|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.
Please note there are many assessments that have not been added to your student page and this will affect the final individual mark.
Belbin Team Roles
If I’m completely honest, I think my role in group work is generally the “Co-ordinator”. I’m not too sure about my ability to step back from the ‘nitty gritty’ details and see the bigger picture. But rather I generally like to take on leadership roles and assign people tasks. That way I can do things how I like to and place people in roles that I think they would be suited to. But not only that I think to be a good leader you have to be a good worker. So I try to lead by example and not really depend on others too much so that if something has messed up, I have no one to blame but myself. This part about Co-ordinators made me chuckle. “Sometimes perceived to be manipulative and will tend to delegate all work” which is unfortunately a little true. But at the same time I’ve been open to working an equal amount as others previously as well.
Lecture 1: Fertilisation
In my previous years in attending university I’ve completed many courses which have gone through the fertilization process such as: Evolutionary Biological Sciences, Physiology, Histology and Pathology. From having done these courses already, there were parts which were familiar to me and that I have understood before in the past. However, I still was amazed by the new refreshing things I have not yet encounter which I did during this lecture. Such as polar bodies and their role in fertilization in disposing of extra DNA. It also clarified a point which I was previously confused about on whether or not polar bodies were gametes or not. Cementing all this information and weaving it in with new learnt information has really been a beneficial experience for me, in that I’m building up on topics I thoroughly enjoy.
The research article called " Tet1 controls meiosis by regulating meiotic gene expression" by Yamaguchi et al. (2012) aims to determine the role of ten-eleven translocation methylcytosine dioxygenase 1 (TET1) which is a member of the TET family of enzymes, in regulating meiotic gene expression and thus meiosis in mice. This study was highly useful since little is known about how the expression of meiotic genes is regulated and how their expression contributes to normal meiosis. In the study they performed a whole-genome bisulphite sequencing (WGBS) analysis using an ultra-low input so that they would be able to see how Tet1 is used in the activation of meiotic genes.
Results showed that a decreased functioning of Tet1 caused an increase in the unpaired synaptonemal complex at zygotene-stage oocyte, suggesting a synapsis-formation defect. The meiotic defects seen from Tet1 loss of function included: formation of univalent chromosome, but also homologous recombination and DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) repair defects. These in turn caused defective meiotic prophase which caused decreased amount of oocytes and in turn reduced litter size and lowering in fertility. The study done was pivotal as it built upon past studies which have already established that DNA methylation levels of certain meiotic genes are lowered with genomic reprogramming.
|Mark Hill 18 August 2016 - You have added the citation correctly and written a good brief summary of the article findings.
TET1 is part of the family of methylcytosine dioxygenases that involved in cytosine demethylation and gene activation, interesting that it has a meiotic-specific role.
Lab 9: Peer Assessment
These are good brief reviews of the project pages, with some specific examples. They include some critical assessment, given the existing status of some of these pages. 7/10
GROUP 1 Through reading through and analysing group 1’s project it is starkly clear they have managed to relay some excellent information and present it in quite an easily digestible manner. That said though, there are some things which they could improve upon as well. I shall be dissecting what they have done well and what they could improve upon. The information they have regarding signalling pathways of the Wnt receptor in embryonic development is complex and intricate so they have done well by creating subheadings to more easily navigate the vastness of information displayed. This relates directly to criteria 2 in the “Group Assessment Criteria”. However, as seen in the criteria there are also other techniques such as diagrams, tables, graphs which could be employed to further add upon the excellence of this project. Moving onto criteria 3 we can see that there has been some referencing and citing, however it was hard to find and not clearly written. The part that was well referenced was under the “Non-Canonical Pathway – Caroline”. It’s starkly clear to me that these group members have truly gone beyond the formal teaching activities, as described in criteria 5, and have done some significant research exploring the abnormalities associated with the Wnt pathway be describing the interruptions in the pathway and its relation to cancer.
GROUP 2 Moving the the 2nd group I can see that their topic is mainly about the Notch receptor. They seem to elucidate upon different aspects of the receptor, like it’s role in embryonic development and molecular pathways. The aspect done especially well in this group is the vastness and breadth of their information. They explore numerous aspects of the Notch receptor, including the abnormalities that can arise in development. By showing such a vastness and clarity in their research they successfully achieve criteria 1. Furthermore, Group 2 has a phenomenal amount of tables, diagrams and figures describing canonical Notch signalling and the history of the discoveries for these receptors. This qualifies criteria 2 very well as they have included all these as well as headings and sub headings in a succinct manner. Moving onto referencing, this group has done a fantastic job in that aspect as they have a separate section for references, which is clear and easy to understand, fulfilling criteria 3. Overall, I have been able to learn from this group’s project and thus I believe that they fulfil an aspect of criteria 4, in that they have an element of teaching for peers. Improvements I might suggest would be having an even larger array of different learning outlets or media types. Examples could include maybe having a video included in your group project. In terms of improvements to specific information, maybe quickly glance over the different types of receptors and the different pathways they have.
Overall from analysing through Group 3’s project I can starkly see that they have made a good attempt at addressing the marking criteria. The flow and clarity of the information in this project shows some serious thought and is showing a promising coverage of criteria 1. Not only this, but the group has excellently covered criteria 2 by having a plethora of headings, subheadings, tables and diagrams. Not only this but they have included a quiz which really shows an extra level of understanding and effort. One improvement that I might suggest is that they could extend the table by researching more developments in the field of FGF Signaling. Furthermore, this group has covered criteria 3 quite well as well but having a thorough amount of references and in text citations. Also, I have been able to learn a great amount of information from this project which means they have successfully achieved criteria 4. Overall, this project has done very well in presenting their project.
GROUP 4 From reading through Group 4’s project I can see they are clearly and succinctly describing the topic at hand, which is related to the hedgehog pathway. They explore things such as the mechanism of signalling during embryonic development as well as neural and organ development. From reading their research I can see they have carefully written it according it to criteria 1. Unfortunately, their use of headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs is not as good as it could be. They have used an imagine of the Hedgehog signaling pathway, which is a good start, but to improve and further fulfil this criterion I would suggest having more media. The referencing has been done quite well as it has its own section and is easy to find, but also there are quite regular in text citations, fulfilling criteria 3.
From reading through Group 5’s project I can see that they having clearly and effectively talked about topics relating to Tbx genes. Their subheadings include animal models, history, function in embryonic development, as well as abnormalities. This provides evidence to me that they have obviously considered and addressed both criteria’s 6 and 1. Group 5 has done a fantastic job with criteria 2, in that they provide many visual representations of information with different forms. For examples they provide a table of the main T-box genes, but then also have many visual diagrams relating to the Tbx development. Even though criteria 2 is very well done, it could be improved by having a timeline of the history of the T-box family. Also, I have seen in some other groups that they have included multiple choice questions to test the audience on their knowledge, I think this is a good idea since it makes the learning experience more interactive.
|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: