Difference between revisions of "User:Z3516832"

From Embryology
(Lab 11 Assessment)
(Lab 11 Assessment)
Line 428: Line 428:
  
 
'''Brief summary of the paper's main finding:'''
 
'''Brief summary of the paper's main finding:'''
 +
 
This paper by Porello et al. (2011) <ref><pubmed> 21350179</pubmed></ref> appeared in Science as  a report, and reports how 1 day neonatal mice can generate their heart (cardiac regeneration) after partial surgical resection, however this capacity is lost 7 days after birth.  
 
This paper by Porello et al. (2011) <ref><pubmed> 21350179</pubmed></ref> appeared in Science as  a report, and reports how 1 day neonatal mice can generate their heart (cardiac regeneration) after partial surgical resection, however this capacity is lost 7 days after birth.  
 
Interestingly teleost fish (e.g zebrafish) and amphibians also have the capacity for cardiac regeneration, but this occurs throughout the life of the animal.  
 
Interestingly teleost fish (e.g zebrafish) and amphibians also have the capacity for cardiac regeneration, but this occurs throughout the life of the animal.  
Line 438: Line 439:
  
 
'''Describe how the original research result was used in the review article'''
 
'''Describe how the original research result was used in the review article'''
 +
 +
The review paper <ref><pubmed> 26932668</pubmed></ref>

Revision as of 10:18, 28 October 2016

Student Information (expand to read)  
Individual Assessments
Mark Hill.jpg

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

  1. Make your own page.
    1. Log-in to the embryology website using your student ID and Zpass.
    2. Click your student number (shown in red at the top right of the screen following log-in)
    3. Create page using the tab at the top of the page, and save.
  2. Add the following to the top of your page exactly as shown - {{ANAT2341Student2016}}
  3. How would you identify your Type in a group and add to your page.
  4. What was the most interesting thing you learnt in the fertilisation lecture?


If you have done the above correctly your ZID should be blue and not red on this page link - ANAT2341 2016 Students.


Here is the example page I made in Lab 1 Student Page. With a few more explanatory notes.

Click here to email Dr Mark Hill

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
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.
  1. Add a new Sub-heading "Lab 1 Assessment" (without the quotes).
  2. Search the database for a reference on "fertilisation" published in the last 5 years.
    1. It must be a research article not a Review.
    2. The full paper must be available online, not just the abstract.
  3. Add a link to this reference using its PMID using this code <pubmed>XXXXX</pubmed> replacing the Xs with just the PMID number (no text).
  4. Under the reference write a short summary of the papers main findings.
    1. Only 1-2 paragraphs.
    2. Must not be a copy of the paper abstract.
  5. Save and you are done.

PubMed logo.gif

Lab 2 Assessment - Uploading an Image
  1. Upload a research image using the guide information below. The image uploaded for your individual assessment can relate to your project or from fertilisation to week 3 of development (upload only a single image).
  2. Add that image to your own individual page (see Images) including an image title and its reference link.
  3. No two students should upload the same image, check new images before you upload.
  4. No student can delete an image once uploaded, please contact me by email with the image address and I will delete (with no penalty, just glad to help out).


2016 Group Project Topic - Signaling in Development

OK you are now in a group

  1. Go to the blank group page and add a topic that interests you along with your student signature.
  2. No two groups can do the same topic, but at this stage the final topic has not yet been decided (next week).

Initially the topic can be as specific or as broad as you want.


