Blogs

The location of the bottom bloom in part B is congruent in both figures, but the amount of blooms contained in the images were not.  The differences in distance from the flowers arose because ideal distance was not detailed in the methods.  In part C there were two different world maps used due to methods of finding the first world map not being detailed in the methods.  The world map originally used may not be available online anymore.  The color by which the countries were highlighted was included in the methods, but there are many different shades of turquoise on Inkscape which accounts for the difference in shade.  The caribbean was also highlighted in figure 2, but this could have been due to a misunderstanding of which countries constituted central america.  Overall, the methods did yield a congruent figure with minor discrepancies.

Today in class, we learned about the diels-alder reaction. It is when the two bonds combine together to form a ring with either aldehyde or ether. It can have more functional groups like alcohol, ester, and more. The concept was definitely pretty hard because the dienophile had to have the pi bond which is usually not present. It is also extremely difficult to draw the structure which is tough because on our owl homework we have to draw each single endo and exo cyclic systems.

Introduction: In this experiment, two pictures were taken of flowering plants; methods were written, and the methods were followed by a peer. Knowing how to write methods effectively is essential because for scientific research to be valid, it must be able to be replicated. This experiment was also important in learning to distinguish the difference between an observation and an inference. Another goal for this experiment was to consider potential factors in the methods and how to control for them. The flowering plant selected was Camellia Japonica. C. Japonica was selected as it was a large tree and was in the first room of the Durfee Conservatory. Ease of access to the subject of the experiment seemed to be an important factor as it would be difficult to replicate the methods if the person following them could not find the plant. Also, this experiment was performed in the winter, so using flowering plants outside was out of the question. Choosing a plant in the Durfee Conservatory meant that the plant would be there for the replicator in the same location and in a location easy to find.

All of the differences between these two figures have reasons behind them, and most of them are because of an unspecific methods section. For example, when it came to the discrepancies in the labels on the image, it was because the methods did not describe what color or size the letters should be. In addition to that, the methods did not include that there was a white square placed behind the letters in order to distinguish them from the picture. In addition to that, the space between the photos is because the methods didn’t specify how close the pictures should be in the figure. This could have been fixed by including the coordinates and sizes of the images when they were arranged on inkscape in the methods.

    This project focused on the Methods section and the aim was to walk through the creation of a multipanel figure in such a way that it could be replicated. The three pictures that had to be included were a picture of a plant found on University of Massachusetts Amherst’s campus, an up close pictures of that plant’s flower or leaf, and a map depicted the plant’s origin. The findings of this project revealed the areas that this Methods section was lacking in and where it lacked clarity, such as in angle and distance from camera to plant. Other factors such as time and tamperability in the greenhouse were also found to cause differences in the two figures. These factors aside, these findings reveal that it is crucial to provide a clear and detailed Methods section in all scientific papers.

A study I recently analyzed for my sensory neurology course, aimed to find which mechanically-sensitive transducer channels allow hair cells to detect vibrations. The channels are believed to activate as a result of deflection towards the tallest stereociliary row. This is caused by a force applied by extracellular tip-links. Calcium signals in the first, second, and third stereociliar rows of a rat’s cochlear inner hair cells were visualized by using fast confocal imaging of fluorescence changes that reflect calcium entry during stereociliary bundle stimulation. Calcium was the ion of choice because hair cell channels have shown to be highly permeable to it. Individual stereocilia were imaged at the apical portion of the bundle and indicator dyes with a range of affinities were used. The results from these experiments indicated there are no channels in first row stereocilia therefore suggesting channels that detect vibrations of the stereociliary bundle are only present at the bottom of tip-links.

In order to become an author with this journal there are a few guidelines that must be followed. The first requirement is to register through their website and confirm said registration by email. The next step is to become acquainted with their “instructions for authors page” which includes a few different links. These links have information about things like conflicts of interest, and other norms associated with papers published in this journal.

In the “additional information for authors page” they specify that the title should include what drug was investigated, what type of people the drug was tested on, and the general design of the experiment.  

    The document also includes specifications, headings, key points, and acknowledgements. To aid new authors, examples of each section are also provided to increase the clarity of the guidelines.

The differences in image quality are due to the fact that the two photographers took the photos with different types of phones. The creator of Fig. 1 used an android phone, while the creator of Fig. 2 used an iPhone. The two styles each have their own type of camera, and as such the image comes out looking slightly different. The difference in card used to measure the flower is also a result of differences between the two photographers. The photographer for Fig. 1 chose to use a “Dunkin Donuts” gift card to provide scale, an object which the photographer for Fig. 2 did not have. Fig. 2 contains the back of a “Ucard”, which was chosen by the second photographer due to its similar shape and size to the gift card.

Due to the fact that the exact sizes of the images were specified in the Methods, the sizes of the images are in scale with one another. However, relative to Figure 1, Figure 2 appears to be stretched based on the width of the plant in Panel A. Panel C is also visibly out of proportion when compared to Panel C of Figure 1, and from this it can be inferred that there was difficulty with the lock feature that was explained in the Methods. The Methods did not specify what time of day the pictures were taken at, so there are far more shadows in Figure 2 than in Figure 1. The Methods also did not specify exactly how far away from the plant to take the pictures from, or at what angle, and this is why there are far more plants visible in Figure 1 in the background. The Methods also did not specify how to center the picture in relation to the white tag which may have been helpful. Panel B varied drastically between the pictures which means that the Methods may not have been clear enough in this area. Panel C does not have the same tone of pink to fill in the countries even though it was specified, however it may not have been clear enough as there were many different colors. The backgrounds of the maps are also different but this is because this was not specified in the Methods. The largest difference between the two figures is that there are no orange flowers in Figure 2, and this must be due to timing.

Hofmann’s chapter 13 provides some advice and guidelines to follow when creating and presenting a scientific poster. The poster is a short visual version of a long research paper therefore, it should include the most important ideas of each section and be more “visually appealing” to the audience. The poster should be self-explanatory so that a reader can understand it without the author’s presence. The experimental approach should be summarized very briefly and preferrably displayed as a flowchart or schematic to create a visual appeal. The results section of the poster should be considered as the most important section. The results should be presented in the form of figures and tables in a consistent order between what is written in the conclusion section. Conclusions are usually brief, and would provide more appeal if displayed as short bullet points. It is acceptable to highlight or draw arrows on the areas of the figures that need to be emphasized. When presenting, a 5-10 min talk should be prepared that can be practiced beforehand in front of peers or professors. Most importantly, the well-designed poster serves as a visual aid and not something to read off.