Drafts

Organisms in hot environments use multiple different methods to try and stay cool and keep their body temperature regulated. Panting, which is commonly seen in dogs, helps cool the organism by passing air over their moist tongue. Not only does this keep their mouth cool, but it also helps keep the brain cool which is crucial to an organism’s life. The difference between breathing and panting is the frequency at which it happens. Normal breathing is about 30-40 respirations per minute whereas panting is somewhere between 300-400 respirations per minute. Panting occurs at fast paces for short periods alongside normal slow frequency periods. Panting is not only seen in dogs however. Birds, reptiles, and many other organisms use panting to maintain a cool body temperature.

The epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) allows cancer cells to begin the process of metastasis by unadhering to one tissue and migrating to another location. A major characteristic of this process is the loss of e-cadherin, which can result from the expression of multiple transcription factors including SNAIL, ZEB, and KLF8. EMT can also be induced by certain growth factor pathways as well as TGF beta and hypoxia. The researchers aim to target these transcription factors and signaling pathways as well as the hypoxic tumor microenvironment in order to prevent metastasis from occurring. If cancerous cells are unable to carry out EMT, the effects of metastasis should lessen. Subsequently, apoptosis-inducing therapy can be delivered to these now stationary cells. A region of interest for the researchers is aptamer-regulated exosomal therapy, where aptamers can serve as binding partners for these transcription factors and elements in these signaling pathways. This binding can inhibit the downstream effects, such as the induction of EMT. A cell suicide gene or cytokine such as TRAIL may also be incorporated into the interior of the exosome for targeted delivery.  

The last time I took Statistics was freshmen year of college which seems like it was a really long time ago. There are a lot of things I vaguely remember from the class but most of the things I remember are due to the fact that they still play a major role in classes that I have taken that are science related. Such as in classes involving genetics chi square problems can be super popular in order to help identify whether or not a hypothesis can be rejected. For chi square problems I know we get an observed value that is given to us and an expected value is one that we must find on our own. We do observed minus expected and square that value and divide it by the expected in order to come to a value. We do this for every observed value and add up all of these values we compare the number that we get to the number given to us by the degrees of freedom and that tells us whether or not we can accept a hypothesis. In physics classes that I have taken in college we have discussed standard deviation which is something that comes up in statistics. I also vaguely remember t-tests and the graph that has to do with confidence and p-values. Also I remember having to figure out the probability of something happening a different number of times with different combinations.

Our gut feeling told us that switching would bring better chances of winning the Hershey kiss, but if we switched and then got it wrong (while our original answer was correct) we would have felt frustrated, since probability says there are better chances of winning because of the switch. If we had stayed and gotten our original choice wrong, I think we would have felt better than switching and getting it wrong. Although staying would decrease the odds of winning, sometimes you want to trust your gut and original pick. Even though switching would bring better odds of winning, if you think you chose correctly the first time it might be hard to switch to the other one.We selected a cup, then were shown a cup which didn’t contain the candy, and we switched our guess to the other cup. 7 times out of 10 the cup we switched to contained the candy. We won the game 7 times. Our winning probability is .7 or 70%. We are not surprised by these results since the probability of winning when a switch is made is higher than the probability of winning when choosing to stay with the original choice. It makes sense that the mean of winning is higher when switching.

If calcium affects the actions of contractile proteins and intracellular signaling proteins involved in phagocytosis, which allows cillia to contract faster, then adding higher concentrations of calcium should lead to increased numbers of vacuoles in the Tetrahymena cells. Figure 3 and Figure 4 from the “Pseudopterosin A inhibits phagocytosis and alters intracellular calcium turnover in a pertussis toxin sensitive site in Tetrahymena thermophila” paper on Moodle. Figure 3 shows that the higher the calcium concentration, the higher the incidence of phagocytosis. In Figure 4, we see that the control group has a lower level of phagocytosis than does the group given the calcium. Both these figures suggest that our hypothesis is correct since in our hypothesis, we state that the calcium should lead to more phagocytosis and vacuoles. If our hypothesis is correct an increase in the number of vacuoles will occur with the higher concentration of calcium. Record the number of vacuoles in ten different cells with different calcium concentrations. We will compare the amount of vacuoles in the cells with different calcium concentrations to the control by looking at the standard deviation and mean.