Chicken embryo E-cad and P-cad gastrulation.png

Chicken embryo E-cad and P-cad gastrulation[1]

References

  1. <pubmed>27097030</pubmed>
Lab 4 Assessment - GIT Quiz

ANAT2341 Quiz Example | Category:Quiz | ANAT2341 Student 2015 Quiz Questions |

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
  1. Identify a known genetic mutation that is associated with cleft lip or palate.
  2. Identify a recent research article on this gene.
  3. How does this mutation affect developmental signalling in normal development.
Lab 7 Assessment - Muscular Dystrophy
  1. What is/are the dystrophin mutation(s)?
  2. What is the function of dystrophin?
  3. What other tissues/organs are affected by this disorder?
  4. What therapies exist for DMD?
  5. What animal models are available for muscular dystrophy?
Lab 8 Assessment - Quiz
A brief quiz was held in the practical class on urogenital development.
Lab 9 Assessment - Peer Assessment
  • This will form part of your individual assessment for the course.
  • Each student should now look at each of the other Group projects in the class.
  • Next prepare a critical assessment (should include both positive and negative issues) of each project using the project group assessment criteria.
  • This assessment should be pasted without signature on the top of the specific project's discussion page. (minimum length 3-5 paragraphs/project)
  • This critical assessment should also be pasted on your own student page.
  • Each student should therefore have 5 separate reports pasted on their own page for this assessment item.
  • Length, quality and accuracy of your reports will be part of the overall mark for this assessment.
    • there will be a greater loading on this than simple question assessments.
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 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:

  • Never discuss M&M as a separate section in journal clubs. I gave this advice prior to the lab, but still most groups did talk through the M&M section.
  • Do not use your slides as cheat sheets, avoid text on slides, know what messages you need to get across, use images to illustrate these
  • Engage with your slides. Talk through them. Point at panels. Gauge your audience’s understanding by making eye contact with them
  • Avoid using abbreviations. Most people do not readily understand these and will lose track
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.

<pubmed>26932668</pubmed>Development

ANAT2341Lectures - Textbook chapters  
Lecture (Timetable) Textbook - The Developing Human Textbook - Larsen's Human Embryology
Embryology Introduction Introduction to the Developing Human
Fertilization First Week of Human Development Gametogenesis, Fertilization, and First Week
Week 1 and 2 Second Week of Human Development Second Week: Becoming Bilaminar and Fully Implanting
Week 3 Third Week of Human Development Third Week: Becoming Trilaminar and Establishing Body Axes
Mesoderm Fourth to Eighth Weeks of Human Development Fourth Week: Forming the Embryo
Ectoderm Nervous System Development of the Central Nervous System
Early Vascular Cardiovascular System Development of the Vasculature
Placenta Placenta and Fetal Membranes Development of the Vasculature
Endoderm - GIT Alimentary System Development of the Gastrointestinal Tract
Respiratory Respiratory System Development of the Respiratory System and Body Cavities
Head Pharyngeal Apparatus, Face, and Neck Development of the Pharyngeal Apparatus and Face
Neural Crest Nervous System Development of the Peripheral Nervous System
Musculoskeletal Muscular System Development of the Musculoskeletal System
Limb Development of Limbs Development of the Limbs
Renal Urogenital System Development of the Urinary System
Genital Urogenital System Development of the Urinary System
Stem Cells
Integumentary Integumentary System Development of the Skin and Its Derivatives
Endocrine Covered through various chapters (see also alternate text), read head and neck, neural crest and renal chapters.
Endocrinology Textbook - Chapter Titles  
Nussey S. and Whitehead S. Endocrinology: An Integrated Approach (2001) Oxford: BIOS Scientific Publishers; ISBN-10: 1-85996-252-1.

