Writing in Biology

The people that work there, not the actual facility itself poses the biggest risk for pathogens to escape a biosafety level 4 lab. In order work in a lab like this you must go through extensive background checks. Even your family must go through extensive checks and are subject to heavy scrutinization. This is because the pathogens in labs like this are so incredibly powerful that many people would want to try and use them to cause harm. People in the lab could either try and smuggle out samples of the virus for a payment or to cause serious damage by themselves or both. What I mean by this is that the pathogens could be sold to terrorists, radicalized militant groups, or anyone who wants to cause harm to the general public. Not only would these pathogens be very destructive to the population but they would also be very easily released and spread. If you think about how many people push open a turning door at the subway or airport in a single day you would realize how big of a threat these pathogens pose to the public. If some cases thousands of people could touch that spot in a given day. Now there are thousands of people who bring the pathogen with them and touch something else. They go home to their apartment complex, go to their work at a grocery store, go to the movies. All places where they will come in contact with thousands of more people. This is why the people in these facilities as well as the facilities themselves must be so heavily monitored.

Despite the possible benefits of genome editing, the potential effects on future generations may outweigh the positives according to Lanphier et al. The technology could easily be abused and used for non-therapeutic modifications. There is also a potential danger in using CRISPR/Cas9 for genome editing due to the possibility of making accidental changes elsewhere in the genome. This is problematic because the precise effects of the modification may not be known until birth or even years later. Genetic modification is further an issue legally due to the lack of policies regarding genome editing in some countries such as the US (Lanphier et al. 2015).

          Benzoin (0.5 g, 2.0 mmol) and ethanol (4.0 mL, 68.0 mmol) were added to a 25-mL Erlenmeyer flask and swirled gently at room temperature until fully dissolved. Sodium borohydride (0.1 g, 3.0 mmol) was added gradually over the course of five minutes using a microspatula, and the mixture was swirled at room temperature for twenty additional minutes. The mixture was cooled in an ice-water bath, then water (5.0 mL, 278.0 mmol) and 6M HCl (0.3 mL, 9.0 mmol) were added. After fifteen minutes, the mixture was quenched with another addition of water (2.5 mL, 139.0 mmol). The product was collected via vacuum filtration on a Hirsch funnel, allowed to dry on the filter for fifteen minutes, and the crude yield and melting points were recorded. Two milligrams of crude material were set aside for TLC analysis. The remaining crude material was recrystallized in a 25 mL Erlenmeyer flask using 6 drops of acetone. The final yield and melting point were recorded. Approximately two milligrams each of benzoin, the recrystallized product, and the reserved crude product were dissolved in ethyl acetate in three separate vials. The contents of the three vials were used to spot two TLC plates such that one plate contained benzoin, crude product and a combination of those two, while the other plate contained benzoin, recrystallized product, and a combination of those two. The TLC plates were run in 9:1 CH2Cl2:ethanol solution. The spots were visualized using short-wave UV light and an iodine chamber. The Rf values were calculated. 

The purpose of the study was to see if root tolerance to high soil temperature is related to short term/long term respiratory acclimation in response to higher temperature by comparing two variants of the same species with different heat tolerances. The hypothesis is that A. scabra, the C3 plant that can withstand high temperatures, will be able to acclimate their respiration to the change in temperatures better and will be able to control carbon expenditure for a longer-term. The other plant, A. stolonifera will not be able to withstand the higher temperatures for as long.

Research conducted on nine invasive herb species in Massachusetts will determine which of the invasive herbs poses the greatest threat to the Massachusetts economy and ecosystems. Invasive species are a threat to ecosystems especially when they compete with native species that occupy the same niche. Control of invasive plants can become costly through uses of herbicides and physical extraction. This research will narrow down on the threats of these species and determine where most attention is needed in to save government funding on invasive plant control and protecting biodiversity of local ecosystems in Massachusetts.

The experiment would  determine the dangers of having invasive species present in the Massachusetts environment, specifically threats to the economy and ecosystems. Furthermore, we would be able to identify how the invasive species can affect of native species in their environment. Through this research, possible prevention methods for future invaders may be determined along with the necessary protocols to hone in on the most threatening invasive species.  

In this experiment, we will focus on invasive herbs. Each group will be assigned one herb species from the list of invasive plants from the Massachusetts Invasive Plants Advisory Group. The plants chosen have already met the criteria designed by the MIPAG to be classified as invasive. Each group will determine the extent to which the invasive species causes harm to the economy and environment. To determine the extent to which the species poses threats to the Massachusetts economy and environment, each group will gather the information necessary to determine the severity of the invasive species. The species will be ranked from most threatening to least threatening based on its effect on the economy and environment.

The ab initio program FGENESH predicted that the mRNA is 2229 nucleotides spanning 7 exons (Fig. 1-A).  The homology-based program Phytozome predicted that the mRNA is 3193 nucleotides spanning 9 exons (Fig. 1-B).  FGENESH predicted that the protein is 742 amino acids long (Fig. 2-A). Phytozome predicted the protein is 847 amino acids long (Fig. 2-B).  In both gene maps, exons 1, 2, and 3 cover the exact same regions.  Exons 4 and 5 in the Phytozome prediction are predicted introns in the FGENESH output.  Exon 6 of the Phytozome output begins 14 bases after the beginning of exon 4 of the FGENESH output and they end at the same place.  Phytozome predicted exons 5, 6, and 7 are identical to FGENESH predicted exons 7, 8, and 9 respectively.  In the FGENESH and Phytozome predicted protein sequences, amino acid positions 1-437 are exactly homologous.  FGENESH positions 442-742 are exactly homologous to Phytozome positions 547-847. The discrepancy between the two peptide is that the FGENESH amino acid contains ‘KSLQ’ at positions 438-441, which is replaced in the Phytozome output by a set of 109 amino acids occupying positions 438-546.  Nowhere does this sequence of 109 amino acids contain ‘KSLQ.’