Drafts

Research is best done from a variety of databases, and the library is a reliable source which data bases are paid for. When using Google Scholar, beware of “relevance” searches which rely on the number of links associated with the data base. This could be outdated over time. Documents may be sorted by dates as well, but it does limit the number of articles and also will display the results by when they were added, not when they were written. Furthermore, certain databases will not allow Google to flag the articles and will prevent it from showing up in the searches. Scientific research is extremely lucrative among editors and peer reviewers in order to improve research. Predatory journals do exist and are not verified and may show up in Google Scholar.

Axolotls are amphibians, specifically neotenic salamanders that live their entire lives under water- for the most part. Occassionaly, they will undergo metamorphasis and grow land limbs, but even then, they will spend most of their time under water. They are known for their incredible regenerative adaptation. Limbs that are lost are grown back and make full recoveries without any scars. When a limb is cut off, the cells lose their identity and become pluripotent cells, stem cells that take on the part that was lost. The extent of this ability is so profound that they scientists have been able to transplant the head of one axolotl onto the back of another and have them survive for months. Unfortunately, in the wild, they are only found in one location and are under critcal pressures of pollution, and are endangered due to loss of habitat. Originally, they were numerous in Mexico and were revered by the Aztecs during their peak.

Results

The original figure and replicated figure have many differences. The most apparent difference is the amount of photos making up each figure. The original figure consists of three photos while the replicated figure only consists of two photos. The replicated figure doesn’t include an interspecific interaction, additionally there is no arrows in the photo depicting an interspecific interaction. The replicated figure is also missing a photo of the dog by itself. The black outline of photos were different between the figures but consistent within. The map of campus where the observation took place was marked with a circle in the original figure and with an oval in the replicated figure, additionally the map was located on different sides of the original and replicated figures. The campus map is cropped on the replicate figure but not the original.

Discussion

The most major difference between figures (an absence of a photo in the replicate) was most likely due to the fact that the person observing the interspecific interaction was not able to observe the interspecific interaction. This would also account for an absence of arrows highlighting both species involved in the interaction. The black outline of the photos may be different because different editing softwares were used, this would also account for the orange circle being different on marking of the campus map. The campus map being cropped on the replicate but not on the original may be because the software used for making the replicate only allowed for a smaller image file.

Although the original and replicated figures (shown in the appendix) are similar, there are many noticeable differences. The overall size of 1200 pixels is consistent across both figures, but the sizing of each image differs despite the correct orientation. The images of individual species in the original figure are slightly larger than the ones in the replicate, making the interaction image in the original slightly smaller in comparison to that of the replicate. The letter labels also differ between each figure with lowercase letters in the original and uppercase letters in the replicate. The white squares behind each letter also differ in size between the two figures and are smaller in the original than the replicate. Another smaller detail that differs between the original and replicated figures is the arrow width, location, and color. In the original figure, the arrows are black and narrow, depicted closer to the middle of the interspecific interaction. In the replicate, the arrows are blue and wide, depicted closer to the edges of the interspecific interaction. The shapes of the arrowheads also differ, in the replicate figure, the wings are approximately 90 degrees in relation to the body whereas in the original figure, the wings are approximately 30 degrees in relation to the body.

          The differences in framing were likely the result of a combination of standing in a different position when taking the photographs and holding the camera at a different height or angle. For instance, in image “a” of Figure 2, the whole framing appeared as though shifted up relative to image “a” of Figure 1, such that the edge of the koi pond was not visible along the bottom and more of the roof of the greenhouse was visible along the top. This was probably due to the camera being held at a higher height at the time of the photograph. This may be the same reason the edge of the walkway along the bottom of image “b” of Figure 1 was not visible in image “b” of Figure 2. Images “a” and “b” likely showed a different side of the tree and vine due to the photographer standing in a slightly different position when taking the photo. The leaves of the vine in image “c” of Figure 2 likely appear larger than in image “c” of Figure 1 because the photographer was standing closer to the subject when the photograph was taken.

The photographic differences between figures 1A and 2A and figures 1B and 2B are because the photos in figure 2 were taken at a further distance. This is because the location of the top of the steps were misinterpreted for photo A, and the distance at which photo B was taken was not specified in a detailed manner. The differences in tree exposure in figures 1C and 2C were also due to the photos in figure 2 being taken at a further distance. The description for where photo C was taken was relative to the distance at which photo B was taken, which was already taken further than in the original. The lichen in figure 2C was also not centered because that was not specified in the Methods, and the angle at which the photo was taken was also not discussed. The car in the background of figure 2C, which was not present in figure 1C, is because the tree is on a busy street with constantly changing conditions, and the blue tint in the photo was probably due to the sunlight being shaded at the moment the photo was taken.

