Outline the main mechanisms of nitrosative stress in the brain. Discuss the role of aberrant protein s-nitrosylation in neurodegenerative diseases
Introduction:
Richard Louv (2005) believes that ‘children now wander less, discover less and are losing some important connections to nature and place’. Ultimately, children – and therefore everyone – are becoming increasingly disconnected from nature.
Studies indicate that connection with nature is related to care for Earth. In other words, we protect what we know or what we love.
Many scientific studies are also showing that connection to nature impacts mental health. This article ( from Harvard University studies how time in nature affects brain activity and improves mental health.
Instructions:
This week, you get a chance to actively engage in some Vitamin N(ature). Think about where the closest nature to you exists. Environmental historian William Cronon ( in his piece The Trouble with Wilderness ( states that nature exists all around us and that considering “wilderness” as a far away thing makes nature inaccessible to all socioeconomic classes . Think about where nature exists in your community. What purpose does it serve?
Start to notice this week the nature around you in your daily life. Begin to bring awareness to what you see daily that you may currently overlook- the trees along the roadside, the birds chirping around you, what flowers are blooming, etc. Check out this article to see how birds are related to mental health: ( (who would have suspected?!?!?!)
In a place in nature that is comfortable for you, please stop, sit, and relax without a phone to distract you for a minimum of 20-30 minutes. Due to COVID 19- you may choose to use your yard, neighborhood, or even look out your window. In a pinch, you could do an in-depth study of the plants and animals in your own home.
Identify (to the best of your ability) what forms of life are around that you may recognize. You can try using the Seek App or iNaturalist app to identify a few species (these are free).
What parts of nature can you observe through vision? What sounds of nature can you hear? Do you recognize some of the species you see?
Record your observations. As you do the exercise, try to get more detailed. You can take a close look at a particular species, or perhaps notice more and more about the environment around you. Please do this for a minimum of 5 species.
You may use the sources provided. You may also use more or less than two sources. Please relate to California atmosphere specifically the Bay Area. This is a Biology paper please relate to Biology or incorporate it in the paper. Please do not plagiarize, feel free to ask any questions that may arise.
Identify which signalling pathways were activated in response to treating the cells with LPS.
Assessment CriteriaModule: BI503(AY18-19) (BIOS5030) Assessment title: Microscopic Observation of Mating in Baker’s Yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) Date assessment set: Fridayweek 7(pre-lab week 8) Deadline for submission: Friday week 11Deadline for return of assessment: Fridayweek 14Nature of assessment: Lab report of practical investigating the application of microscopy to examine yeast mating. Key objectives of this assessment: 1. To test knowledge and understanding of fluorescescence microscopy in cell biology 2. To assess analytical and observational skills in interpreting the mating process in Baker’s yeast 3. To relate observations to cell and molecular processes underlying mating in Baker’s yeast including signalling and cytoskeletal rearrangement. This assessment addresses the following (from the module specification): 8. The intended subject specific learning outcomes. On successfully completing the module students will be able to: 8.1 Demonstrate an understanding of cellular organisation and associated processes. 8.2 Demonstrate an understanding of modern procedures for investigating cellular components. 9. Theintended generic learning outcomes. On successfully completing the module students will be able to: 9.1 Access and evaluate scientific literature.9.2 Present a concise digest of a research area both orally and in written form. Many of the criteria below apply to writing generally in bioscience. The general principles of quality, depth and breadth of knowledge and understanding, skill with which is presented, and depth and level of sourcing areapplicable. Be aware that when an assessment has multiple parts it is possible to perform some very well and other not so well and so to achieve best marks consistency and completing ALL parts is important. With practical reports it should be clear for best marks that you were aware of what you were doing, why you were doing it and why it was important to collect the particular data we have asked you to report on. Note that these criteria are for Stage 2, so more depth, detail and sophistication of knowledge, understanding, interpretation and literature research is expected than last year in stage 1.
First Class (70-100)A First Class answer will typically address all of the “Upper Second” criteria in terms of understanding, clear evidence of wide reading of relevant and appropriate subject material including substantial reference to primary literature. In addition, First Class reports will display indicators of at least one of the following: Evidence of exceptional breadth and depth of knowledge of the subject matter, as indicated by sophistication in interpretation supported by valid sources of information (e.g. research reviews and original papers that we have not drawn your attention to but has been discovered through your own ‘outside reading’ beyond lectures). This could also include wide thinking of how cell biological principles and theory can be used to explain experimental observations and produce mechanistic explanations at the cell or molecular level. Originality or scientific creativity, as indicated by novel interpretations of evidence and arguments beyond the ‘obvious’ and/or mainstream. Critical engagement, as indicated by an ability to understand the limits of certainty in evidence presented, considering evidence critically and in the context of a wider body of knowledge. An ability to use evidence with rigour and intelligence, as indicated by choosing the right evidence to support or argue points. No factual inaccuracies, or very few minor errors only. All sections addressed, requested data included (such as microscopy images and cell counts) and used effectively as evidence to make or illustrate points of explanation, analysis and/or interpretation. Generally clearly, accurately and succinctly written (clear, standard English). Submissions may be awarded high (85 or above) First Class if there is substantial evidence of compliance with and suitable stage 2 level understanding in more than one of the above indicators. Upper Second (60-69) A good understanding of the subject matter, and an accurate articulation of the material presented in the module lectures or seminars with evidence of reading the recommended material. The submission addresses the question with no major omissions, factual inaccuracies or obvious lack of understanding. The submission is well organised and presented, with little or no irrelevant content. Information is well-presented, supported with appropriate evidence, and referenced appropriately. Some evidence of original thinking. Lower Second (50-59) Not simply describing accurately what has happened but making a real attempt to explain why the experimental results might have come about in the particular way observed.
