|Student Information (expand to read)|
Please leave this template on top of your student page as I will add your assessment items here.
Beginning your online work - Working Online in this course
|Lab 1 Assessment - Researching a Topic|
|In the lab I showed you how to find the PubMed reference database and search it using a topic word. Lab 1 assessment will be for you to use this to find a research reference on "fertilization" and write a brief summary of the main finding of the paper.
|Lab 2 Assessment - Uploading an Image|
OK you are now in a group
Initially the topic can be as specific or as broad as you want.
Chicken embryo E-cad and P-cad gastrulation
|Lab 4 Assessment - GIT Quiz|
Design 4 quiz questions based upon gastrointestinal tract. Add the quiz to your own page under Lab 4 assessment and provide a sub-sub-heading on the topic of the quiz.
An example is shown below (open this page in view code or edit mode). Note that it is not just how you ask the question, but also how you explain the correct answer.
|Lab 5 Assessment - Course Review|
|Complete the course review questionnaire and add the fact you have completed to your student page.|
|Lab 6 Assessment - Cleft Lip and Palate|
|Lab 7 Assessment - Muscular Dystrophy|
|Lab 8 Assessment - Quiz|
|A brief quiz was held in the practical class on urogenital development.|
|Lab 9 Assessment - Peer Assessment|
|Lab 10 Assessment - Stem Cells|
|As part of the assessment for this course, you will give a 15 minutes journal club presentation in Lab 10. For this you will in your current student group discuss a recent (published after 2011) original research article (not a review!) on stem cell biology or technology.
|Lab 11 Assessment - Heart Development|
|Read the following recent review article on heart repair and from the reference list identify a cited research article and write a brief summary of the paper's main findings. Then describe how the original research result was used in the review article.
- 1 Lab 1 Assessment
- 2 Lab 2 Assessment
- 3 Lab 5 Assessment
- 4 Lab 6 Assessment
- 5 Lab Attendance
- 6 Lab 7 Assessment
- 7 Lab 8
- 8 Lab 9 Assessment
- 9 Lab 12 Assessment
- 10 New Sub-Heading
Lab 1 Assessment
In the aforementioned research article, the "Onobrychis Viciifolia" or rather, sanfoin is explored in detail with respect to its ability to self fertilise and therefore be a sustainable and useful plant for its local ecosystem. This is due to its ability to reduce the need of nitrogen fixation by bacteria as a Legume. On top of this, Sanfoin has tannins in it that assist with the break down of proteins and as such, it is beneficial to animals.
This research article utilises naturally directed pollination and artificially directed pollination to compare rates of self fertilisation. Interestingly, the plants of sanfoin that used artificially directed pollination had much higher rates of self fertilisation than the natural counterpart. Whilst there are other results obtained, these are the main results that by implication indicate that we can assist the growth of local plant systems by artifically pollinating sanfoin, which will provide nutrients and reduce the dependence on nitrogen fixation for plants to obtain nitrogen.
|Mark Hill 18 August 2016 - You have added the citation correctly and written a good brief summary of the article findings. However, a plant study on "fertilisation" is not really what I was asking, in particular as this is not a Botany course, please try and focus on course content.
Lab 2 Assessment
Effect of extracellular Ca2+ depletion on the human zona pellucida-induced intracellular [Ca2+] increase in spermatozoa
|Mark Hill 29 August 2016 - All information Reference, Copyright and Student Image template not included with the file and citation not referenced on your page here. I cannot complete the assessment without knowing the original source (reference for this image). Please update so that I can complete the assessment.||Assessment ??|
Lab 3 Assessment
|Mark Hill 29 August 2016 - Quiz Mesoderm and Neural||Assessment 5/5|
Lab 4 Assessment
Gastrointestinal Tract Developmen
|Mark Hill 13 October 2016 - These are good quiz questions, in particular I like your detailed answers. Note that question 4 is a seriously difficult GIT question, as it would require a detailed knowledge of molecular controls.||Assessment 5/5|
Lab 5 Assessment
I have completed the prescribed questionnaire during lab.
|Mark Hill 23 September 2016 - Questionnaire on course structure.||Assessment 5/5|
Lab 6 Assessment
1. A known genetic mutation that is associated with cleft lip is the mutation of the p63 or TP63 which allows the encoding of the Tumour protein p63.
2. A research article that explores this gene is:
3. Mutations of the p63 gene are detrimental as it is a critical regulator that prevents a host of defects in development, such as ectodermal dysplasia. Without the presence of this gene in mice, the mice died at birth and had truncated limbs as well as epidermal defects.
In the context of cleft palate syndrome and the p63 gene, there is not a clear reason as to why mutations of the p63 gene can result in cleft palate but as cleft palate is a form of ectodermal dysplasia and functioning p63 prevents dysplasia, a connection can be made .
|Mark Hill 13 October 2016 - These are good brief answers. Question 2 the PMID 2564545 appears to be incorrect as it does not reference a p63 paper? see also OMIM p63||Assessment 4/5|
Lab 7 Assessment
1. The dystrophin gene is located on the locus of the X chromosome and is responsible for the transcription of dystrophin. A mutation of this gene will therefore result in altered expression of the muscle isoform, dystrophin . Mutations like these can result in Autosomal recessive muscular dystrophy and Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophies to name a few.
