BIOL398-03/S13:Class Journal Week 11

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 in the batch culture experiments they based theirs off of. 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)

James P. McDonald Week 11 Journal

James P. McDonald

1. Overall, do you think this paper was clearly written? Why or why not?
   • I think the paper was written fairly clearly. The paper contains some complicated methods of data collection and analyses but it was as clear as it could have been in dealing with such topics.
2. Based on what is written in the methods section, do you think you could reproduce their experiments and data analysis?
   • The paper contained a rather in depth methods section so I do think I could recreate the experiment. Some of the data analysis is things I have never done but they were explained pretty clearly so I think I may be able to do that with their guidance.
3. What else would you like to know about their methods, results, and future directions?
   • I would like to know how they decided on the temperatures to test at because it seemed like every piece of literature had variations in their temperature scales. Are there certain temperatures that the yeast are commonly exposed to? And I would like to know what would happen at even lower temperatures than were tested. Would the same trend continue or would something else happen to its transcriptional regulation? Also, a possible future direction I would like to know about would be the possibility of altering yeast so that they can withstand these low temperatures and continue with transcription normally.

James P. McDonald 01:44, 4 April 2013 (EDT)

Matthew E. Jurek Week 11

Matthew E. Jurek

1. Overall, do you think this paper was clearly written? Why or why not?
   • In terms of clarity, I thought this paper was OK. The results section was rather large and the subheadings helped. However, I felt things could have been better organized. Also, the discussion of various genes became confusing. Sometimes examples of certain genes were stated and other times not. The large number of genes paired with inconsistent examples was somewhat confusing.
2. Based on what is written in the methods section, do you think you could reproduce their experiments and data analysis?
   • The methods section is straight forward. However, at the end of the growth conditions section it is mentioned that several factors were constant for at least 3 volume changes before sampling. These volume changes were never stated. It would still be possible to recreate, but maybe not identically. I also don't know if I could work through the statistically testing even thought the equation is provided.
3. What else would you like to know about their methods, results, and future directions?
   • By the end of the paper it was clear that batch cultures were not appropriate for studies like these. However, in the discussion it is stated that the batch culture results are needed for comparison in order to fully understand which genes are impacted by the cold temp. I would assume previously published batch results will be used for as long as possible. If these results ever do not address specific genes, would they perform a batch culture experiment followed by a chemostat experiment for comparison purposes? This was a thought I had regarding future directions.

• Matthew E. Jurek 02:05, 4 April 2013 (EDT):