An attempt to address the question but the answer provides an incomplete account. Coverage of the subject may lack depth, miss certain essential points or a considerable number of minor ones, and material may not be well supported. The essay is primarily based upon module material with no, or very limited, engagement beyond that into relevant information sourced independently. There may be omissions and errors. Limited substantial original thought, and descriptive rather than analytical. Draws on an adequate range of literature, but may be limited in certain areas and otherwise be secondary or web-based. Third Class (40-49) An attempt to address the question but the answer has substantial shortcomings. It represents an incomplete consideration of the task. Important work is not discussed or poorly presented and structured. The work may contain significant digression, errors and demonstrate lack of understanding. Draws on a narrow range of literature resources and/or sources of lower quality (textbooks, Wikipedia, other web pages of undocumented reliability) or thatlack relevance. Marks in this range can also arise from patchy compliance with information asked for (sych as not presenting photomicrographs, cell counts, missing out comprehension/analysis section), errors in interpretation or data presentation (including calculation errors, missing scale bars etc.). Fail (0-39) A piece of work awarded a Fail mark would contain one or more of the following: Lack of knowledge, very few facts presented accurately. Serious lack of understanding, clear evidence of a failure to understand core principles or relatively simple concepts.Inability to form a coherent scientific argument or clarity of explanation. Substantial digression, with a majority of the material in the answer that does not address the question/subject. Missing sections, sub-sections or extensive omission of data that has been specified as required to be presented. Failure to answer comprehension sections can spoil otherwise passable marks for the simply practical/performance/data collecting elements. Studentsachieving good marks don’t work simply follow instructions, doing what is asked without questioning why or what it means or may show. This is the difference between an expert scientist and a very junior technician or ‘operative’. Submissions may be awarded below 30 if there is substantial evidence of more than one of these indicators. Evidence of substantial plagiarism can also lead to a fail mark. -No submission (=zero mark). CWGNovember2020
The intended subject specific learning outcomes. On successfully completing the module students will be able to: 8.1 Demonstrate an understanding of cellular organisation and associated processes. 8.2 Demonstrate an understanding of modern procedures for investigating cellular components. 9. Theintended generic learning outcomes. On successfully completing the module students will be able to: 9.1 Access and evaluate scientific literature.9.2 Present a concise digest of a research area both orally and in written form. Many of the criteria below apply to writing generally in bioscience. The general principles of quality, depth and breadth of knowledge and understanding, skill with which is presented, and depth and level of sourcing areapplicable. Be aware that when an assessment has multiple parts it is possible to perform some very well and other not so well and so to achieve best marks consistency and completing ALL parts is important. With practical reports it should be clear for best marks that you were aware of what you were doing, why you were doing it and why it was important to collect the particular data we have asked you to report on. Note that these criteria are for Stage 2, so more depth, detail and sophistication of knowledge, understanding, interpretation and literature research is expected than last year in stage 1.
First Class (70-100)A First Class answer will typically address all of the “Upper Second” criteria in terms of understanding, clear evidence of wide reading of relevant and appropriate subject material including substantial reference to primary literature. In addition, First Class reports will display indicators of at least one of the following: Evidence of exceptional breadth and depth of knowledge of the subject matter, as indicated by sophistication in interpretation supported by valid sources of information (e.g. research reviews and original papers that we have not drawn your attention to but has been discovered through your own ‘outside reading’ beyond lectures). This could also include wide thinking of how cell biological principles and theory can be used to explain experimental observations and produce mechanistic explanations at the cell or molecular level. Originality or scientific creativity, as indicated by novel interpretations of evidence and arguments beyond the ‘obvious’ and/or mainstream. Critical engagement, as indicated by an ability to understand the limits of certainty in evidence presented, considering evidence critically and in the context of a wider body of knowledge. An ability to use evidence with rigour and intelligence, as indicated by choosing the right evidence to support or argue points. No factual inaccuracies, or very few minor errors only. All sections addressed, requested data included (such as microscopy images and cell counts) and used effectively as evidence to make or illustrate points of explanation, analysis and/or interpretation. Generally clearly, accurately and succinctly written (clear, standard English). Submissions may be awarded high (85 or above) First Class if there is substantial evidence of compliance with and suitable stage 2 level understanding in more than one of the above indicators. Upper Second (60-69) A good understanding of the subject matter, and an accurate articulation of the material presented in the module lectures or seminars with evidence of reading the recommended material. The submission addresses the question with no major omissions, factual inaccuracies or obvious lack of understanding. The submission is well organised and presented, with little or no irrelevant content. Information is well-presented, supported with appropriate evidence, and referenced appropriately. Some evidence of original thinking. Lower Second (50-59) Not simply describing accurately what has happened but making a real attempt to explain why the experimental results might have come about in the particular way observed.