Full Table of Contents

Heart Cardiovascular System Development of the Heart
Sensory Development of Eyes and Ears Development of the Eyes
Fetal Fetal Period Fetal Development and the Fetus as Patient
Birth and Revision
Additional Textbook Content - The following concepts also form part of the theory material covered throughout the course.
  1. Principles and Mechanisms of Morphogenesis and Dysmorphogenesis
  2. Common Signaling Pathways Used During Development
  3. Human Birth Defect
ANAT2341 Course Timetable  
Week (Mon) Lecture 1 (Mon 1-2pm) Lecture 2 (Tue 3-4pm) Practical (Fri 1-3pm)
Week 2 (1 Aug) Introduction Fertilization Lab 1
Week 3 (8 Aug) Week 1 and 2 Week 3 Lab 2
Week 4 (15 Aug) Mesoderm Ectoderm Lab 3
Week 5 (22 Aug) Early Vascular Placenta Lab 4
Week 6 (29 Aug) Gastrointestinal Respiratory Lab 5
Week 7 (5 Sep) Head Neural Crest Lab 6
Week 8 (12 Sep) Musculoskeletal Limb Development Lab 7
Week 9 (19 Sep) Renal Genital Lab 8
Mid-semester break
Week 10 (3 Oct) Public Holiday Stem Cells Lab 9
Week 11 (10 Oct) Integumentary Endocrine Lab 10
Week 12 (17 Oct) Heart Sensory Lab 11
Week 13 (24 Oct) Fetal Birth and Revision Lab 12

ANAT2341 2016: Moodle page | ECHO360 | Textbooks | Students 2016 | Projects 2016

Contents

Lab Attendance

Z3516832 (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2016 (AEST)

SMH

Z3516832 (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2016 (AEST)

Z3516832 (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2016 (AEST)

Z3516832 (talk)

Z3516832 (talk)

Z3516832 (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2016 (AEST)

Z3516832 (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2016 (AEDT)

Z3516832 (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2016 (AEDT)

Z3516832 (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2016 (AEDT)

New Subheading

https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/ANAT2341_Lab_1

ANAT2341_Lab_1


Student Page

Referencing

fertilization

PMID 27486480


embryology marsupial embryology

Lab 1 Assessment

To do 5 August, due 12 August 2016

Review of a publication on human fertilisation

<pubmed>26995337</pubmed>

Write a short summary of the papers main findings

During development, all vertebrate embryos pass through the somite stage, which is defined as any developmental stage between the formation of the first and last pairs of somites in embryos (Gilbert, 2003; Mu€ller and O’Rahilly, 2003). The somite stages can vary and is not very accurate, but correspond to CS9-CS13 and occur approximately during the third and fourth weeks after fertilization of the ovum.

This study uses 37 human embryos (already fertilized) that were obtained when pregnancy was terminated during the first trimester due to socioecomomic reasons and form part of the Kyoto Collection in Japan. These embryos are classified following the Carnegie Stage (CS) 11-CS13 which is approximately 28-33 days after fertilization. These embryos were selected due to their good conditions, they were undamaged, and then were measured and examined using the criteria provided by O’Rahilly and Mueller (1987).

The embryos were then subjected to histological serial sectioning. The historical sections were scanned digitally and the morphology and the following primordia were histologically observed: the epithelium and mesenchyme of thyroid, the epithelium around the respiratory primordium region, omental bursa, ventral pancreas, and liver parenchyma. The morphology that was observed in the 2D histological slides was reconstructed in 3D. With the 3D reconstructions, the authors were able to create a precise timeline of the differentiation events that occur during this developmental time and provided key insights into these developmental processes. Using 3D reconstructions the authors were also able to observe the precise mechanisms involved during the digestive tract development during the particular somite stages. For example with the digestive tract and derived primordial, the authors were able to observe the morphology and position of the tract within the body and construct a precise time line during which development occurs. This differs from previous morphometrical studies (e.g. O’Rahilly and Mu€ller, 1984b; Otani et al., 2008) which showed that the size and proportion of the digestive tract and organ primordial varied considerably among embryos at the same stage.


Mark Hill 18 August 2016 - You have added the citation correctly and written a good brief summary of the article findings. The problem is the paper does not relate to fertilisation, that was the topic for this exercise.


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.

Assessment 2/5

Lab 2 Assessment

ANAT2341_Lab_2


Examples of congenital defects in Apob and Lp mutant mice.gif

Dietary folic acid supplementation in mouse NTD models[1]

Mark Hill 29 August 2016 - All information Reference, Copyright and Student Image template correctly included with the file and referenced on your page here. I have also added a References sub-heading so your citation list appears.

