyright information
    • Pathogenesis: Needs better referencing, also placing fig 5, 6 on either side doesn't look too good with the text. Perhaps place them below one another?
    • Signs: Seems a bit incomplete, it'll also be good to explain the image of 'pubertal gynecomastia'
    • Diagnosis: Sentence structure could be improved, ie. 'performed because physicians may suspect it because of clinical findings'. Information is interesting, but could be presented more clearly, perhaps in a table?
    • Similar defects: very nice, presented well with good information, easy to read
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
    • Good images used with a nice range of self drawn images. However, lot of the images need to be formatted properly with required information
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
    • overall referencing was well done, except pathogenesis needs more referencing
  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.
    • Nice range of references used
  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.
    • The information is there, but maybe from now til final assessment, you could do further research in all sections, as they do seem a little short.
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines

"What would improve this project...."

  • better page layout
  • glossary: sorry, but I feel the alphabet subheadings here are very effective as you have it in alphabetical order anyway

--z3291643 21:59, 28 September 2011 (EST)


Group 4

Hey, this is a nicely structured page with interesting content that is presented well. There is a nice balance of text and image


  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
    • Introduction: good, to the point
    • History: Nice section, perhaps bold the years?
    • Epidemiology: I really liked this section, both visually and content wise. The table is easy to read and I liked your explanations for the HD prevalence, well done
    • Genetics: Perhaps you could have the 'CAG (cytosine-adenine-glutamine)' in the introduction when you first refer to it? Referencing is required in i'HTT and normal functions'. I really liked your subheadings, made it very easy to understand and follow
    • Pathogenesis: Image is too big, good subheadings, I suggest that if you write in purple to highlight some words, maybe you could do that for the whole page?
    • Clinical: liked the motor impairment explanations, how about explaining the cognitive and behaviour impairments as well? (it'll be worth it!)
    • Diagnosis: Nice content, but it just feels a bit too crowded, maybe rearrange the images and decrease image size
    • Treatment: Very nice section with nice images and good format!
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
    • Good balance of images and text, though some rearrangement of images would make this page look better. Very good use of subheadings to make the content more easy to digest
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
    • overall referencing was well done
  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.
  • good range of tables, images and self drawn images
  1. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
    • Nice range of references used
  2. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.
  3. 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.
  4. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
  5. 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.
  6. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines

"What would improve this project...."

  • just minor changes such as resizing some of the images, making the sections consistent in format

--z3291643 22:32, 28 September 2011 (EST)


Group 5

Hi, I can see some progress on this page which is good, content is interesting

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
    • Introduction: What is FMR1 gene? Need more information here, as in when was it first discovered, some stats
    • Epidemiology: I think screening information is extensive enough to be a section on its own
    • Etiology: no explanation of FMR1 gene so far, what is its normal function? Also, please refer to images used in this section
    • Development of the disease:nice succinct, easy to follow section. Perhaps add an image for one of the stages mentioned here?
    • Signs: REFERENCING!!! But, content is good and interesting
    • Diagnosis: An image here would be nice, and an explanation of how the technology is used to diagnose FXS
    • Treatment: Nice table with good information
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
    • Need to balance out the text and image ratio, some good subheadings
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
    • poor referencing, which makes me question the reliability of the content in some sections
  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.
    • needs a lot more images
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
    • I feel more research needs to be done here
  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

"What would improve this project...."

  • Although the content is here, there is still a lot of work needed to make this page feel complete
  • glossary is very lacking in terminology
  • need more images
  • further research would be nice to explain this disease in more detail

--z3291643 23:26, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 6 Hey, nice progress with your page, all sections have similar amount of content which were interesting

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
    • Introduction: Referencing needs to be improved here
    • History: content is good but too wordy. I think a summary or a simple timeline would be good
    • Epidemiology: Where's the reference for 3/10000 live births?
    • Signs: ok section, but could do with more images here
    • Genetics: If using abbreviations, such as TBX1 gene, you should explain what it is, ie. TBX1 gene (T-box 1). Also need to work on referencing here as well. How about organising all the content in a table? have in columns: gene, gene profile, frequency, etc.
    • Pathogenesis: I'm not quite sure about this, but do you need permission to adapt an image from an article? (I'm referring to the '4 defects' image)
    • Diagnosis: I'm sorry, but this section is a bit bland, though the content is very informative. I think some images here would be good
    • Treatment: Referencing! Also, personally, that green is too bright, maybe find a more neutral, soothing colour?
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
    • Need to find more images, I feel some of the information could be more effectively presented in table formate rather than lengthy text
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
    • VERY poor referencing, which makes me question the reliability of the content in some sections
  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.
    • needs a lot more images
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
    • research done is evident, just need to reference
  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

"What would improve this project...."