An attempt to address the question but the answer provides an incomplete account. Coverage of the subject may lack depth, miss certain essential points or a considerable number of minor ones, and material may not be well supported. The essay is primarily based upon module material with no, or very limited, engagement beyond that into relevant information sourced independently. There may be omissions and errors. Limited substantial original thought, and descriptive rather than analytical. Draws on an adequate range of literature, but may be limited in certain areas and otherwise be secondary or web-based. Third Class (40-49) An attempt to address the question but the answer has substantial shortcomings. It represents an incomplete consideration of the task. Important work is not discussed or poorly presented and structured. The work may contain significant digression, errors and demonstrate lack of understanding. Draws on a narrow range of literature resources and/or sources of lower quality (textbooks, Wikipedia, other web pages of undocumented reliability) or thatlack relevance. Marks in this range can also arise from patchy compliance with information asked for (sych as not presenting photomicrographs, cell counts, missing out comprehension/analysis section), errors in interpretation or data presentation (including calculation errors, missing scale bars etc.). Fail (0-39) A piece of work awarded a Fail mark would contain one or more of the following: Lack of knowledge, very few facts presented accurately. Serious lack of understanding, clear evidence of a failure to understand core principles or relatively simple concepts.Inability to form a coherent scientific argument or clarity of explanation. Substantial digression, with a majority of the material in the answer that does not address the question/subject. Missing sections, sub-sections or extensive omission of data that has been specified as required to be presented. Failure to answer comprehension sections can spoil otherwise passable marks for the simply practical/performance/data collecting elements. Studentsachieving good marks don’t work simply follow instructions, doing what is asked without questioning why or what it means or may show. This is the difference between an expert scientist and a very junior technician or ‘operative’. Submissions may be awarded below 30 if there is substantial evidence of more than one of these indicators. Evidence of substantial plagiarism can also lead to a fail mark. -No submission (=zero mar
Your essay will focus on the role of the microtubule network or ONE component of it and their important regulatory roles in the process of cancer. Explain the role of this/these protein (s), their targets and how they are altered/modified/activated during the process of cancer cells, providing molecular explanation for such changes.
Your essay should not be longer than 1500 words and be supported by figures and diagrams. Provide also an accurate and fully documented reference list.
Summarize the long term goals of research in which you participated:
There is 2 research that was conducted:
1. Background – HeLa cells task: cell passaging, making mediums such as DMEM, aseptic technique usage, cell adhering, hemocytometer cell counting. Usage of inverted microscopes, cell dyes, and fluorescence microscopes.
Long term goals – The ability to use non-lethal chemicals and substances to induce apoptosis via Bcl-2 genes in HeLa cells. Finding and using proper lethal doses to obtain the highest apoptosis rate of the cancer cells without the usage of harmful chemicals.
Background- Using CRISPR cas 9 deletions of viral receptors deleting viral receptors for herpes simplex virus 1 and enterovirus 7. We infected healthy cells from donors in our class with herpes simplex virus to create a personal cell line for our specific usage. Due to Crispr Cas 9 being the mode of entry, we designed our plasmids and forward/reverse primers.
Long-term goals – Using CRISPR gene editing to remove viral receptors on healthy cells to prevent the viruses from attaching to the surface, preventing infection altogether.
Program of research that excites me: Crispr system of gene editing has fascinated me ever since my encounter with it in the research lab. To create platform algae from which insert of certain genes allows it to conduct tasks that can tackle today’s and future problems. Green algae are the largest producer of oxygen on the planet, by changing genes that effect
use of 40 journals and articles, you don’t have to write the intro please follow the structure, in each section you have to compare 6/7 studies results and crtitically comment on what was good or bad. including my intro it should have 5000 words. there are some suggested paper as well
Our team has experienced writers that follow all the codes used in professionalism when writing academic essays. We focus our services on satisfied clients. Through critical attention to detail, our writers abide by all the instructions given by clients. Additionally, the paper format is done according to the dictates of the client in respect to the set academic style. We are proud of completing outstanding top-quality papers.