Difference between revisions of "User:Z3374116"

From Embryology
Line 32: Line 32:
  
 
Immunofluroescent labelling of embryo for Immunoreactive 5 - Methylocytosine
 
Immunofluroescent labelling of embryo for Immunoreactive 5 - Methylocytosine
 +
 +
== Lab Assessment 3==
 +
===Historical/Historic Finding for Neural Development===
 +
<pubmed>19339620</pubmed>
 +
<pubmed>17848161</pubmed>
 +
<pubmed>8005032</pubmed>
 +
<pubmed>9311417</pubmed>

Revision as of 22:28, 26 August 2014

Welcome to the 2014 Embryology Course!

Links: Timetable | How to work online | One page Wiki Reference Card | Moodle
  • Each week the individual assessment questions will be displayed in the practical class pages and also added here.
  • Copy the assessment items to your own page and provide your answer.
  • Note - Some guest assessments may require completion of a worksheet that will be handed in in class with your student name and ID.
Individual Lab Assessment
  1. Lab 1 Assessment - Fertilization References
  2. Lab 2 Assessment - Uploading a Research Image
  3. Lab 3 Assessment - Researching your Project Sub-Heading
  4. Lab 4 Assessment - Cord Stem Cells
  5. Lab 5 Assessment - Abnormalities
  6. Lab 6 Assessment - Group Work (As announced in the lecture, No individual assessment item for this Lab, but I do expect you to have added content to your Group project by tomorrow's Lab.)
  7. Lab 7 Assessment - Endocrine+Teeth
  8. Lab 8 - Genital
  9. Lab 9 - Peer Assessment
  10. Lab 10 - Sensory Development
  11. Lab 11 - Stem Cells
  12. Lab 12 - Stem Cells Presentation (see preparation information)
Lab 12 - Stem Cell Presentation Assessment More Info
Group Comment Mark (10)
1/8
  • Lots of effort to place article in larger context
  • Slide lay out could be improved: lots of empty space, use larger images and talk through them
  • Results presentation a bit convoluted. Try to finish discussion of each experiment with a clear conclusion.
  • Repetition of information towards the end
  • One presenter had an unprofessional style of presentation
7
2
  • Good well-structured presentation
  • Good introduction
  • Methods discussed separately. Try to avoid this, and incorporate in discussion of experiments. Not sure if technology was understood very well.
7.5
3
  • Good well-structured presentation
  • Do not discuss methods as a separate section
  • Discussion of results not always very clear, comprehension?
7.5
4
  • Good well-structured presentation
  • Lots of text on slides, improve talking through images, blow up images
  • Good discussion
8.5
5
  • Good well-structured presentation, amount of text on slides relatively good.
  • Figures too small, discussion bit convoluted
  • Slightly over time
8.5
6
  • Good comprehension and well-structured presentation.
  • Too much text on slides
  • Experiments discussed in a lot of detail. Try to be more concise and discuss aim of experiment, approach, summarize results, conclude.
  • No talking through figures
8.5
7
  • Good well-structured presentation, great introduction, inclusion of images in presentation done relatively well.
  • Methods discussed separately. Incorporate methods in discussion of the experiments in the results section.
  • Try not to depend too much on text on your slides
  • Talking through results images was not very clear, comprehension?
7.5
More Useful Links
Student Projects
Group 1 Respiratory User:Z3330991 User:Z3332339 User:Z3333429 User:Z3372817
Group 2 Renal User:Z3463310 User:Z3465141 User:Z3465654 User:Z5030311
Group 3 Gastrointestinal User:Z3414515 User:Z3375627 User:Z3415141 User:Z3415242
Group 4 Genital User:Z3415716 User:Z3416697 User:Z3417458 User:Z3417753
Group 5 Integumentary User:Z3417796 User:Z3417843 User:Z3418340 User:Z3418488
Group 6 Endocrine User:Z3418702 User:Z3418837 User:Z3418698 User:Z3414648
Group 7 Neural User:Z3418981 User:Z3419587 User:Z3422484 User:Z3374116
Group 8 Musculoskeletal User:Z3418779 User:Z3418718 User:Z3418989
Student Projects Fetal Development of a specific System.
2014 Course: Week 2 Lecture 1 Lecture 2 Lab 1 | Week 3 Lecture 3 Lecture 4 Lab 2 | Week 4 Lecture 5 Lecture 6 Lab 3 | Week 5 Lecture 7 Lecture 8 Lab 4 | Week 6 Lecture 9 Lecture 10 Lab 5 | Week 7 Lecture 11 Lecture 12 Lab 6 | Week 8 Lecture 13 Lecture 14 Lab 7 | Week 9 Lecture 15 Lecture 16 Lab 8 | Week 10 Lecture 17 Lecture 18 Lab 9 | Week 11 Lecture 19 Lecture 20 Lab 10 | Week 12 Lecture 21 Lecture 22 Lab 11 | Week 13 Lecture 23 Lecture 24 Lab 12
Student Projects - Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 | Group 6 | Group 7 | Group 8 | Moodle

Lab Attendance

Lab2 --Z3374116 (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2014 [EST]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmeb

PubMed

PMID25084016

<pubmed>25084016</pubmed>

Lab Assessment 1

  1. Predictive factors in in vitro fertilization(IVF): a systematic review and meta-analysis
     *http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/6/577.full.pdf+html

Article focused on acquiring data from previous case studies and research papers, collaborating data to determine the success rate of pregnancy prior In-vitro fertilization and certain factors which play a part in a successful pregnancy from the procedure.

Method

The articles which were used in the data pooling were eligible to be used if they evaluated the association between one or more of the pre-identified factors (listed below) and its effect on pregnancy after the use of IVF in an unselected patient group and were not considered if they reported on a specific patient group within the sub fertile IVF population or if no association was drawn between eh predictive factors and pregnancy or could not be determined. From the data the following factors were carefully analysed to determine if they play a part in the success rate of pregnancy post IVF; Age, Type of Infertility, Duration of Infertility, Basal Follicle stimulating hormones, Oocytes present, Fertilization method and Embryo Quality

Results

From the 14 studies that were used in the data pooling, it was found that ‘women aged 35 years or older had significantly lower pregnancy chances compared with women who were younger than 25’ (Loendersloot et al., 2010) as well as studies showing that women who were aged above 30, in comparison to those in their mid-twenties had a lower chance of pregnancy. Age was recognised as a ‘continuous variable’ throughout the studies which showed decreasing chances of a successful pregnancy as the patients age increases. Further studies showed the relationship between the amount of bFSH (Basal Follicle Stimulating Hormones) and pregnancy. In 2 case studies, it was revealed that pregnancy chances were higher post IVF in patients with a lower level of FSH in comparison to women with a higher level of FSH concentration. Oddity Rates confirmed that ‘increasing bFSH values were associated with lower pregnancy rates after IVF’ 3 of the studies determined the correlation of embryo quality to pregnancy after IVF. It also found that women with embryos with higher development stage and morphology scores had higher pregnancy chances compared to those which scored lower and also, embryos which showed delayed or appropriate development stages had lower pregnancy chances compared to women with advanced development stages.

Lab Assesment 2

Immunofluroescent labelling of embryo for immunoreactive 5 - mehtylocytosine at different cell stages.png


Immunofluroescent labelling of embryo for Immunoreactive 5 - Methylocytosine

Lab Assessment 3

Historical/Historic Finding for Neural Development

<pubmed>19339620</pubmed> <pubmed>17848161</pubmed> <pubmed>8005032</pubmed> <pubmed>9311417</pubmed>