Drafts

-        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 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.

The difference in what objects were visible in the plant images of the figures results from the lack of specificity of the angle in the methods. Since the plant images from both figures have sunlight in them, the differences in exposure and shadow are due to the different cameras used. Different cameras were used because the type of camera is not specified in the methods. There is a higher density of flowers in Figure 2B than Figure 1B because it is not specified in the methods which exact flowers on the trees should be photographed. The difference in the C panels is due to misscoloring of the native origins by the person who followed the methods. This is because the coloring in Figure 2C matches the coloring in Figure 1C but it is not within the outlines of the native regions as it is in Figure 1C. The label fonts are different because the methods does not specify the type of font. The location of the images are different in both figures because the methods does not specify where to put the images in respect to above or below the labels. The methods only specifies within the left or right of directions of the labels. The images in Figure 1 are more narrow than those in Figure 2 since the methods does not specify exactly how big the length and width of the images should be.

Observational differences between Figure 1 and Figure 2 are within the areas of photography, creating the map, and creating the figure. Regarding the plant images within the figures, more of the ground and parts of other plants are visible in Figure 1 than in Figure 2. More of the roof is visible in Figure 2 than in Figure 1. There is more exposure in Figure 1 than in Figure 2. There are darker shadows in Figure 2 than in Figure 1. There is a higher density of flowers in Figure 2B than in Figure 1B. Figure 2C has the colored regions out of the outlines of the native origins. Figure 1C has the colored regions within the outlines of the native origins. For the overall figures themselves, the label fonts are different. Each image location with respect to the its label are different. The images are to the right of the labels in Figure 1 while the images are both to the right and below the labels in Figure 2. The images in Figure 1 are more narrow than those in Figure 2.

Observational differences are present throughout the figures is, even to the untrained eye. First off the flower pictured in the replicate, Figure 2, has a hint of white on it. Meanwhile in the original, Figure 1, the pictured flower does not have a hint of white on it. Another difference is that the flower pictured in panel B of Figure 2 is appears larger, than the flower pictured in panel A of Figure 1. Also the flower pictured in panel A of Figure 2 appears larger, than the flower pictured in panel B of Figure 1. The shading color of the map in panel C of Figure 2 is red, which is different than the blue color used in panel C of Figure 1. More of China is also shaded in panel C of Figure 2 than in panel C of Figure 1. Another difference is that the panel labels, A, B and C, in Figure 2 are white with a black background, however in Figure 1 they are black with no background. Lastly in panels A and B of Figure 1 there are arrows indicating location of important structures on the plant and flower, meanwhile in Figure 2 these arrows are absent.

CD44 is a cell surface adhesion receptor that is highly expressed in many cancers and appears to regulate metastasis. Its recruitment to the cell surface and its interaction with extracellular matrix ligands promote the migration and invasion processes involved in metastases. Therefore, elevated levels of soluble CD44 in the serum of cancer patients can be used as a marker for the existence of tumor cells. The over-expression of this receptor is particularly seen in breast cancer cells. This discovery may allow for specific cancer cells to be detected rather than invading healthy cells through chemotherapy to get rid of defective muted ones.

Cells are normally searching for bacterial invaders and potential tumor cells, if they recognize one, they induce an immune response. However, healthy T-cell “checkpoints” can be muted by other proteins on the cell surface and can in turn weaken immune responses. This phenomenon is often seen in tumor cells where muted T-cell checkpoint molecules are expressed. To overcome this problem without the need of radiation, nontoxic nanoparticles can be used to sensitize the immune system. New antigens can be exposed to T cells which can prime those T cells to target other tumor cells that carry them as well. In order to get past the immune system, they need to be the appropriate size because small particles are more likely to get around macrophages. Prior to inducing them into the body, they have to be coated with polyethylene glycol shell which can help them survive longer in the bloodstream.

The genus canis has showed an interesting phenomenon with the discovery of the “coywolf”; a hybrid canid exhibiting mostly Canis lupus and Canis dirus genes but also Canis lupus familiaris genes. Many have gone as far as to calling the coywolf a new species. However, this assumption might be a bit of a stretch. Genetic tests show this is not the first time intermixing takes place. The eastern coyote for example, is also a mix of the three. In my opinion, that is because coyotes, domestic dogs, and wolves are the same species “that would very much prefer not to breed with each other”. The fact that they have continuously mated with one another throughout history and created viable offspring suggests they are indeed the same species. This has resulted in genetic swapping and gene variations amongst the three. The gene differences may result in sexual “preferences” where wolves would rather mate with a wolf, coyotes with coyotes, and so on. Still, preference is not enough to deem them three separate species. “Gene flow continues in all directions, keeping things mixed up, and leading to continual variation over their range, with no discrete boundaries."  Instead of being called closely related species, it would be more accurate to call them subspecies.