cdkelly's blog

The first structural difference that I noticed between the two articles was that the research article detailed the specifics of the project and discussed the intricacies throughout the sections. The research acticle also contained figures to visually display the data they collected throughout the project. On the other hand, the review article skipped around and covered the topics of myrmecomorphy, myrmecophily, and myrmecophagy in spider-ants. It went into detail for each section/subsection, and referenced a wide number different sources. Citations in the research article contained the author and the date that the referenced article was released, while the review article simply used a number assigned to each of the many sources. In both the research article and the review, the citations begin in the introduction and the summary/abstract do not have any.

One thing that jumped out at me was that the review article was open access; the majority of research articles I’ve read are locked behind a paywall that can only be accessed by being on the university campus. I also found it interesting that the review article contained more level 2 headings, but it makes sense since the review is drawing from so many different sources. The structure of the discussion in the research article was different than what I’m used to; the way that it presented a numbered list that answers the questions brought up at the beginning of the article was unique. Furthermore, the writing style of the review came off as more digestible because it was meant to describe a more broad topic. In skimming through these two articles, I’ve found that the absolute structure of a research article is not concrete. Rather, the authors present the information in a way that they believe best showcases their work.

The primary difference between research and review articles is that research articles describe a particular project and all of the involved components. Whereas review articles describe an entire area of research and all of the relevant studies working toward a similar goal. The research article has the level 1 headings summary, introduction, methods and materials, results and discussion. It also contains level 2 headings in the methods and results, both covering specific parts of their respective sections. In the review article, the level one headings include an abstract, an introduction, sections for myrmecomorphy, myrmecophily, and myrmecophagy, as well as a brief discussion at the end. Like the research article, it also has level 2 headings.

I found it interesting that the review article contained more level 2 headings, but it makes sense since the review is drawing from so many different sources. Also, the writing style of the review came off as more digestible because it was meant to describe a more broad topic.

    Much like other solid tumors, GBM tumorigenesis leads to oxygen deprivation of specific regions and consequently hypoxia. This lack of oxygen tension in critical areas causes the expression of hypoxia-inducible factor 1 (HIF-1), which then causes the overexpression of VEGF. The resultant ligand binds to growth factor receptors on cancerous endothelial cells and induces angiogenesis (Vleeschouwer, 2016). This is an interesting component of cancers in general because the hypoxic areas that come from this process normally lead to cell death, but CSCs, specifically in GBM, thrive under these conditions due to the aforementioned mechanisms of angiogenesis.

There are currently two theories that aim to explain the heterogeneity of GBM solid tumors and the like: the stochastic model and the hierarchy model. The stochastic model posits that the heterogeneity of tumor cells results from both intrinsic and extrinsic factors affecting cells with the same mutations. On the other hand, the hierarchy model takes a more nuanced approach by suggesting that only a few CSCs can initiate growth of a tumor, and the heterogeneity of the GBM tumor cells arises from the related cells being at different points in development/differentiation. This model points to the small subset of CSCs being the root of cancerous growth, resistance, and recurrence (Vleeschouwer, 2016). The issue then becomes identifying the cancer stem cells

Of all of the labs available for me to apply to, I believe this lab best aligns with my personal interests and knowledge. The inner machinations of cellular function, including motility, is an extremely fascinating facet of biology. Uncovering new cellular behaviors and mechanisms is something that cannot be taught in a lecture, as well as something that I truly strive to be a part of.

I have completed a wide number of relevant courses and gained valuable knowledge as a result. I will continue to learn more about biological systems as I complete my dual degree in biology and neuroscience in May of next year. In addition, I’m planning on taking at least one gap year between my application to medical school and the completion of undergrad.  I would be thrilled to continue research past my graduation date.

    When the front end of the insect was inspected, there was what could be assumed to be its mouth, colored a slight orangery-red with a black outline surrounding it on most sides. Between the black lines and the thorax, on the bottom of the organism, was the most red component; a small red circle. Shaped like a leaf with its top cut off, the head had a tiny black dot on the top with a black outline around its rim. The front end of the head had a series of tiny black eyes, too small to accurately count without magnification. Two tan, tubular components were at the front of the head, and it was assumed that they were related to its ability to eat. But upon closer inspection of the front end of the insect, the aforementioned structures where the assumed mouth was began to look more like small apendages. Therefore, it was assumed that this organism was a member of the arachnid family due to the presence of eight legs.