Writing in Biology

Coral bleaching is an extremely important environmental issue. Coral are invertebrates that are large colonies, with these colonies being made up of individual polyps. Coral derives most of its energy from photosynthetic algae that live on the polyps of coral. When conditions become unsuitable for these algae to live on coral reefs they vacate their homes, evacuating into the surrounding waters, often dying without protection. Conditions can become unsuitable for these algae due to the increasing acidification of ocean waters and increasing temperatures of ocean water, both of which can be attributed to anthropogenic emissions. With the lack of algae coral reefs can become bleached and eventually die. With the death of coral reefs, they can no longer function as ecosystems for other organisms and nor can they act as vital environmental barriers to oceanic activities.

Often a debate that arises among biologists is whether or not viruses are organisms or fall into their own categorization. Viruses exist alongside almost all designations of organisms, across all domains of life. While the presence of viruses is undoubtedly influential on life on Earth there is still heavy debate as to how to we view them, with arguments on both sides of this debate.   Viruses are quite unique in their physical structure, as they are in essence very simple, consisting of genetic material either DNA or RNA wrapped in a protein capsule. The presence of DNA or RNA in viruses is often used as an argument as to why they could be considered alive as the presence of genetic material and the use of that material to reproduce is a characteristic of life. However, while they may have genetic material and reproduce, viruses cannot reproduce with a host cell to infect. They also do not have the ability to generate their own energy, respond to stimuli (outside of injecting a cell with their genetic material), and nor do they have the cellular structure of what we consider to be life.

In DNA replication, the enzyme RNA primase adds a RNA primer to both DNA strands available. These primers serve as a basis for DNA polymerase III to bind to in order to begin adding new base pairs. DNA polymerase III works along both strands of parent DNA, not only adding new bases but also proofreading along the way by removing incorrect ones and replacing them with the correct ones. Once both strands have been replicated, DNA polymerase I replaces the initial RNA primers with the corresponding DNA sequence. A final molecule, DNA ligase, works to seal the gaps between any remaining base pairs. 

It is important to recognize the differences between writing styles in scientific literature when referencing sources, understanding concepts, and conducting research. The articles assigned serve as great examples of two different types: research and review. The research article, “Influence of Prey Movement on the Performance of Simple Detours by Jumping Spiders,” has a more formal layout than the review article, “Spider-Ant Associations: An Updated Review of Myrmecomorphy, Myrmecophily, and Myrmecophagy in Spiders,” although they have some similarities. Both articles have level 1 and level 2 headings that further specify the contents of certain sections. For example, the research article has a level 1 heading for “Materials and Methods” and level 2 headings for “General Methodology” and “Test Procedures.” The review article has a level 1 heading for “Spider Myrmecomorphy” and level 2 headings for “Morphological and Behavioral Adaptations” and “General Adaptive Significance of Myrmecomorphy” along with a few others.

During reading these two articles, something 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. Perhaps this was done so that the information is readily available to anyone who is interested in the topic. I also found it intriguing that the review article had more level 2 headings, but it made sense since the review was drawing from so many different sources and consequently had to cover more ground. 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 answered the questions posited 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 the research article, I’ve come to realize that the absolute structure of a research article is not concrete. There are basic guidelines, such as having an abstract at the beginning or a discussion at the end, but the way that they do it up to them. Authors present information in a way that they believe best showcases their work.

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.

There are a number of ways atoms can interact non-covalently. These interactions can be ionic, dipole or van der Waals. All three of these are electrostatic in nature and are classified by their magnitude and duration. For example, ionic interactions are permanent and full charges while van der Waals interactions are temporary and partial charges. Dipole interactions are a mixture of permanent, temporary, partial and full charges, however. Non-covalent interactions can be dipole-dipole, ion-ion, ion-dipole and hydrogen bonds.