  • glossary is very lacking in terminology
  • need more images
  • REFERENCING!

--z3291643 23:26, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 8 Hey, well done, your page is looking really polished! Lots of very interesting information here and presented in a very easy to follow manner

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
    • History: I feel that you could lessen the info of Nicholas and add more current findings of the disease.
    • Aetiology: What is the chromosome 9 image based on? Need to work on referencing. Very good subheadings and well balanced with images
    • Pathogenesis: Needs more information
    • Neuro: What's the images based on? Good subheadings and explained well. I liked the way you gave explanations for normal function/appearance and then went on to explain abnormality associated with the structures in this disease. But you need to improve your referencing for this section
    • Diagnosis: Very good table and images. But need to fix the postnal diagnosis table so that it spans the length of the screen
    • Symptoms: table and images look too crowded
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
    • good subheadings, images, impressive self drawn images! Nice balanced page layout
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
    • needs to work on referencing
  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.
    • research done is evident, just need to reference
  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

"What would improve this project...."

  • referencing
  • better arrangement of table and images so page doesn't look too crowded

Well done guys, nice team work! --z3291643 23:50, 28 September 2011 (EST)


Group 9

Hey, your page has a lot of very interesting content and some unique self drawn images. I thoroughly enjoyed this page, thanks

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
    • Introduction: Inclusion of incidence would be nice
    • History: very informative and a nice simple timeline
    • Genetics: Good, succinct section, especially liked the table
    • Diagnosis: needs referencing. Is diagnosis only postnatal? What is the average age of diagnosis for this disease?
    • Management and Treatment: Seems a little out of place under epidemiology, I think it should be place later on
    • Phenotype:Reference?
    • Cardiac conditions: maybe give explanations for atrial and ventricular septal defect, just brief descriptions would suffice. Why is it so that males are more likely to suffer CVD than females?
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
    • good subheadings, interesting self drawn images. However, this page needs to find a balance in text and images
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
    • needs to work on referencing
  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.
    • research done is evident, just need to reference
  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.
    • very interesting content, informative
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines

"What would improve this project...."

  • referencing
  • more images
  • glossary; lacking a lor of terms

--z3291643 00:10, 29 September 2011 (EST)


Group 10

Hey, this is a interesting disease, with some good images to show the disease clearly.

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
    • Introduction: succinct introduction
    • History: Has interesting content, though timeline would be nice
    • Pathogenesis: Too brief and could be improved with an image
    • Signs: surely there are more symptoms here, maybe you could have subheadings to break down the symtpoms, ie. motor impairment, cognitive impairments, etc
    • Clinical manifestations and complications: nice section with good image used
    • Diagnosis: could be further explained, and an image would be nice
    • Treatment: Current and Future Prospects: needs referencing
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
    • need to balance out the text with images, could organise page better with more subheadings, more images needed
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
    • needs to work on referencing!!
  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.
    • more table could be used instead of lengthy explanations
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
    • much more research needs to be done to further explain the sections
  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

"What would improve this project...."

  • referencing
  • more images
  • glossary; lacking a lot of terms
  • needs much more research, lots of repetitions in referencing

--z3291643 11:02, 29 September 2011 (EST)



Group 11

Hey, this is a interesting disease, with some good images to show the disease clearly.

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
    • Introduction: very rushed, no reference and needs much more work, it should be a succinct summary of this whole page.
    • History: Has interesting content, though timeline would be better incorporated under History, not a section of its own
    • Diagnosis: If you're abbreviating Cleft Palate to CLP, you should have it as Cleft palate (CLP). The two given tables are pretty much the same, except for different sample number. Is it really necessary to have the two tables when they're so similar? Could do well with an image
    • Syndromes and Anomalies associated with cleft: Nice array of images used here. Content is good (for ones you provided), but needs work on referencing. Perhaps you could organise the content into a table for easy comparison since you have more than one anomalies
    • Aetiology: Needs referencing, image could have a caption to explain it. Although the content is there, it's too brief and I feel it could be organised in a more effective manner, such as using number stages.
    • Types of Cleft Palate/Lip:very brief, please explain the points (ie. what's the differences between them? you say there are differences in severity, how so?)
    • Pathophysiology: need to reformat table more effectively and work on referencing
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
    • need to balance out the text with images, could organise page better with more subheadings
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
    • needs to work on referencing!!
  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.
    • NO self drawn images so far
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
    • much more research needs to be done. sections overall are lacking substance and doesn't explain the content very well
  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

"What would improve this project...."