This is the citation link you should use here on your page:

<ref name="PMID25154628"><pubmed>25154628</pubmed></ref>

Assessment 5/5


Lab 3 Assessment

Mark Hill 31 August 2016 - Lab 3 Assessment Quiz - Mesoderm and Ectoderm development.


Question 3 - brain vesicles

Question 4 - brain flexures

Assessment 3/5


References

  1. <pubmed>25154628</pubmed>

Lab 4 Assessment

Gastrulation Development quiz

1

During Gastrulation, or gut formation, at the rostral and caudal end of the embryo which membrane breaks down first and when does it occur?:

  buccopharangeal membrane at 6 weeks
  cloacal membrane at 5 weeks
  buccopharangeal membrane at 4 weeks
  coacal membrane at 4 weeks

2

During Gastrulation which organ forms first after the heart tube, and at what week of embryo development does this occur?:

  Pancreas at 5 weeks
  Foregut of stomach at 6 weeks
  Liver at 4 weeks
  Kidneys at 5 weeks

3

When the primitive stomach is forming in Week 4 how many turns does it need to take in order to form the correct adult anatomical position?:

  Two turns 90 degrees each
  One turn at 90 degrees and one turn at 45 degrees
  Only one turn at 90 degrees
  Only one turn at 180 degrees

4

How many cavities does the mammalian "placental" cloaca have and in what groups of vertebrates is the cloaca only a single cavity?:

  Placental mammalian can have two or three seperate orifices for evacuation. Birds, reptiles, amphibians and some other mammals have only one.
  All animals only have one opening called a cloaca for the urinary, digestive and reproductive tracts.
  All animals have two openings, one for the urinary/digestive tract and the other for the reproductive tract.
  All mammals and reptiles have two openings one for the urinary/digestive tract and the other for the reproductive tract.


Mark Hill 17 October 2016 - Tests a range of GIT topics. Question 1 is quite a good question concerning membranes and timing. Question 2 should not start with "During Gastrulation" which is specific to forming the trilaminar embryo. Question 3 is a good question about stomach rotation. Assessment 4.5/5

Lab 6 Assessment

Individual Assessment

Identify a known genetic mutation that is associated with cleft lip or palate.

MSX1 also known as the muscle segment homeobox (MSX1) gene plays a crucial role in epithelial-mesenchymal tissue interactions in craniofacial development

Identify a recent research article on this gene.

PMID 27259221 This recent research article by Paradowska-Stolarz [1] gives a small introduction on cleft palate deformities. The author states that cleft deformities are the most common facial malformations and observed in 10% of facial deformities. The cleft lip and/or palate is served in 1:700 live births. But we the reader do not know if this is a world wide phenomenon or occurs only in Poland. Males are two to three times more likely to have Clefts in the lip, alveolar bone and palate while in females isolated cleft of the palate is more frequent. Facial clefts are formed within 5 to 12 weeks during fetal development. It is still not known what is the full ethology of the cleft lip and/or palate however there is a large genetic factor that contributes to this deformity and there are a number of genes that are known to be involved in the palate formation. The author also states that there also may be a environmental trigger that also causes these facial malformations. The author states that 20% of cleft palate malformations are caused by the following genes: genes encoding signalling molecules (Bmp2, Bmp4, Bmp7, Shh, Wnt5a, Smad 2-4), growth factors (Egf, Egfr, Fgf1, Fgf2, Fgf8, Tgfα, Tgfβ1-3) and their receptors (Fgfr1, Fgfr2), transcription factors (Pax9, Tbx22, Msx1, Tbx1, Ap2α, Blx1-6, Lhx6, Gli 2-3, Hoxa2, Irf6, Pitx1, Pitx2, Prx1), cellular adhesion molecules (Pvrl1, cadherin E, connexin 43), and extra- cellular matrix ( bronexin, Col 1A2, Col2A1, Col11A1 Mmp2, Mmp3, Mmp9, Mmp13, Timp1-3) [46,49]. As well as these MSX1 and TGFβ3 genes are found to be the genes more strongly related to cleft palate anomalies.


