Blogs

Mine is extremely different compared to everyone else’s that was posted in the main page. It was because I rushed to make the methods and legend of my partner’s methods I think. Also, my direction or I should say what I did was not so clear for my partner so it ended up being way different for my partner’s as well. But overall, it was fun to follow the direction and try to create replication of my partner’s without giving the final product. It was interesting to find out how similar or how different it can be. Presenting in the class went smooth though and it was interesting to see how different and similar everyone's was.

It is a well known fact that as humans age the cognitive function of their brain degrades. Certain disorders, diseases and other health aspects such as drug abuse or traumatic injuries can cause an increase the speed of degradation. However, the mechanisms responsible for the normal degradation, outside of the injuries, drug abuse or disorders, is still relatively unknown. But a new research study has shown that the decline in function may be a result of astrocyte dysfunction. Astrocytes help with the formation and elimination of synapses in the brain. In the study, done on mice, it was found that the aging resulted in increased reactivity of astrocytes. This up-regulation of reactivity causes the astrocytes to lose their ability to carry out their normal functions and release toxins that destroy neurons. This loss of function change in the astrocytes results in cognitive degradtion and an increased susceptibility to traumatic brain injuries in aging brains. 

In this experiment we were tasked with creating a multi-paneled scientific figure, while documnetning our process in orer to create a set of specific methos for another student to follow. The two experimental figures were then compared in order to find the observational differences and the factors that led to the observed differences. In this specific cases differences included the overall figure structure, lighting of the pictures and the plants that were pictured. The suspected factors that led to these differences were conclued to be a lack of explanation of structuring and photography procedure in the methods.​

Transparent plastic optical lenses have been used for years as they are manufactured at a low cost and can be created into any shape and are one of the best sources to focus light. However, scientists are trying to make them even better. The downside of using this inexpensive material is that is still reflects light, much more than glass. This is because the index of refraction of plastic is 1.5 as oppose to the air which is 1.0. This means that the lens still reflects about 8% of the incoming light. Researchers are trying to create a later on top of this plastic that reduces the reflection, not only to improve studies but also every day technologies such as cameras and headlights. In result, they have created a coating that reduces the refraction index to 1.1, offering a near transparent transition to air. This will reduce the effects of light rays in cameras, which we have all fallen victim to when trying to take a picture facing the sun.

The flower in Fig. 1b has a formed circular shape, whereas the flower in Fig. 2b is less shapely, with petals sticking out at edges. On the right side of Fig. 2b a slight white color can be seen in the background. There is a small bud under the flower in Fig. 1b which is not present in Fig. 2b. Panel C is nearly identical in the two images, with the only difference being Fig. 2c has a small red square on the far left side.

-        Seed Example: Pavlischek then brings up the question of how much a man must support a child beyond its basic needs, as well as what is society’s responsibility when the man cannot provide. In context to the seed example, Pavlischek states that Thomson tries to broaden her defense of abortion from the violinist example, which represented cases of rape. In the seed example, Thomson attempts to suggest that abortion should be permissible when consent is given but an unexpected contraceptive failure took place. In this argument, Thomson argues that pregnancy due to a contraceptive failure bears no “special responsibility” to the parents (345).

  The main difference between the two figures which is the addition of panel D in the replicate can be explained by the creator of the replicate not fully reading the methods section. There is no mention of a panel D anywhere in the methods section only three panels a, b, and c were described. If the creator of the replicated figure did not fully read the methods it could also explain some of the other differences that were observed between the two figures. It could also explain why some of the figures were labeled the wrong letter. However, while misinterpretation and not fully reading the methods can explain some differences there were some faults in the methods section itself that lead to the differences in the figures.

The major difference between the two figures is the addition of panel D in the replicate figure. The other major differences include formatting, lighting, the presence of the flower, and the map of the geographical location. The replicate figure is formatted with spacings between the panels, while the original figure has the panels flush to one another with no spacing.

The labels for each of the panels are also formatted differently. The original figures background was made transparent and is white, while the replicate figures background is not transparent and is grey. The labels in the original are surrounded by white boxes and are in the top left corner of each panel, and in the replicate the labels are found outside the panel above the top left corner. In addition, the labels for each panel in the original figure were done with lowercase letters while they are uppercase in the replicate figure. Panel a in the original figure is of the flower while it is of the geographical range in the replicate. Panel b in the original figure is of the entire plant, and in the replicate figure panel B is also of the entire plant. Panel b of the original and replicate figures differ in lighting, angle and the presence of the P. maudiae flower. Panel c in the original figure is of the geographical range, while panel C in the replicate figure is of the flower bud of P. maudiae.

The geographical range of P. maudiae is colored differently in both figures and both figures show a different geographical range for P. maudiae. The maps chosen for each figure are also different. The original figure has white countries with a blue ocean while the replicate figure has grey countries with a white ocean. The lighting in the replicate figure is brighter and there are more shadows present in the background. The lighting in the original figure is more uniform and not bright or dark with very little shadows or interference.

The photographs included in the figure were of the flower Paphiopedilum maudiae, and the image taken from online was a map of the world that showed the borders of every country. I looked for the flower at the Durfee Conservatory and Gardens and chose this place because the conditions in a conservatory are kept constant and the flowers are organized and labeled. This would increase the probability that the two sets of photographs taken would be identical.  I chose this flower because it has a very unique petal formation called a pouch. This distinct petal formation was very distinct in a room filled with flowers which made it stand out. This was also the only representative of this species of flower in the conservatory which made it stand out even more.

    When constructing the figure I wanted it to show the flower close up, the picture of the entire plant from a distance, and a map showing the geographical range of the flower. I wanted the figure to be well organized but not be to complicated so that it could be replicated easily. When constructing the methods for the figure I tried to describe everything in as much detail as possible. I made sure to document all of the details that I could of where I took the photographs, when I took the photographs, and how I took the photographs. In addition, I tried to explain the formatting and process of making the figure in as much detail as possible. To make sure my methods consisted of this information I wrote down everything I did while making the figure.

The main goal of this project was to create a methods section that was sufficient enough for someone else to produce a duplicate of a multipanel figure. The other goals of this project included learning how to construct a multi panel figure, and how to interpret results to help construct a scientific paper. The figures consisted of pictures taken of flowers and images found online. The photographs and images were then constructed into a figure using the software Inkscape. The methods section was written after the figure was created and was a description of how the figure was created.