We chose up and right to be the positive direction. The intial position of the ball is 0.3m. The inital velocity is 0 because it is not in motion yet so it does not have a velocity. The initial force of the ball is 0.1568 N because the force is mass times acceleration. The initial acceleration of the ball is -9.8 m/s2 because that is the force of gravity. It is negative because we chose down to be negative and the ball is moving down. The force and acceleration stay the same because they are constants. Force is 0.1568N and acceleration is -9.8 m/s2..The velocity at 0.01 seconds is -0.098 because final velocity is initial velocity plus acceleration times the change in seconds.     The position of the ball after 0.01 seconds is 0.3 because final position is initial position plus velocity times the change in time. The condition for the ball hitting the table is the acceleration and force change because gravity is no longer causing a change in either. The ball hits the table at 0.25 and 0.26 seconds. When time equals 0 then force equals 0 since there is no force acting on it in the horizontal direction.

The class methatheria is made up of marsupials these marsupials have the placenta get their nourishment from yolk. Their young is altricial meaning that they are incapable of moving around on their own soon after bring born. They have a short gestation and a long lacatopn period for their young. A good way to differentiate them from eutherians is by looking at their premolars and molars. Metatherians have three premolars and 4 molars. Eutherians were found as early as the cretaceous for their fossils they have a chorioallantoic placenta. As for their prmolars and molars they have 4 premolars and three molars. Eutherians have more morphological diversity compared to the metatherians. They have a greater range in body size, more complex social behavior, and precocial young. This means their young is pretty well developed to survive outside the womb. They also have higher taxanomic diversity, relatively bigger brains, and higher metabollic rates. They also have a higher investment in gestation instead of lactation. Which means there is faster postnatal growth.

The original figure (Figure 1) is composed of three photos taken at 11:00 am at Durfree Conservatory’s koi pond. The top left hand corner has a photo of multiple orange, yellow, and white fish swimming in the water. The top right hand corner has a photo of plants along the edge of the pond. And the bottom panel of Figure 1 has a photo showcasing an orange koi and plant in the center of the pond.

Differences in the original figure and the replicate (Figure 2) include scale size, border thickness, arrows, amount and color of subjects in focus, glare in some panels of the figures, and figure watermark.

Compared to the original figure, the replicate figure (Figure 2) has a zoomed in view of the fish, the plant, and their interaction. The scale for the photos are different. The photo in the top left corner of Figure 2 is focused on a single, white koi fish and appears larger. The plants in the top right corner of each figure are also different based on background. The bottom panel of Figure 2 also features a single koi fish instead of multiple in the frame like that of Figure 1. Border size in Figure 1 is thinner than that of Figure 2. There is also a glare and watermark on the panels of Figure 1 and not on Figure 2. The arrows indicating subjects between the three panels of each Figure are different based on feather end type.

DISCUSSION:

The goal, or the mission, of this project was to create a figure that illustrated the interaction between the koi fish and plants in Durfree conservatory. The replicated figure (Figure 2) completed that task but with differences in format. In my methods, I did not specify some components that could have made the replicate more like the original .

I did not specify how many koi fish were to be present in the frame when taking the photos. That should have been a factor I should have taken into consideration for my methods. By counting the number of fish in the frame, their color, and their relative size to one another and other objects in the pond, the replicate would have resulted in three yellow, two orange, and two white koi fish. With that amount of fish in the frame of the photo for the top left of the figure, the fish would be shown at a smaller scale rather than that with a single fish.

The original figure has a glare/reflection of the glass ceiling in the water in multiple panels, while the replicate features little to none. This could be because of the size scale and zoom of the camera on the subjects in Figure 2 or could have been due to the photo being taken at a different time of day. An 11 am time for a school week may mean that the creator of Figure 2 was in class, off campus, or otherwise busy. I myself had a class thirty minutes after I took the photos of the interaction.

For the plant panel at the top right of the figure, I also did not state the specific direction in which I took the photo of the plants. The original figure did not feature the stairs of the conservatory like the replicate did. I took the photo at an angle from the bridge but the inclusion of the stairs in the replicate implies that the photo was taken from the center of the bridge towards the entrance of the building stated in the methods.

As for making the figure itself, I did state the scale of the border, but I did not indicate what the specific scale was and where to find it on the page. Looking back now there were two scale options and a “4” of one is more thick than a “4” from the other and that can account for the border thickness difference. For the arrow, I stated I used “an arrow with a feathered end” and while at the time I thought that was specific, looking at the style of the other arrows it was not. Multiple arrows in the tab of arrows on the format website had “feathered ends”, I had just chosen the first one I saw. The original figure also features a watermark from the website that is not on the replicate. This implies that perhaps the replicate was not made using the same website as the original or the creator was able to get rid of it. I did not mention the watermark in my methods so whether or not to include it was up to the creator.