Mark Hill 17 October 2016 - MSX1 is a known cleft factor and you summary is useful. I do have a slight problem with the paper you have selected as this is a REVIEW not a RESEARCH ARTICLE. It also looks like you have copy-n-pasted some of the text as shown by the original numbered referencing (46,49). Assessment 4.5/5



Does this mutation affect developmental signalling in normal development?


References

  1. <pubmed>27259221</pubmed>


Lab 7 Assessment

Duchenne muscular dystrophy

What is/are the dystrophin mutation(s)?

What is the function of dystrophin?

What other tissues/organs are affected by this disorder?

What therapies exist for DMD?

What animal models are available for muscular dystrophy?' PMID 27594988

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a recessive inherited muscular dystrophy that is caused by mutations in the gene that encodes dystrophin on the x chromosome. Dystrophin is a protein which is needed to keep muscle fiber integrity. This dystrophy is caused by mutations in the gene encoding dystrophin, a protein required for muscle fiber integrity. The DMD gene is expressed mainly in skeletal and cardiac muscle [1] . Many approaches have been tested from traditional gene addition to newer approaches which are based on cell manipulations at either gene transcription level, mRNA processing or at translation levels. Currently there are no efficient treatments to treat DMD.

Who is affected by DMD

DMD affects approximately 1 in 3500 live male births throughout the world. Due to the way that it is inherited, DMD affects mostly boys, but occasionally girls are affected. It is inherited as an x-linked disease that is characterized by a rapidly progressive muscle weakness.

DMD affects all ethnicities, nationalities and socioeconomic groups, although it occurs almost exclusively in males. Children with DMD show early signs of muscle weakness and begin walking relatively late in childhood. They develop a waddling gait and have difficulty in climbing stairs. Their muscles show a false or pseudo-hypertrophy, most notably in the calf muscles, where the muscles appear large but are actually replaced by fat or fibrous tissue.

Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD) results from mutations in the same gene as DMD but follows a milder clinical course, with later development of weakness and loss of function.

Medical Treatment of DMD The most advanced treatments include therapeutic treatments.Steroid treatment (also called glucocorticoids or corticosteroids) has been proven to slow the loss of muscle function and therefore temporarily prolong a boy’s mobility. On average boys taking steroids are able to walk for three years longer and the onset of breathing and heart problems and curvature of the spine may also be delayed. Since steroid treatment was introduced more than 20 years ago the life expectancy of individuals with DMD has increased considerably, but it is not known if this is due to the steroids or the introduction of other measures to manage the condition such as ventilation.


Mouse models for DMD

The mouse model is mdx mouse. A dystrophin deficient mutant was first described in 1984 as a naturally occuring deficient mutant and was described in a colony of C57BL/10 mice (C57BL/10ScSnJ) and has since been referred to as the “mdx-mouse”.

How is Duchenne diagnosed?

Duchenne is diagnosed in boys between the ages of 3 and 7. Parents noticed that their son is not at the same stage physcially as their peers and behind in developmental milestones. Young boys may appear to be clumsy and will often fall down during regular activity. Climbing stairs, running, and rising up from the floor become very difficult.

There is an online interactive tool that can help parents detect motor development delays - http://motordelay.aap.org/

Once Duchenne is suspected from the symptoms, there is a range of tests that can be done by a doctor to reach a diagnosis, which are listed below.

Creatine Kinase

The muscles contain an enzyme called creatine kinase (CK), and when muscles are damaged, this enzyme spills out into the bloodstream. Measuring CK levels in the blood verifies that there has been muscle damage, but does not give a definite diagnosis.