Covalent bonds are stronger than all types of non-covalent bonds. Covalent bonds occur in both polar and non-polar variations. In the human body, the only non-polar covalent bonds will be seen between carbon-carbon bonds and carbon-hydrogen bonds. Of the non-covalent interactions, ionic are the strongest, while van der Waals are the weakest. It is important to note that many weak interactions can sum to form a powerful interaction. In fact, this is crucial to the structure of many proteins in the human body. While covalent bonds form the general linear structure of a molecule, the non-covalent are largely responsible for keeping the three-dimensional shape and structure of the molecule stable. Many interprotein interactions occur due to these non-covalent interactions as well.

The inside of our body is mostly aqueous. It is therefore important to know how molecules interact with water, as well as the properties of water itself. Water is a polar molecule as its large electronegative oxygen pulls electrons away from its smaller hydrogen. This is actually what gives water many interesting properties. Due to its polarity, water tends to adhere to other water molecules. Polarity also governs what will dissolve in water. A general rule of thumb is that like dissolves like. Therefore other polar molecules will dissolve in water and are thus hydrophilic. Take salt for instance, NaCl. The Na is positively charged and the Cl is negatively charged, making it polar. When salt is poured into water, it dissolves as water forms a hydration shell around each atom. However, if a non-polar molecule is poured into water it will not dissolve. Rather, it will clump together. This is what is called a hydrophobic molecule. An example of this can be seen when pouring oil into water. The oil clumps together, even if poured into separate locations in the water. This adherence of oil clumping together isn't because of any sort of attraction between the oil molecules. Instead, this is because of entropy and energetic favorability. When oil is poured in the water, the water must form a shell around it. If there are multiple clumps of oil, more water has to form shells around those clumps as well, therefore decreasing entropy. When all the oil clumps adhere together, forming one large oil clump, the entropy is at its highest and therefore the oil has the tendency to stick together.

Whale ecotourism is a growing economic sector of many countries and coastal cities. Many of these large, aquatic mammals are threatened or endangered, according to standards set by both the United State’s Endangered Species Act and international legislation. Bringing these factors into account, it has become of interest to some conservationists the effect of boat traffic and especially whale-watching traffic on the welfare of these unique creatures. Boat strikes are the most concerning interaction between human vessels and whales, but there is plenty of evidence pointing towards other effects on their welfare besides physical injury and death. Presence of vessels can negatively affect whale behavior. The loud noises from vessels can block whale calls, ultimately affecting whales from communicating or mating effectively. Additionally, strikes can harm or even kill whales.

To understand the impact of hurricane Florence on North Carolina's coast it is important to undertand the formation events of the northern and southern coasts. At the northen coastal plain, one must travel 100km (60miles) before exceeding three meters of elevation. This is drastically different from the southern coastal plain, where only 1-2 miles needss to be traversed to exceed a three meter elevation. All this relates to the slight differences that were at play when they were formed. 200 million years ago when several continents formed a supercontinet, what is now Africa began to pull away. This left some rock to create the North Carolina crystalling rock platform in the southern part of the state. Soft sediment filled around it and the basin has been filling with sediment ever since the Atlantic Ocean was formed. Subsidence of the land and sea level rise means the north coast is sinking faster than the south.

The research article had a slightly different set up. For example, instead of using an abstract, it began with a summary that provided the overview of the study. The introduction and proceeding paragraphs were not numbered, but were instead simply stated as ‘Materials and methods’ and ‘Results’. This is most likely because the paragraphs in each section did not need to be organized as precisely as the review paper. Looking at both articles, the review paper had a significantly shorter introduction than the research paper, but this is a consistent pattern with other papers I have looked at.

            The in-text citations differed between the two texts. The review paper used citations without the author, while the research paper used citations with the author and publishing year. The review paper cited over 170 papers, therefore, it was not surprising to me that they did not cite the last name of every author throughout the paragraphs. Overall, the review article seemed to have a broader range of information regarding the field of research and thus resulted in a longer paper than the research article. The research article was more specific in one area of study.