Drafts

Differences for Image 3

Observations:

1. Figure “A” is smaller in the original.
2. Figure “B” captures most of the tree in the original, while only a few branches in the replicate.
3. There is one blue angles arrow in figure “B” of the original, while there there are two white arrow heads in the replicate.
4. There is a blue arrow pointing to the left branch on figure “C”, while there is a white arrow head pointing to the right branch in the replicate.
5. The letters in the original are very small, while the letters in the replicate are fairly large.
6. The picture in the original were taken on a sunny day, while the pictures of the replicate were taken on a cloudy overcast day.
7. There are white bars between the photos in the original, while the photos in the replicate are connected.

Inferences:

1. The original did not specify the size of the left most figure, figure “A”.
2. The original did not specify the angle of the picture for figure “B”.
3. The original did not specify the types of arrows used or how many.
4. The original did not specify the types of arrows used or how many.
5. The original did not specify the font size for the letters.
6. The original did not specify the time of day or weather during the photographing.
7. The original did not specify whether the figures were supposed to be aligned or spaced apart.

An example distinguishing between an observation and an inference would be observing a neighbor's yellow lawn and making assumptions based off of this observation. One could assume that the neighbor does not take care of their yard, or that snow killed the grass, or that their dogs ruined their lawn, but these are not proven facts, they are educated guesses. An inference is a conclusion drawn from an observatino that may or may not be correct.

An example of an observation would be walking into your house after a long day and smelling gas and seeing signs of smoke coming from the kitchen. From this you can infer that something is on fire in the kitchen and is burning up.

I used Google Docs. I put an “A” at the top and pressed the Tab button 7 times. I put a “B.” I inserted the image of the full plant in between the A and the B leaving some space in between. I inserted the image of the close-up of the flower on the right side of the B. The size of that image was about half the length of the first image. I put a “C” to line up right under the “B.” I inserted the PNG image of the map to line up right under the second image and next to the first image with some space in between. I adjusted the pictures to line up with each other accordingly.

This article discusses the use of whole genome sequencing to help asses and improve the speed of genomic diagnostics for critically ill newborns, with the hope of reducing any long, in-conclusive testing for the clinical care needed for the child. The research took place at the University Medical Center Groningen, Netherlands.

Gene diagnostics is a very time-consuming process, and not all symptoms or features of genetic syndromes are present at a child’s birth, so to limit the rate of suffering, disease, and death, whole genome sequencing was introduced as possible solution. The sequence simultaneously tests for the presence of mutations for all known gene diseases and chromosomal variants. With the rapid genomic testing, results can be concluded in a span of 12 days compared to 6 months. As a result of this, researchers were able to diagnosis 30% of the critically ill newborns. As testing grows more popular, researchers will add more of a variety of patients in their study, analyzing their full genomes.

The organism to be pictured resides in the Durfee Conservatory, chich is located between University Health Services and Morill II. The exact address is 210 Stockbridge Road and it is open to the public 10am to 4pm, Monday through Friday. The entranced used was the one closest to Morill II and it had a wooden sign outside of it that read "Durfee Conservatory Visitors Welcome". Once inside the organism to be pictured is directly to the left in a square pot. The name of the plant is Camellia Japonica Jarvis Red, once the plant is located return to the door and place your left hip on the shelves grounded to the wall then take a picture at eye level or approximately five and a half feet of the ground, being sure to capture the as much of the plant as possible and being sure that the two blooming flowers are visible. Then square your shoulders to the side of the plant facing Morill II and locate the lower of the two flowers on the plant. Clear away the branches in order to see the flower head on and take your second picture. Make sure that the flower takes up the majority of the screen and that individual structures of the flowers can be identifiable. 

- it is very humid and moist when you walk in
- most things aren’t labeled in the first section of the conservatory and instead there’s a map at several places that contains “coordinates”
- there are a lot of trees and flowerless shrubs/bushes
- everything is green
- theres a small bridge with a small pond with a little bit of fish
- there are 2 benches on the left side
- you can’t see the outside
- it’s actually very clean and organized here
- second section contains a funny looking tree that is called “powderpuff tree”
- the cattleya was located in the 3rd section on the right side
- it is a very small plant with only three pale yellow flowers
- isn’t eye-catching, leaves are bigger than the flower itself

In one specific case, an antibody was created to attack the protein TNFR2 that is common in large amounts of tumor cells. Interestingly enough it is also found on an immune cells that prevents the immune system of a person with cancer from attacking the cancer. In the study the researchers used the TNFR2 antibodies to treat ovarian cancer (NCI Staff 2017). Dr. Farkas’ research is both alike and different from this research in that it utilizes a delivery system to target NPSCs to markers of cancer antigens, using a co-delivery system of therapy just as ADCs do. Once again, if the biomolecular process is completely understood, recent ADC application has proven that such nanoparticle stabilized capsules made from gold and nucleic acids at least in theory will be effective. Thus, the same ideological methodology is being utilized already in medicine, but this process could prove to be more safe and useful due to the material of the delivery system.

This chapter included two examples of lab reports. The first one was a typical lab report written during an undergraduate biochemistry lab that particular week. The second lab report was for a much longer inquiry-based microbiology project. The weekly lab report is less formal, more “raw” and probably not as detailed as the second report. It appears that the abstracts of both of the papers follow the same format and contain all the necessities. The differences start to appear in the introduction. The weekly lab report contains less background information therefore it contains a more thorough explanation of purpose and a general overview of the experiment. Both of the materials and methods provide the steps and purpose of the method. I didn’t expect to see calculation and formula steps but considering this is a short lab report and is not as formal, it is acceptable. Also, lab reports such as the first one usually include raw data (and calculations) to let the instructor evaluate howw you arrived at your conclusions and your thinking process. I didn’t see any citations for other sources. The results and discussion section were combined which allowed the student to state and interpret their findings and discuss possible limitations and answer any questions that were asked by the instructor. There is no comparing and contrasting with other sources and there is no “conclusion” paragraph.
For the longer report, there is a more informative paragraph. The introduction contains a paragraph of background information and citations, it is much longer, the unknown is stated, the purpose is clearly stated in the last paragraph and so is the experimental approach. There are separate titled sections in the Materials section and provide enough details so that someone else can repeat the experiment. For every experimental approach, potential outcomes and their meaning are described. The results section is very long and also subdivided into sections. It is important to follow the order of content that was presented in the materials and methods section. Figure titles start with a short title and additional information such as explanations or abbrevations. The first paragraph in the discussion section contains main findings. This section also compares and contrasts the stdy with others in the field. Last paragraph summarizes results, provides the conclusion and significance.

I searched for the native origins of Camellia Japonica online. I went on “wikimedia commons” and searched “blank world map with countries.” I chose the first map that came up. I downloaded it in large size. I downloaded Inkscape and imported the downloaded picture into Inkscape by going to “File” and “Import.” I clicked “Fill bounded areas” on the left side column and clicked on the magenta color at the bottom. I clicked on the native origins of the plant which included Japan, China, and both Koreas. I put in 1200 px for the “W” box at the top. I put -100 for the “Y” box and -800 for the “X” box. I went to “File” and clicked “Export PNG Image.” A box popped up on the right side and I clicked on “Export” that had a green check mark next to it. The image saved to my desktop and I renamed it as my username-original.png.