DNA testing

DNA is obtained from a blood sample and scientists are able to examine the dystrophin gene to find out exactly where the mutation has occurred.

Muscle biopsy

If DNA testing does not give a clear diagnosis a muscle biopsy may be needed. A surgeon removes a small sample of muscle and it is examined under a microscope to see if dystrophin protein is present.

References

  1. <pubmed>27594988</pubmed>


Mark Hill 17 October 2016 - This is very well answered with citations. Assessment 5/5

Lab 9 Assessment

Peer Assessment: Project 1: WnT Signaling Pathway in skin of fetus

1. The key points relating to the topic are clearly described

There are headings for key points but the information for these key points has not been added so far.

2.The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.

The WnT Signaling pathway wiki does have a list of contents, which demonstrate that the topic is divided into different section. However it is clear some thought has gone into this. However this is not finished, there are not tables, diagrams, graphs and a lot of work is needed. There are sub headings but there is no clear concise information under these headings. There is no introduction on what the topic is about and this makes the reader a little confused. There are a lot of parts missing and not filled out.

3. Content correctly cited.

The content is not cited correctly. There is a reference section but there are no publications that have been cited listed.

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

There are no graphs, diagrams or tables and these clearly will help the reader have a better understanding of what the wiki is about. There does not seem to be any examples or explanations that show the students own innovation.

5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.

This is somewhat evident but there is not enough clear information and it makes it difficult for the reader to follow the topic.

6.Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.

There is a section on foetus skin formation and this will be interesting to read however it is still not finished. Figures and diagrams would aid a lot to visualize this section.

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.

Each section has been divided amongst the group but it seems that the members of the group have not really communicated or finished their own sections. This is not clear at all. The Wiki has a lot of room for improvement, the group needs to meet and decide who will do which section, the participants of the group need to find review publications and summarise this information for each section. Also it is a good idea to see how these projects were edited in the previous years and this will help with the layout.

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.

This is not demonstrated and it seems that the key areas have not yet been researched adequately. There is still a lot of information missing and the overall flow of this wiki is muddled.

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 key areas on this wiki have been set up but there is no clear and adequate information that is correctly cited at all. It is a very poor effort thus far in terms of group research.

10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.

This still has not been achieved at all. There is no editing and it seems the group has put little effort in this project.


Peer Assessment: Project 2: Notch signalling pathway

1. The key points relating to the topic are clearly described.

There are headings for key points and the information for these key points has clearly described. This information is laid out in a clear way beginning with an introduction, historical aspect of the topic and continues to more specific information (e.g. animal models) related to the overall topic.

2.The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.

The Notch singalling pathway has a very clear contents list. This demonstrates that a lot of thought and research has gone into the topic. There are two figures which are very neat and well set out. These are referenced. There is one table which described the historical aspect of this topic and this is very clear and beneficial as it summerises a lot of information in a clear manner.

3. Content correctly cited.

The content is cited correctly. If the refernces are used more than twice this has been cited in following the Wiki guidelines and the reference is not repeated in the list.

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.

This wiki does have an element of teaching: It is clearly laid out, it is easy to read and the information is set up in a correct manner with a general overview, historical aspects and then more precise information is given. There is some interesting examples given which describes abnormalities in this pathway.

5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.

This is very much evident. There is evidence that research has been undertaken as the topic has been divided into sub topics and there is a lot of interesting clear information to educate the reader.

6.Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.

Yes the topic does related to the learning aims of embryology and how Notch signalling pathway is involved in embryonic organ development through the regulation of cell-cell signalling

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.

This is still not as evident as there is no comments or feedback observed. There are still some sections that have information missing and perhaps comment or feedback could have been given here to ensure that the students fill in this missing information or remove the subheadings all together.

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.

The way this Wiki is laid out clearly demonstrates that there has been some feedback and communication between the group. It seems that each member of the group did write a section, yet the sections do come together and do not seem out of place. However there are sections with information missing and this needs to be addressed.

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.

