cwcasey's blog

Mammals, often characterized by the presence pf hair and mammary glands, can be divided into three sub groups; Holotherians, Metatherians, and Eutherians. Holotherians encapsulate the monotremes which are the egg laying mammals characterized by a single opening for both fecal removal and urogenital products. Examples of monotremes are platypuses and echidnas.  Metatherians are the marsupials like kangaroos, wombats, opossums, etc. They are characterized by a pouch where the fetuses attach to the mother’s nipples and finish developing into adolescence. Metatherians also have an inwardly turned angular process on their lower jaws which result in limited replacement of their juvenile teeth. Lastly, Eutherians are the remaining placental organisms. While marsupials are placentals too, Eutherians have a longer gestation period and thus produce able bodied young who are at a much more advanced stage in development. Eutherians are also characterized by their tribosphenic molars, molars where the protocone is on the lingual side of the mouth (tongue) and the anterior paracone along with the posterior metacone are on buccal side of the jaw (cheek). In conclusion, while mammals are united by their hairs and mammary glands, they can be further divided using distinct characteristics that allow us the create the three groups Holotherians, Metatherians, and Eutherians.

Mammals, often characterized by the presence pf hair and mammary glands, can be divided into three sub groups; Holotherians, Metatherians, and Eutherians. Holotherians encapsulate the monotremes which are the egg laying mammals characterized by a single opening for both fecal removal and urogenital products. Examples of monotremes are platypuses and echidnas.  Metatherians are the marsupials like kangaroos, wombats, opossums, etc. They are characterized by a pouch where the fetuses attach to nipples and finish developing into adolescence. Metatherians also have an inwardly turned angular process on their lower jaws which result in limited replacement of their teeth. Lastly, Eutherians are the remaining placental organisms. While marsupials are placentals as well, eutherians have a longer gestation period and thus produce able bodied young who are at a much more advanced stage in development. Eutherians are also characterized by their tribosphenic molars, molars where the protocone is on the lingual side of the mouth (tongue) and the anterior paracone along with the posterior metacone are on buccal side of the jaw (cheek). In conclusion, while mammals are united by their hairs and mammary glands, they can be further divided using distinct characteristics that allow us the create the three groups Holotherians, Metatherians, and Eutherians.

            Your core values of Courage, Achievement, Responsibility, Respect, Integrity and Transparency are ideals that I try to embody in my everyday life, especially responsibility. I take great pride in completing projects on time and in a punctual manner. Often, especially working in groups, I set up a time line of tasks to stay on top of the project and never lose sight of the end goal. For example, while working on a Microbiology project this semester I organized a layout that allowed my team mates and I to work at our own pace while contributing to the over all project and meeting the deadline. Upon review of the final project we were given an A and the professor even applauded our diligence as she could see the steps taken to produce the presentation.

            In conclusion, I feel as though I would be an excellent fit for your company. Not only do I have the experience you require, I like to believe that I embody your core values and would be a great asset to your team. Thank you for your time and I am looking to hear from you soon about hopefully setting up an interview.

            I am very excited to apply for a position in your Bioprocessing and Cell Therapy group. During the summer of 2018 I had the pleasure of interning with your team and ever since then I have taken the skills I learned and applied them in an academic setting to bolster my knowledge of Biology and more specifically Microbiological research. Recently, I have read that your company is working on a project involving the genomic editing of gut bacteria to benefit malnourished children. During the semester I learned about the nature of the gut and the different facets of such an expansive microbiome. I find it fascinating that your team is pioneering research into such an intricate field that has yet to be fully explained.

            In your job listing it says that you are looking for someone who has experience working with bioreactors as well as other biotechnology involving cell growth. During my time interning, I was fortunate enough to get experience working with the 50-liter bio reactor so that I could proliferate a colony of mesenchymal stem cells over a period of 90 days. I was able to grow and characterize over 5 billion cells which are now being used by your company for other projects. I also was tasked with growing the same cells in a planar environment using Corning T-150 flasks which resulted in the colony expanding to 9 million cells.  

Upon review of the results, I came up with 3 reasons as to why there were differences between the two figures. These reasons include, a change in weather, vague instruction, and miscellaneous factors. To start, the weather is a factor that is totally out of our control. In the picture of the environment, the background is brighter thus causing the light exposure in the photograph to be greater. In Figure One, it was a dark and rainy day so the light exposure wasn't as great.  The weather also played a role in the window being opened or closed in the picture. In Figure One, the window is open whereas in Figure Two, it was closed. We can infer that the temperature must have been hotter in Figure One than it was in Figure Two thus resulting in the window being closed.

    The next reason for differences is due to vague instruction. For example, my methods call for the picture of the web to be take at the back right corner of the air duct. Now, the replicate did take a picture of the back right corner, however it was taken at a different distance and angle seeing as they were not specified in the methods. In the image of the environment, I said to take the picture at eye level, not accounting for the fact that my eye level would be different than that of my peers. In terms of labeling, the units for the stroke width and size of the box were missing and so this resulted in a different shape than originally intended. Same goes for the red dot used to illustrate where the web is on the map. I had said to place the red dot along the side of the building without further detail. This resulted in the replicate having the dot further towards the front whereas my dot is more towards the middle.