2. Dystrophin is a critical protein that is responsible for linking the actin filaments to the sarcolemma, which is a protein that is located in the interior of the plasma membrane of individual muscle fibres. Dystrophin is critical in ensuring the stability of muscle fibres and without it intracellular calcium handling is altered resulting in muscular function being impaired.
3. Other organs that are affected by this disorder are the heart and those responsible for respiration as there is gradual loss of healthy muscular fibres which by cellular repair mechanisms are replaced with inelastic fibrous tissue resulting in less effective contractions resulting in cardiac and respiratory failure .
5 The animal models available for muscular dystrophy are historically the MDX mouse and more recently, a canine DMD.
|Mark Hill 13 October 2016 - You have answered all the questions except 4? What therapies exist for DMD? While there are no existing cures, there are a number of known therapies, such as corticosteroids for suppression of the associated inflammation in the muscles.||Assessment 4/5|
|Mark Hill 27 October 2016 - Urogenital paper quiz - Q1 - Sry acts on testes support cells. Q5 theca and interstitial. Q 8 not all options selected.||Assessment 5.5/8|
Lab 9 Assessment
These are good reviews of the project pages, with some specific examples. You include some balanced critical assessment, though a little too on the positive side, i would recommend using a more professional language when providing feedback. 7/10
Group 1 Review
You guys have done really well to accumulate a lot of relevant information so far on your wiki page which is definitely a positive for your team. In the context of criterion 1 of the assessment criteria, I am not certain that the key points are clearly described as of yet, there is just a lot of information that is not presented to the reader in a targeted manner, so this definitely needs some work. As I have stated previously the choice of content appears to be adequate to address your topic however you guys need to work on increasing the number of subheadings as well as providing an introduction as the project aims remain unclear. Content is not completely correctly referenced yet, presumably due to the fact that you guys are still making your project page up but referencing is very easy to do correctly on this wiki and I implore you to make sure it is done correctly when it is time to submit the assignment.
As I have alluded to previously, elements of teaching at a peer level were completely missing in this and these definitely need to be addressed, probably by putting entries into your glossary as well as creating a well structured introduction. It would also help if you guys drew some representations of information, such as sketches of pathways. There is certainly evidence of going above and beyond the formal learning activities, which is a major positive for your project. In the context of learning objectives of the course, you guys are addressing the aspect of embryological development but have not addressed the relevance of new technologies in the WnT Pathway.
Overall, there is a lot of potential for you guys to put out a very good wiki page if you clean up your page so that it is more coherent and insert some information that is lacking so that a relatively uneducated reader could understand the WnT signalling pathway from the wiki page. Well done!
Group 2 Review
At first glance, I was blown away by your team's page. Definitely very impressive and understandable. The key points relating to the Notch signalling process are definitely clearly described however I may recall Dr Hill requesting that teams steer clear of clinical effects of genes(citation needed!). The choice of headings, sub-headings and diagrams show more than a good understanding of the topic area, it may be useful to include a table that summarises the various aspects of the Notch pathway so that readers realise there are different receptors. The content is cited correctly, however, I would not mind reading 'et al' instead of 'and colleagues' more often, I got sick of reading 'and colleagues'.
The information presented is mostly peer friendly in the context of a simple introduction but your glossary certainly needs updating, there are a lot of terms that a lot of students would not understand and a comprehensive checking of your page will offer you a list of words that you need to define. Also lacking are sketches presented in your own hands, instead of reusing published images. There is plenty of evidence that suggests your team has went beyond the formal teaching activities. In the context of the aims of the embryology course, you guys have emphasised the embryonic role of Notch but the aspect of developing technologies appears to have been ignored to an extent.
Overall, you guys have done a very impressive job that only requires minor tweaking, namely slight editing in the context of in text referencing, more comprehensive glossary as well as checking the course aims of embryology to incorporate the second criterion regarding technology. Excellent work!
Group 4 Review
Nice effort group 4. Key points that relate to the Hedgehog signalling pathway are very succinctly described. Your choice of headings, albeit brief, provides a sense that you guys understand the topic generally but I feel as if you could improve on your subheadings, for example of the Clinical Significances section, I feel as if the diagnosis subheading could be altered. I also feel as if the information in the Organogenesis section could be reworked into an introduction which would allow you to then focus on Organogenesis on its own in more detail. Also, you guys only have one image so far which seems to be slightly lacklustre, you guys definitely need more images. The relevant content is mostly cited correctly, albeit the odd reference located below the marking criteria, I feel as if that is more of a small accident.