Yes the Wiki content does demonstrate that the group has researched adqueately in this area.

10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.

This has been achieved. This wiki entry does seem to be in accordance with the guidelines provided.

Peer Assessment: Project 3: Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor (FGFR) Pathway

1. The key points relating to the topic are clearly described.

The key points related to the topic are clearly described however the introduction is a little limited and further information is needed with examples.

2.The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.

The fibroblast growth factor receptor pathway wiki does overall seem to have a very extensive list of contents, which demonstrate that the topic is divided into clear interesting sections. This wiki has a good use of a table to demonstrate history (be it small) and subtypes of FGFR pathways. In the history section it is not clear if they first discovered FGFR in human pituitary or pig or mouse. Please be more explicit. The history table does not seem to be finished as from 1999 to present there is no information at all added. Also there is no reference to the History information and this needs to be referenced.

3. Content correctly cited.

The content is cited correctly. However as mentioned there are some sections which are not referenced at all: History, Bone Development (there is a large paragraph which says a lot of what is known but it is not referenced. Some of the references are repeated in the reference list: see below in wiki guidelines.

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.

There 2 small tables and two diagrams which are educational. I am very impressed that one of the members of the group re drew the first diagram. It is quite artistic but it is a bit confusing as to what each abbreviation in the figure means. If this sort of figure is added I think that some abbreviations or an explanation in the text needs to be added to allow the reader to understand what is actually happening . If not it looks like a figure with some sort of pathway but not very clear as to what It represents.

5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.

This is evident that the students have done a lot of research in this topic.

6.Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.

Yes there are some headings which relate to the learning aims of embryology such as limb bud formation and bone formation. But there are some sections which are not finished at all Kidney development, External Genitalia development, Inner Ear Development and Animal Models.

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.

It does seem that that the members of the group have had some communication and worked together well. It does seem that they have learnt to edit a wiki, making a online quiz, making tables, adding figures and content. Well done!

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.

This is a very interesting and well-researched wiki. There is still information lacking and more figures are needed as well as explanations for the figures. It is clear that a lot of effort has been carried out with the quiz, the figure that was re drawn from a publication.

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 key areas on this wiki have been researched adequately. There is still information missing.

10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.

Yes this wiki is in accordance with the guidelines. In terms of the reference list, some references have been re cited and added as new references, please see editing guidelines to avoid this- as so the reference is only listed once in the reference list and not multiple times.

Peer Assessment: Project 4: Hedgehog signalling pathway

1. The key points relating to the topic are clearly described.

The key points related to the topic are clearly described however the introduction is a little limited , as there is no information just a figure without any text related to the figure.

2.The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.

This wiki does seem to have a very extensive list of contents, which demonstrate that the topic is divided into clear interesting sections. However it is not finished and there are empty headings with no text underneath. There is only one figure but there is no text related to these figures so it makes it hard for the reader to know what this means. There are no tables and no other illustrative diagrams. This wiki would benefit a great deal with more figures, table and perhaps a you tube video.

3. Content correctly cited.

Yes it seems the content is cited correctly. There is an extensive list of references. However there is some information that is not cited at all e.g. under Organogenesis. This needs to be cited.

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.

There are no graphs, or tables and one figure that is floating in the introduction and start of the topic. Clearly this can be improved. The wiki does use examples with Drosophilia and Mammals which is great and interesting.

5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.

This is evident that the students have done a lot of research in this topic and are innovative with their examples using Drosophilia and Mammalia however there is still headings without content that needs to be filled.

6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.

There is a heading on neural development but no text and some information on organogenesis which does correspond to learning aims in Embryology. However more information is clearly needed.

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.

There seems to be editing in this Wiki however the students need to come together to talk about what is missing: i.e. introduction is missing.

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.

This is hard to tell. There seems to be an overall group effort but some sections have missing content and it either seems one student is not pulling weight or that section will be a group effort and the group has not worked on it yet.

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.

