Difference between revisions of "Hivanson Week 12"

From LMU BioDB 2024
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Presentation Prep: added questions to answer)
(Presentation Prep: refs tab)
Line 22: Line 22:
 
# What future directions should the authors take?
 
# What future directions should the authors take?
 
# Give a critical evaluation of how well you think the authors supported their conclusions with the data they showed.  Are there any major flaws to the paper?
 
# Give a critical evaluation of how well you think the authors supported their conclusions with the data they showed.  Are there any major flaws to the paper?
 +
 +
==References==

Revision as of 13:33, 4 April 2024

Presentation Prep

Defining 10 unknown biological terms

Questions about your article

  1. What is the main result presented in this paper?
  2. What is the importance or significance of this work?
  3. What were the limitations in previous studies that led them to perform this work?
  4. How did they treat the yeast cells (what experiment were they doing?)
  5. What strain(s) of yeast did they use? Were the strain(s) haploid or diploid?
  6. What media did they grow them in? What temperature? What type of incubator? For how long?
  7. What controls did they use?
  8. How many replicates did they perform per treatment or timepoint?
  9. What method did they use to prepare the RNA, label it and hybridize it to the microarray?
  10. What mathematical/statistical method did they use to analyze the data?
  11. Are the data publicly available for download? From which web site?
  12. Briefly state the result shown in each of the figures and tables, not just the ones you are presenting.
    • What do the X and Y axes represent (if applicable)?
    • How were the measurements made?
    • What trends are shown by the plots and what conclusions can you draw from the data?
  13. How does this work compare with previous studies?
  14. What are the important implications of this work?
  15. What future directions should the authors take?
  16. Give a critical evaluation of how well you think the authors supported their conclusions with the data they showed. Are there any major flaws to the paper?

References