Blogs

The student who followed the methods for the cattail mutualism submitted his or her work (Figure 2). The first difference observed between the original and the replicate were the sizes of the figures and the sizes of the individual panels. The panels in the replicate are smaller and the pictures are not touching each other side by side. The letters, ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’ are underneath the pictures as opposed to on the left bottom corner of the picture. Lastly, the arrow in figure ‘C’ is different to show where the pictures were taken. In terms of the pictures, the quality isn’t the same due to the difference in panel sizes and pixels. The lighting also isn’t the same as the original was taken on a cloudy day and the replicate was taken on a partly cloudy day with some shade. There was also more snow on the ground in the images of the replicates. The colors of the cattail also seem to differ as in the original the plant looks more yellow whereas in the replicate they look more brown. Different frames in the pictures are visible. Figure ‘A’ in the original has a closer view of the cattails compared to figure ‘A’ in the replicate and similar with figure ‘B’. The cattail appear much smaller in the replicate.

The set of three photographs which comprise each figure were dissimilar to one another in their coloring. Image “a” of Figure 2 displayed darker hues relative to the corresponding image in Figure 1. This was evident in both the greenery of the plants and the colors of surrounding objects, such as the pipe to the left of Species 1 and the door to the west entrance to the right of Species 1. In Figure 1, the pipe and door were visible as white and light teal respectively, while in Figure 2, they appeared as dark grey and dark greyish teal respectively. Image “b” of Figure 2 displayed slightly paler, less vivid colors than its counterpart in Figure 1, most prominently visible in the leaves of Species 2 and the small ferns at the base of the trunk on Species 1. Image “c” of both panels displayed similar colors.

The spread of disease can be classified in two different catagories: communicable and non-communicable. Communicable dieases are diseases that are spread by direct or indirect contact. Direct contact is when an infected host comes in physical contact with an unifected host and the pathogen is spread. Examples of these include handshakes, kissing, or sex. When the direct contact is from a liquid from a cough or a sneeze it is called droplet infection. On the other hand, indirect contact involves an intermediate step. It is passed from the host to another host via a fomite or vector. A fomite is an object that harbors a a disease. Examples of fomites include door knobs, towels, and drinking glasses. A vector is a living organism that carries the disesase from one individual to the next. An example is a misquito transmitting malaria. Humans can also be vectors. Healthcare workers that do not properly wash their hands in between patients and pass the disease onto the next patient is an example of how that is possible. Other diseases are spread through the fecal-oral route, where improper sanitation causes infection. Noncommunicable diseases are diseases that not spread through direct or indirect contact. These infection can be endogenous or environmental. Endogenous diseases occur when normal bacteria in the body spread to places it does not belong. An example of this is a urinary tract infection. An environmental infection occurs typically from an introduction of the bacterial by a traumatic injury or ingestion of the bacteria. These infections are always bacterial.

The purpose of writing a methods section of any scientific paper is to describe to the reader the goals, and questions of the research and inform the reader of what was done in order to try and answer the questions or hypotheses. The description of the experiment and the analysis along with is should be able to be replicated by the reader. The methods of this research paper will be looking at the interspecific relationship of Canada Geese and Mallard Ducks around the UMass campus pond. Geese and ducks are commonly found in the same environments as each other which leads to their interspecific relationship. Both species feed on similar resources (grass) and inhabit the same areas. They can often be seen congregating together on and around the pond. This allows for easy access to capture their everyday interactions. This factors into my decision in choosing this interaction. It will be easily obtainable for someone to go and replicate the methods used and will have no trouble finding this interaction. The only major factors that could prohibit the replication of the methods are weather and time of day. The species typically are not out on the campus pond at night time and while it is precipitating.

          I chose to record an interspecific interaction between a fiddle-leaf ficus tree and the vine plant growing up its trunk. I chose these two species for four reasons. These plants are located within Durfee Conservatory, a greenhouse complex open to the public, which is convenient both in that it is insulated from winter weather and that it is near Morrill, where our class takes place, and thus easy for me and whoever would replicate my methods to access. In addition, their location is fixed and their interaction is perpetual, meaning they can be found and their relationship documented regardless of the time lapsed between my observations of them and my partner’s observations of them. Furthermore, their precise location within the greenhouse is near easily identifiable landmarks such as the west doorway, the bench by the west doorway, and the koi pond, which meant that I could describe where they are in the conservatory in such a way that my partner could easily find them amongst the many different, densely growing plants. Finally, I chose these two species out of all the species in Durfee simply because I thought they looked interesting in a purely aesthetic sense, and therefore something I would enjoy taking pictures of. However, this was a minor motivation, and my primary consideration was always ease of replicability.

Cystic Fibrosis results from having two non functioning genes for the creation of the CFTP protein. This is autosomal recessive since as long as the body has one working copy of the CTPR gene it is able to preform its function normally. The cause of the symptoms of Cystic fibrosis is due to the buildup of thick layers of mucus which most notability leads to issues with lungs, but also affects the digestive system. This mucus buildup is due to inability for the cell to transport chloride ions to its surface. The CTPR protein forms a chloride Ion channel in the cell membrane allowing chloride Ions to leave the interior of the cell. These Ions attract water molecules to the surface of the cell which prevents the excess buildup of mucus on the surface of cells.

New research shows that it is important to be aware of depression and anxiety in preschoolers. Researchers designed a task to scare children where they were placed in a dimly lit room and revealed a realistic looking plastic snake. Each child was fixed with a monitor and their movements were observed during the task. The movements showed that children diagnosed with depression or anxiety turned further away from the perceived threat than those without a diagnosis. These sensors could identify children with depression or anxiety about 80% of the time. It is widely accepted that children as young as 3 can suffer from mental health disorders and the diagnosis remains difficult. It’s increasingly clear that these children are at risk of mental and physical health problems later in life.

There is a new method that can test hundreds of drugs on mini tumors grown from patient’s own cells. In San Diego, they are collection cancer cells from patients and growing them into 3D mini tumors and may make it possible to quickly screen large numbers of potential drugs for rare cancers. There has been some success with a new approach that is guiding the treatment decisions for some patients with recurring cancers. The method was shown to work on various kinds of ovarian cancer. The lab-grown organoids copied how the tumors in the body look and behave. Of the eight total drugs that that organoids were able to find that worked, four were CDK inhibitors. This is telling of the fact that these screens can be useful in identifying tumors that won’t respond to conventional therapy.