Yes so far there is adequate research, a lot of references cited but some key sections are empty. It seems that the group has used the Discussion section to communicate between each other.

10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.

Yes this group has edited the wiki using the guidelines.

Peer Assessment: Project 6: TGF beta Signaling Pathway

1. The key points relating to the topic are clearly described.

There are headings for key points but the information for these key points has not been added so far. There is a heading for introduction but this has not been filled.

2.The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.

There are two black and white figures which are quite clear and well done. However they are not referenced.

3. Content correctly cited.

The content is not cited correctly. There is a reference section but there are no publications that have been cited listed. The figure is not referenced at all. If there is any information on the page why are there no citations at all????

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.

There are two figures. There does not seem to be any examples or explanations that show the students own innovation. A time line would help a great deal.

5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.

This is somewhat evident but there is not enough clear information and it makes it difficult for the reader to follow the topic. There are only a few topics which have information. Clearly not enough work has been done by the students.

6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.

Yes there is some information, which relates to the aims of embryology. However so much more is needed. The introduction has some information on how TGF beta controls certain processes in development such as proliferation, cellular differentiation, angiogenesis etc however this needs to be clearer. I am not sure where the introduction finishes and new sub headings begin.

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.

Each section has been divided amongst the group but it seems that the members of the group have not really communicated or finished their own sections. This is not clear at all. There is no communication in the Discussion section.

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.

This is not demonstrated and it seems that the key areas have not yet been researched adequately. There is still a lot of information missing and the overall flow of this wiki is a work in process it seems. There is no information discussed between the students in the Discussion area.

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 key areas on this wiki have been set up but there is no clear and adequate information that is correctly cited at all. It is a very poor effort thus far in terms of group research. Nothing has been cited correctly.

10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.

This still has not been achieved at all. There is no editing and it seems the group has put little effort in this project.

Lab 10 Assessment

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:

  • Never discuss M&M as a separate section in journal clubs. I gave this advice prior to the lab, but still most groups did talk through the M&M section.
  • Do not use your slides as cheat sheets, avoid text on slides, know what messages you need to get across, use images to illustrate these
  • Engage with your slides. Talk through them. Point at panels. Gauge your audience’s understanding by making eye contact with them
  • Avoid using abbreviations. Most people do not readily understand these and will lose track

Lab 11 Assessment

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.

<pubmed>26932668</pubmed>

Cited research article from review article:

<pubmed>21350179</pubmed>

Brief summary of the paper's main finding:

This paper by Porello et al. (2011) [1] appeared in Science as a report, and reports how 1 day neonatal mice can generate their heart (cardiac regeneration) after partial surgical resection, however this capacity is lost 7 days after birth. Interestingly teleost fish (e.g zebrafish) and amphibians also have the capacity for cardiac regeneration, but this occurs throughout the life of the animal. The main anatomical difference is that fish hearts are two-chambered and have a single circulation (e.g. adult zebra fish), while mammalian hearts are four-chambered and have a double circulation. Thus the only time the mammalian heart resembles a fish heart is during embryonic development, before the mammalian heart has undergone septation. The other difference is zebrafish cardiomyocytes are small and mono nucleated and retain their proliferative potential throughout their life, while the mammalian cardiomyocytes become bi-nucleated shortly after birth and withdraw from the cell cycle[2] . The paper's main finding is that 1 day old mice that undergo surgical resection of the ventricular apex, do stimulate a regenerative response which restores the damaged heart to its normal anatomy and function. Within the first week of postnatal life, the mouse heart loses its regenerative potential and this coincides with the developmental window that occurs after birth when cardiomyocytes become binucleate and withdraw from the cell cycle. [3]



Describe how the original research result was used in the review article

The review paper [4]

  1. <pubmed> 21350179</pubmed>
  2. <pubmed>20071355</pubmed>
  3. <pubmed> 8877783</pubmed>
  4. <pubmed> 26932668</pubmed>