Lastly, the difference in font for the boxed letters was because the Methods specified for the default font settings, which may be different on different computers. The instructions for the figure layout must have been relatively clearer than the instructions for the photography because the layouts between the figures were nearly identical.

P53 has been the direct target of many potential treatments over the years.  The drug Gendicine delivers wild type p53 on an adenoviral vector, and was approved by the China Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of ovarian cancer (Ayen, 2018).  Advexin, a similar drug, was blocked by the FDA in 2008 for reasons that were not officially disclosed (Osborne, 2008). However, it is known that adequate therapeutic effects for trials involving adenoviral delivery of p53 did not exist (Zeimet, 2003).  One logical explanation for this is that p53 is quite upstream in the apoptosis pathway, leaving lots of room for downstream over-amplifications or mutations that allow the tumor to evade apoptosis. There are several ongoing clinical trials in which the p53 gene is inserted via an adenoviral vector (Ayen et al. 2018).  These clinical trials represent the revitalization of p53 based gene therapy, after it was concluded to have failed over a decade ago (Zeimet, 2003).

In every sense, society is stratified, by race, sex, sexuality, religion, economic status, religion and so on. All these identities sum up an entire individual and all play a role in determining the kind of interactions said individual has with the social institutions. Health and medicine is one of them. Instinctively, one might guess that people lower in the socioeconomic ladder generally experience poorer health due to lesser access to healthcare. That is in fact true but that isn’t the only reason why. Low working class people actually have higher odds of falling ill because they are exposed to higher levels of stress. These absurdly high levels of stress come from the uncertainty that accompanies being in the lower class of society. Working class people are constantly battling fears of job insecurity while also resisting the other pressures that comes from being in the working class. This was revealed in study where people of varying socioeconomic statuses were infected with a virus. Results showed that those lower down in the ladder were more likely to respond to the virus than others. These results indicated a compromise of their immune systems, possibly due to increase in cortisol (stress hormone) levels. Therefore, we can postulate that income level, as well as job security, affects the quality of health individuals have.

Code breaking is a method by which certain animals gain a leg up on their competition by adapting the behavior of another species. Code breakers are interesting because they have gained the ability to learn certain niche behaviors of other species and use them to their advantage. For example, fireflies have the ability to bioluminesce. Male fireflies flash their thorax many times in pursuit of females. Each species of firefly have different flashing patterns. Males will flash continuously, looking for a female, while a female will flash once or twice very quickly to let the male know she wants to mate. There is a species of firefly that will use the flashing pattern of another species to attract a male. Once the male has flown over to the culprit, it will promptly be eaten. This code-breaking behavior is not as rare in organisms as one might think. Even humans have unknowingly become code breakers. Earthworm grunting is an example of human code breaking. Worm grunting is a method of harvesting earthworms and it involves placing a wooden stake in the ground, vibrating that stake with a flat iron, then waiting for worms to rise up from the ground. The vibration of the wooden stake mimics the burrowing of a mole, causing earthworms to leave their burrows and come up to the surface of the ground. Code breaking is an efficient way for one species to gain an advantage over its prey.

I have a mammalogy lab exam on coming up on Monday. One third of the test is on marsupial phylogenetic orders and families. Marsupials are mammals without real placenta. Non placental mammals are in a subclass of Mammalia called called Theria and whithin that an infraclass called Metatheria. Within the infraclass of Metatheria there are seven orders. The common synapomorphies of the metatherians include the presence of palatal vacuities (holes in the palate, a hooked angular process in the dentary bone  (except the koalas), a deciduous premolar, twinned entoconid and hypoconulid, and stlyar shelf with cusps on the upper molars

In Order Diprotodontia there are eight families. Potoroidae, Acrobatidae, Petauridae, Pseudocheiridae, Macropodidiae, Vombatidae, Phascolarctidae, and Phalangeridae.

In Order Peramelemorphia there is on family which is Peramelidae.

In Order Dasyuridae has one family - Dasyuromorphia.

In Order Didelphimorphia it is also monotypic with familiy Didelphidae and same with Order Microbiotheria with family Microbiotheriidae.