BIOL398-03/S13:Class Journal Week 11

From OpenWetWare

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(lauras hw submission)
(journal)
Line 12: Line 12:
#*I would like to know how this study could be used to analyze posttranscriptional modes of cellular regulation and what changes would need to be made or what other factors would need to be considered. Moreover, what exactly accounts for the differences in results between the batch cultures versus chemostat cultures? Is the only difference the fact that one is a more controlled environment? Also, are there different phases of long-term low temperature exposure/acclimation? Lastly, I would like to know how can these results on acclimation for yeast relate to more complex organisms.
#*I would like to know how this study could be used to analyze posttranscriptional modes of cellular regulation and what changes would need to be made or what other factors would need to be considered. Moreover, what exactly accounts for the differences in results between the batch cultures versus chemostat cultures? Is the only difference the fact that one is a more controlled environment? Also, are there different phases of long-term low temperature exposure/acclimation? Lastly, I would like to know how can these results on acclimation for yeast relate to more complex organisms.
[[User:Laura Terada|Laura Terada]] 23:11, 29 March 2013 (EDT)
[[User:Laura Terada|Laura Terada]] 23:11, 29 March 2013 (EDT)
 +
 +
==Kevin McKay Week 11 Journal
 +
[[User:Kevin Matthew McKay|Kevin McKay]]
 +
#I thought it was clearly written, as clearly as it could be.  There was so much in this paper including 4 separate experiments that they referred too and lots of genes and transcription factors so I thought it was clear for how much work they did although overall I found it messy as a whole.
 +
#If I knew what they were talking about through most of the analyzation methods I could probably reproduce the experiment.
 +
#I would like to know what lead them to choose the specific growth rate of 0.03/h.  I would like to know more about the programs they used or analyzation.  Also more about the function of the 259 genes that were consistently differentiated in regulation during adaptation in the three batch studies would be good.  Maybe some more on how they plan to combat the effects of changing cultivation parameters without impacting others.
 +
[[User:Kevin Matthew McKay|Kevin Matthew McKay]] 00:15, 2 April 2013 (EDT)

Revision as of 23:15, 1 April 2013


Reflection

Laura Terada Week 3 Journal

Laura Terada

Reflection

  1. Overall, do you think this paper was clearly written? Why or why not?
    • I thought the paper was overall clear. I was able to understand the introduction and the materials methods section easily. The subheadings in the results section also helped, and it served as a general outline of the paper. The only confusing part was that the paper discussed many different genes from different studies; however, the figures and tables helped to clarify the comparisons between the different datasets.
  2. Based on what is written in the methods section, do you think you could reproduce their experiments and data analysis?
    • Yes- the authors gave a very detailed description of their culture parameters and which programs they used for data analysis.
  3. What else would you like to know about their methods, results, and future directions?
    • I would like to know how this study could be used to analyze posttranscriptional modes of cellular regulation and what changes would need to be made or what other factors would need to be considered. Moreover, what exactly accounts for the differences in results between the batch cultures versus chemostat cultures? Is the only difference the fact that one is a more controlled environment? Also, are there different phases of long-term low temperature exposure/acclimation? Lastly, I would like to know how can these results on acclimation for yeast relate to more complex organisms.

Laura Terada 23:11, 29 March 2013 (EDT)

==Kevin McKay Week 11 Journal Kevin McKay

  1. I thought it was clearly written, as clearly as it could be. There was so much in this paper including 4 separate experiments that they referred too and lots of genes and transcription factors so I thought it was clear for how much work they did although overall I found it messy as a whole.
  2. If I knew what they were talking about through most of the analyzation methods I could probably reproduce the experiment.
  3. I would like to know what lead them to choose the specific growth rate of 0.03/h. I would like to know more about the programs they used or analyzation. Also more about the function of the 259 genes that were consistently differentiated in regulation during adaptation in the three batch studies would be good. Maybe some more on how they plan to combat the effects of changing cultivation parameters without impacting others.

Kevin Matthew McKay 00:15, 2 April 2013 (EDT)

Personal tools