  • referencing
  • more images
  • glossary; lacking a lot of terms
  • needs much more research

--z3291643 11:02, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Lab 9 attendence

--z3291643 13:00, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Lab 10 attendence

--Sang Lee 13:15, 6 October 2011 (EST)

Lab 10 Online Assessment

1.Besides fetal alcohol syndrome, identify another environmental teratogen that can lead to hearing loss.

Noise pollution is a big factor in hearing loss, as well as viral and bacterial infections such as meningitis. Hearing loss from meningitis can be a result of the direct effects of the infection on the brain or the body's reaction to the infection, most commonly with pneumococcal meningitis. 6% of all hearing defects in children can be attributed to bacterial meningitis, with around 72% of these children progressing to complete hearing loss by the age of three.

2.Identify 3 factors that contribute to poor neonatal drainage of the middle ear.

The auditory tube connects the middle ear cavity to the nasopharynx, and is different in structure in neonates vs. adults.

  1. the eustachian tube is very horizontal (10 degrees to the horizontal axis)
  2. only opened by a single muscle called the tensor palati muscle (compared to 2 muscles in the adult tube)
  3. it is shorter(17-18 mm) and narrower

3.Identify 1 genetic abnormality that affects hearing development and link to the OMIM record. (Your individual abnormality should be different from all other students)

  • Waardenburg syndrome
  • results in hearing loss (to variable extent)
  • inherited in an autosomal dominant manner
  • Waardenburg syndrome


Related Links

Animal Models

  • Mouse Knockout - this page explains the current use of mouse models in disrupting genes to elucidate their genetic function, including the mouse gene knockouts for alpha calcium-calmodulin kinase II (alpha CaMKII)
  • 2009 Group Project 4 - this page gives an extensive overview on the history of the mouse model and its various use in embryology and genetics. In addition, it also describes mouse knockout and the role they play in current research of various human diseases
  • Fly Development - this page describes the use of drosophila flies as developmental models
  • 2009 Group Project 2 - this page gives an extensive overview on the history of the fly model and its various use in embryology and genetics

Diagnosis

  • Chorionic villus sampling - this page explains the process of chorionic villus sampling, its disadvantages and gives a brief overview of recent findings


--Sang Lee 10:20, 13 October 2011 (EST)

Lab 11 Online Assessment

1.Name the components that give rise to the interatrial septum and the passages that connect the right and left atria.

  • Components: Septum Primum, Septum secundum
  • Passages: Foramen ovale, Foramen primum then Foramen secundum

2.Identify the cardiac defects that arise through abnormal development of the outflow tract

  • Tetralogy of Fallot
  • Transposition of the Great Vessels
  • Aortic Stenosis
  • Pulmonary Stenosis
  • Pulmonary Atresia
  • Patent Ductus Arteriosus
  • Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome
  • Coarctation of the Aorta
  • Interrupted Aortic Arch

--Sang Lee 21:00, 13 October 2011 (EST)


Lab 11 lab attendence

--Sang Lee 13:35, 13 October 2011 (EST)

Lab12 Online Assessment

1.Give examples of 3 systems that continue to develop postnatally.

  • Heart (no more right to left shunting)
  • Respiratory system; Lungs
  • Endocrine (placenta had a major role, but at birth this placental supply shuts down and HPA and HPG (at puberty) are established. In addition, adrenal cortex matures 3 years postnatally)

2.Identify the abnormalities detected by the Guthrie Test and link to one abnormality listed in OMIM

  • Guthrie tests are used to detect metabolic abnormalities in new borns by testing their blood
  • Homocystinuria (OMIM)

References

  1. PMID 21042842
  2. <pubmed>20729760</pubmed>
  3. <pubmed>20445456</pubmed>
  4. <pubmed>21802524</pubmed>
  5. <pubmed>21633703</pubmed>
  6. <pubmed>9933243</pubmed>
  7. <pubmed>12500901</pubmed>
  8. <pubmed>16439424</pubmed>