THE YEAST SECRETORY PATHWAY PAPER
Your report should follow the same basic format as the β-galactosidase paper, and include the following sections:
- List of Authors
- Materials and Methods (You should have a table of strain information at the beginning of the Materials and Methods section)
- Results (text AND figures and/or tables)
You may not need an Appendix. You should write the report with the following experimental question in mind: What is the role of the Sec18 and Sec61 proteins in the yeast secretory pathway? This means that you should use some of the findings from reference studies to support or refute the conclusions from your data. You should also clearly explain how the two reporter systems are used in the mutants to investigate defects in the secretory pathway. Some of this information may be appropriate for the Introduction and some for the Results or Discussion section. Think carefully about where a reader most needs detailed information to avoid repetition. In this report there are no “required” tables and figures. You should think carefully about how to display your data so that the most important findings are made clear to a reader who is unfamiliar with these proteins, with the yeast secretory pathway, and with your experimental design. Part of the Discussion should explore the significance of these two proteins in a larger context. Your BLAST analysis should provide sufficient information to address the overall importance of these proteins in other organisms.
|| At or Above Standard
|| Below Standard
|| Points Earned
| Title & Abstract
|| 4-5 pts. Concisely summarized in appropriate format: topic, general outline of methods, major findings, & implications of the findings in relation to what is known or expected.
|| 0-3.5 pts. Omitted key information; included tangential information or too much detail; misinterpreted information and/or implications.
|| 8-10 pts. Identified central topic, included appropriate background information & a plausible hypothesis for the inhibitor type based on reference information. Writing style used correct vocabulary, grammar, spelling, punctuation, and was clear and concise. Reference citations in proper format included sources for all information not common knowledge
|| 0-7.5 pts. Did not correctly identify central topic; did not include appropriate background information, a plausible hypothesis, or outline of methods; did not explain relevance of the experiments; did not give properly formatted reference citations for information not common knowledge. Included background info. Unrelated to topic or background info. in too much detail. Writing style was not clear or concise and/or used incorrect vocabulary, grammar, spelling, or punctuation.
| Materials & Methods
|| 4-5 pts. Procedures correctly, clearly, & succinctly described so that a new investigator could repeat the experiment.
|| 0-3 pts. Procedures incorrectly or unclearly described or omitted; included trivial detail.
|| 9-10 pts. Included all appropriate figures and tables designed for maximum clarity and ease of interpretation. All figures & tables were numbered & had correctly formatted legends; all data was labeled & included correct units. The text portion described accurately, clearly, and succinctly the major findings.
|| 0-8 pts. Omitted a brief restatement of the experimental purpose & approach before launching into data. Key figures and/or tables omitted. Unprocessed data was included. Figures &/or tables were difficult to read or to interpret due to missing information and/or poor design. The text portion omitted key findings, described the data inaccurately or unclearly, included irrelevant information, or was repetitive.
|| 12-13 pts. All major findings were evaluated appropriately for meaning and importance. Connections were made among experimental findings and between results & background information from outside sources. Results from this study were the central focus. Appropriate conclusions were drawn and related to hypotheses. Conclusions were summarized and applied to a larger concept. Writing style used correct vocabulary, grammar, spelling, punctuation, and was clear and concise.
|| 0-11 pts. Not all major findings evaluated for meaning & importance, or were incorrectly interpreted. Connections among experimental findings missing or incorrectly applied. Relationship between experimental findings and background information missing or incorrectly interpreted. Discussion stressed other studies’ findings more than the implications of your data. Conclusions omitted, incorrectly drawn, unexplained and/or not related to background information. Writing style was not clear or concise and/or used incorrect grammar, spelling, punctuation & vocabulary.
|| 1.5-2 pts. Included complete, properly formatted citation for each work cited in body of report. Cited all material used that is not common knowledge. Used an adequate number of reliable, appropriate sources including primary studies from peer reviewed journals.
|| 0-1 pts. Did not include complete, properly formatted citations for all references, listed works not cited in report, or failed to give reference citation for information not common knowledge. Did not use reliable or appropriate sources, or failed to use at least 1 primary study from a peer reviewed journal. Inappropriate paraphrasing.