    Lastly, uncontrollable miscellaneous factors played a part in some of the differences as well. For example, I am not a member of UMOC and therefore do not have a red sticker signifying membership on my UCard. As it turns out, the person who replicated my figure is a member and so they do have the sticker as mentioned previously. This difference is due to the fact that one of us is in a club whereas the other is not. Such differences could not have been accounted for at the beginning of this project and are therefore out of my control.

The finer details of Figure Two were analyzed for differences. To start, there is a red UMOC sticker on the UCard in figure two that is not in Figure One. The labels of the images are different as well. The size of the circle in which the letters are placed is much larger than those in Figure One as well as the size of the lettering being larger. The images in Figure Two are labeled differently than those in Figure One. I noticed that the labels for picture of the environment and the map are reversed in Figure Two when compared to Figure One. Figure two also captures more of the surrounding environment including railings, more of the windows, a light post bulb, and the windows behind the air duct are closed whereas they are open in Figure One. Another difference was the red box used to highlight the location of the web within the environment. The box used for Figure Two has different dimensions thus making it more boxy and larger than that in Figure One. The map in Figure Two is also different in that it is more zoomed in than the map of Figure One. The dot specifying the location of the web is also in a different location. It appears to be more towards the front of the building where as my dot was more towards the middle.

 

The purpose of this project is to generate a multipanel scientific figure using photographs of a local spider web.  These pictures were taken with a great deal of thought as later on, a peer will be tasked with replicating the figure based on my methods. When selecting a web to photograph, it was important to choose an area that my peers would have regular access too so that they would be able to replicate the figure as best as possible. For example, the spider webs in my basement weren’t photographed because not everyone would have access to my basement. Throughout the process it became increasingly important to record as much detail as possible so that my peers would be able to produce a near identical figure.

    Replicability is a huge part of this project. Not only are my peers going to be reproducing my figure, I will be reproducing one of theirs as well. By paying attention to the fine details and being sure to capture every single step and task, I intend to generate a precise layout for them to follow so that the replicate figure will be near identical to mine. If there is not enough detail then there will be noticable differences between the original and the replicate thus reassuring how important detail is while writing.

The finer details of Figure Two were analyzed for differences. To start, there is a red UMOC sticker on the UCard in figure two that is not in Figure One. The labels of the images are different as well. The size of the circle in which the letters are placed is much larger than those in Figure One as well as the size of the lettering being larger. The images in Figure Two are labeled differently than those in Figure One. I noticed that the labels for picture of the environment and the map are reversed in Figure Two when compared to Figure One. Figure two also captures more of the surrounding environment including railings, more of the windows, a light post bulb, and the windows behind the air duct are closed whereas they are open in Figure One. Another difference was the red box used to highlight the location of the web within the environment. The box used for Figure Two has different dimensions thus making it more boxy and larger than that in Figure One. The map in Figure Two is also different in that it is more zoomed in than the map of Figure One. The dot specifying the location of the web is also in a different location. It appears to be more towards the front of the building where as my dot was more towards the middle.

 

    The methods above are for the creation of Figure One. The methods were passed along to a peer who followed the methods as best as possible to create Figure Two. Upon receiving Figure Two it was now time to compare the two figures and make note of any and all differences.The differences can be categorized into two categories, differences in the photographs and differences in the details. To start, there are seven key differences with the photographs. Picture A, the photo of the spider web itself, has a different focal point than that in Figure One. Rather than the photo being taken from the side, the replicate was taken from a lower angle and focuses more on the bottom of the air duct. The scale used in Picture A of Figure One is more prevalent, the whole UCard is captured in the photo whereas the UCard in Figure Two is only half visible. This also causes the fingers to be more prevalent in figure one than they are in Figure Two. The second photographic difference is drawn form the picture of the environment in which the web is located. The replicate photo captures more of the background, it is brighter, and it was taken at a different height thus capturing more of the alley way and its surrounding. The last photographic difference comes from the picture of the detailed map. In Figure One, there is a pin drop beinhd the Student Union building which helped guide the program to zoom in on the address. This pin drop is not located in the picture of the map within Figure Two.

 

In the Fall of 2018, as a part of a Writing in Biology class at UMass Amherst, I conducted a project where I created a scientific figure, wrote the methods for creating said figure and passed the methods along for somebody else to replicate. The purpose of this was to show how much detail plays a factor when writing a methods section. The methods should be clear and easy to follow, like a recipe of sorts. Science, in and of itself, is about imperfections and this project highlights that. Blindly assembling a scientific figure using someone else's methods is a daunting task and is sure to generate interesting results  similar to those put forth later in this paper. After receiving the replicate figure, it was evident that the differences between the two figures were due to a combination of  human error and natural differences. Inferences were then drawn from the differences and a list of potential factors was generated as a means of explanation.