The information presented is relatively peer friendly. Perhaps more explanation, for example in the Processing of precursor section as I felt well and truly lost in that area. You guys could do with some hand drawn diagrams or analogies to help explain the information provided. A glossary section would be very helpful in understanding the wiki page, by defining the complex terms such as proteasome(which is misspelt on your page as proteosome). The research that has been done has indicated that you guys have went beyond the formal teaching activities, however, you guys could do more research in the sections that have no information for example 'History', you could even put a timeline in there! In the context of the course aims, he embryological relevance of the Hedgehog pathway is addressed to an extent but as you have missing sections under human disease, there is still work to be done in this section. Also, you should try to complete your current research section to address the second criterion of the course aims regarding new technologies and research.
Overall you guys have had a good start and really just need to start filling in the blanks so to speak. Your team researches information well, just ensure that you fill in your missing sections and think of innovative ways to present information. Nice job!
Your team has a very impressive wiki page, well done! The key points relating to T-Box as well as your choice of subheadings and headings are very good, however I would advise removing 'Good places to look'. In terms of diagrams, tables and graphs, these are present and augment the information presented quite well. The content presented is cited mostly correctly however care must be taken with pictures, which have to be checked for copyright reuse as well as ensuring that they are cited correctly in the first place, I would advise that your team checks each of your pictures to make sure that they are correctly cited.
In the context of peer level education, your content is understandable and written well even though the topic is complex. What is lacking however are using your own explanations as well as interesting hand drawn visual stimuli to present information, this can be easily remedied. Also, completion of the glossary section so that someone can understand complex terms would be useful. With the information that has been provided and the depth of research that has went into the meticulous presentation of information regarding T-box, it is clear that your team has went beyond formal teaching activities, however, perhaps the inclusion of some interactive features on your page such as a video with voice over or a quiz would help augment this criterion. The learning aims of the Embryology course are mostly in line with the information on the wiki page, but there is no section for current research/technologies, which is important to address the second criteria of the course aims.
Overall, you guys did a very nice job that requires only minor touch ups and the addition of a few pieces of information. Don't forget the current research section though, that is pretty important to include in my opinion. Well done!
Good try group 6. Key points appear to be well selected, however perhaps consideration of clinical aspects of your research could be considered useful. Your subheadings should be fixed so that all of your information does not come under the introduction section and also perhaps include more pictures in your project. You guys have a good lay out of information, now you really just need to fill those sections up with information, definitely have a sound understanding of the topic area. There are little to no references as of yet and none of the references in the references section have been cited correctly, this can be fixed by simply using the inbuilt referencing mechanism we have been using for our weekly assessment items. Also, more peer reviewed journal articles should be used and cited to provide authority to your information.
The information presented is very peer friendly and understandable but will need the inclusion of hand drawn diagrams to satisfy this criterion completely. There is not much evidence to suggest that your team has went beyond the formal teaching activities, perhaps incorporate a video or quiz into your work. In terms of the course aims of embryology, you have not satisfied the second criteria regarding new technology/current research as of yet and have vaguely addressed the key criteria regarding TGF and embryological development.
Overall, the areas to be discussed appear to be sound but need to be edited so that the information will flow better. Your team needs to put more information into each section, I would recommend looking at some of the other teams to see how much information is seemingly adequate. Ensure that you reference your information correctly and you should be good when you guys put more research onto your page. Good luck and nice try!
|Lab 10 - Stem Cell Presentations 2016|
|Group Mark||Assessor General Comments|
Group 1: 15/20
Group 2: 19/20
Group 3: 20/20
Group 4: 19/20
Group 5: 16/20
Group 6: 16/20
|The students put great effort in their presentation and we heard a nice variety of studies in stem cell biology and regenerative medicine today. The interaction after the presentation was great.
As general feedback I would like to advise students to:
Lab 12 Assessment
Foglia and Poss (2016) have written a review article that describes the process of cardiac tissue regeneration and development. Its primary focus is comparing the regeneration of cardiac muscle after myocardial infarction(heart attack) in humans and animals and why the healing is different.
One of the primary research articles cited by Foglia and Poss explored how D-type cyclins promote cardiomyocyte cell cycle activity(Pasumarthi et al, 2004). By causing myocardial injury to mice which had either cyclin D1,D2 or D3 production promoted, they observed that the synthesis of the cardiomyocyte DNA was affected. Hence, their main finding was that the mice with enhanced cyclin D2 had increased cardiomyocyte DNA synthesis whereas the mice with enhanced D1 or D3 did not. In summary, their primary finding is that cardiomyocyte cell cycle activity persisted in D2 mice but not D1 or D3. However, in the context of Foglia and Poss'(2016) review paper, this paper was used to provide evidence that D2 can stimulate cardiocyocyte DNA synthesis. It should be acknowledged that the review paper also notes D1 as performing the same role as D2 even though the primary paper by Pasumarthi et al. (2004) found the opposite true. The review paper will have used the other primary papers referenced to prove that cyclins D1 as well as D2 stimulate cardiomyocyte DNA synthesis.