Immunoprecipation of TROVE2 proteins from human cell line protein extracts
The report should be formatted as if it were to be submitted to the Journal Cell. The highlights/abstract, Introduction, Results and Discussion sections will be graded. . Word count must be presented at the beginning of the main report.
- Knowledge and Comprehension (Subject Expertise): The report delivers sufficient information to enable a scientist, who is not an expert in the specific researched topic area, to attain accurate knowledge and comprehension of the researched topic and the paper’s key findings
- Analysis, Evaluation and Synthesis (Critical thinking): The report demonstrates masters-level critical thinking with original consistent and logical linking of information, concepts and ideas and appropriate use of fully processed data, figures, tables and/or graphs, with titles, legends/footnotes that convey both relevance and understanding.
- Application and Presentation (Transferable skills):
Highlights/Summary
Highlights Highlights (4 maximum bullet point) and In Brief sections (of no more than 4 sentences) (100 words).
Abstract (summary) 150 words
Introduction
Approximately 500 words
The introduction must cover what has been previously published in the literature about the research topic. It should also give background information on the experimental procedures being used and a brief overview of the overall experimental plan. It should not contain any actual results from the experiment to be performed. Introductions MUST be sufficiently and correctly referenced with relevant primary literature/reviews from peer reviewed scientific journals.
This report introduction must ‘introduce’ 2 main areas
- The applications of immunoassays in biomarker research
- Overview of Immunoprecipitation and western blot for detection of proteins
Results
Approximately 500 words (excluding figure/tables legends)
The results should begin with an overview of the specific aims of the practical.
I should then contain a number of sections, each presenting an explanatory text and fully processed data/results figures/tables related to a specific aim or set of aims and objectives. You must decide how many ‘results sections’ should be presented and how best to structure and order these sections to enable a logical progression through the experiments performed, to a set of ‘final results/conclusions’ achieved. This should cover the results of concentration (in excel file named copy of concentration where you will see own and best data results which you should compare and contrast but do not for example just say the best data has a higher concentration than own data, but you should explain what the concentration means in term of quantity, is it high, low. You should search the literature to see what the range of concentration is and please refer to reference when you discuss it). the standard curve results of BSA (you will see the data in the excel files named best data of BSA and own data of BSA and again you should compare and contrast by analysing what is in the figure and what the results mean for both own and best data). Finally the data of the IP results (own data and best data) which you will find in a PowerPoint slides named IP data. Do not waste the word counts explaining the practical notes uploaded or discussing the findings or technical or molecular problems (since this will be done in the last part of the report) so be brief in the practical procedure but be specific and scientific in explaining the results. You should explain what is what in the images of the IP and compare and contrast the own data with best data.
Each result section must contain
- A main text presenting fully processed results/data for the particular result section
- Figure(s) and/or tables/graphs presenting fully processed data
Figures for this report. This section MUST at a minimum contain the following fully processed results figures
- Figure 1 A fully processed and annotated multi-channel western blot image of your IP results
- Figure 2 A fully processed and annotated multi-channel western blot image of the ‘most interesting*’ data set from all the class western blot membranes
NOTE: All figures and/or tables must support the results presented in the text and be cross referenced from the text. Both figures must be presented on a single page, NOT ‘fitted within’ the text sections of the results. Each figure must have a suitable title and legend (below the figure); which must provide note form information on any key data/points in the figure. The legend should enable the figure to ‘stand alone’ i.e. the reader should not have to refer back to the main text for key information on how to interpret or understand the main findings presented in the figure. Notes on figure data image ‘cropping’. Generally, if an immunoblot image is cropped it MUST be in a way that retains information about antigen size and antibody specificity. The cropped images should retain sufficient area around the band(s) of interest, ideally including the positions of at least one molecular weight marker above and below the band(s).
Discussion
Approximately 800 words (excluding any figures, tables and legends)
The discussion must be correctly and well referenced with current relevant literature from peer reviewed scientific sources. The discussion should have 3 sections.
- Section 1: Clearly discuss the main findings from each section and how one results section leads on to the next. Highlight any issues that may have affected the accuracy/precision of your results and/or progression from one stage to the next stage. This section should be a logical progression of the ‘flow’ of the whole experiment/practical from start to finish.
- Section 2: You should then come to a final conclusion and discussion point as to the success or otherwise of the entire experiment(s). Discuss your results in comparison to what’s been previously published in the literature. What conclusions can you draw from your data and the final result and what are the key impact(s) of your results? Where possible, these should be compared to previous published findings.
- Section 3: Finally, discuss why should other people care about this ‘result’ and what could you or they do to further advance this work?
Conclusion (90 words): this has to be different from the section 2 above so do not repeat yourself.
Acknowledgment (60 words): just write an acknowledgment to one tutor leave the name space empty and I will fill it up.
References