solo renal experiment Assignment | Online Homework Help


For your solo renal experiment write-up, please use the renal experiment rubric from your lab module. Make sure you cover the following basic aspects of a scientific report as you analyze your data: Introduction: include appropriate mechanisms and/or feedback loops, terms, and other concepts needed to prepare the audience for your experimental findings. Your introduction should lead us to the stimulus and the hypothesis. Hypothesis: include your “if, then” statement. Make sure to point out the independent and dependent variables. Methods: concisely explain how you ran your experiment and how you collected data. Results: Use line graphs to plot your data. Use tables if appropriate for qualitative data. Explain the trends/patterns that you found. Does this data support/reject your hypothesis? Graphs/Tables: Attach your final graphs and tables at the end of your abstract. Resize appropriately. Analyze your data. Draw appropriate graphs for your data using MS Excel. Label properly and add captions below your graphs or above your tables. Requirements for Graphs Title Axis labels Axis units Independent and dependent variables are found on the correct axis Key if appropriate (colors add another variable) Line graph: connect the points with a straight line Add captions to each figure. Conclusion: Explain your results using the mechanism and/or feedback loops that you presented in your introduction. Where there any issues during data collection/analysis? Explain why you think so and how you would improve your methods. Clinical Application: How does this topic apply in the real world? Present at least 2 examples

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
solo renal experiment Assignment | Online Homework Help
For $10/Page 0nly
Order Essay

Renal Project Rubric: 30 points total, due 5/27

Criteria Ratings Points
Formatting: Paper contains all required sections (title, introduction, methods, results, discussion/ conclusion, references) 2.0 pts


Paper contains no formatting errors and is submitted by the requested deadline.


1.0 pts


Paper contains one or two formatting errors and is submitted by the requested deadline.

0.0 pts


Paper contains three formatting errors and is submitted by the requested deadline.

2.0 pts
Grammar and Professional Language 2.0 pts


Few grammatical errors or typos; proper verb tense.

1.0 pts


Many grammatical errors, typos but they do not impede understanding; inappropriate verb tense.

0.0 pts


Grammatical errors, typos impede understanding; inappropriate verb tense.

2.0 pts
Title 2.0 pts


Title is complete, informative, and written in a scientific tone.

1.0 pts


Title is informative and appropriate, yet is somewhat incomplete, contains errors, or is written in an unscientific tone.

0.0 pts


Title is absent, or neither informative nor appropriate.

2.0 pts
Abstract 2.0 pts Excellent

Abstract accurately summarizes the entire study and can be understood without reading the remainder of the paper.

1.0  pts Good

Abstract somewhat summarizes the entire study and can be somewhat understood without reading the remainder of the paper.

0.0  pts Novice

Abstract does not summarize the entire study and cannot be understood without reading the remainder of the paper.

2.0 pts
Introduction – Background Information 3.0 pts


Author describes main idea & purpose of the research in an organized, specific, and concise manner. Clearly explains what others have done to set the stage for their research, explains background on the problem. Proper feedback loops and mechanisms are presented. Information leads us to their hypothesis and variables.

1.5 pts


Author describes main idea & purpose of the research, but is somewhat disorganized, lacking in specifics, wordy, or contains only implicit or superficial connections.   The background is unclear, incomplete, or lacks information on what others have done before.

0.0 pts


The main idea or purpose of the research is unclear, or lacks organization, specific details, is overly wordy, or fails to make connections. It is unclear what the story behind this problem is, and what others have done before.

3.0 pts
Introduction – Research Question and Hypothesis 3.0 pts Excellent

The main research question is clearly explained. Hypothesis is written as an if-then statement. The independent and dependent variables are clearly identifiable.

1.5 pts Good

The main research question is somewhat clear. Hypothesis is written as an if-then statement. The independent and dependent variables are identifiable.

0.0 pts Novice

The main research question is unclear. Hypothesis is not very clear and the independent and dependent variables are not identifiable.

3.0 pts
Methods 3.0 pts


Adequately explains the methodology, and clearly explains how these experiments allow an answer to the question(s).

Discusses the resources and design used to study the subject in an organized, specific and concise manner.

1.5 pts


The methodology is explained, but it is not clear whether it allows an answer to the question(s) or is too lengthy.

Discusses the resources and design used to study the subject, but is somewhat disorganized, lacking in specifics, or wordy.

0.0 pts


The methodology is poorly described and does not seem to answer the question(s).

Discusses the resources and design used, but lacks organization, lacks specific details, is overly wordy, or provides no discussion of the methods or resources used.


3.0 pts
Results – Explanation 4.0 pts


States results, including quantitative data (if applicable), in an organized, specific, and concise manner, or provides a thorough, organized and specific explanation of why data or results were achieved. The correct trends are presented accurately.

2.0 pts


States results including quantitative data (if applicable), but is somewhat disorganized, lacking in specifics, wordy, states results only qualitatively, or provides only a superficial explanation of why no data or results were achieved. Too little or too much data is present, but it is explained well and the correct trends are presented accurately.

0.0 pts


States results including quantitative data (if applicable), but is disorganized, lacking in specifics, wordy, or provides only a superficial explanation of why no data or results were achieved. The results are poorly explained and confusing. Some improper trends are presented.

4.0 pts
Results – Figures accurately represent data, contains good title and caption, includes proper labels 3.0 pts


Data is represented clearly and correctly in the graph, in a way that enhances our understanding of the data. The graph has a meaningful title and meaningful labels. The scale and each axis is clearly and accurately labeled.

1.5 pts


Data is represented correctly in the graph. The graph has both a meaningful title and/or meaningful labels. Our understanding of the scale or axis would benefit from more clarity and / or accuracy.

0.0 pts


Data is not represented clearly and correctly. The graph has a title and labels that are well placed, but could be rewritten to be more descriptive. Our understanding of the scale or axis would benefit from more clarity and / or accuracy.

3.0 pts
Conclusion/ Discussion 4.0 pts


Provides an interpretation of results, in a clear and concise manner and specifically states what they mean to the investigation. The main conclusions logically follow the data and are clearly justified.  Provides an evaluation of the relevance or uniqueness of the accomplishments in the immediate context of the project’s purpose. Describes how the investigation fits within a larger field or continuing investigation in a clear and concise manner.

Uses proper feedback loops and mechanisms to explain results. Mentions potential errors or improvements to experiment.

2.0 pts


Provides an interpretation of results, if any, but in a somewhat disorganized or wordy manner, or fails to state what the results mean to the investigation. The conclusions are justified but don’t follow the data logically.  Provides an evaluation of the relevance or uniqueness of the accomplishments in the immediate context of the project’s purpose and in the larger context of its field, but is somewhat disorganized, lacking in detail, or somewhat wordy. States how the investigation fits within a larger field or continuing investigation, but is somewhat disorganized or wordy. Uses most of the proper feedback loops and mechanisms to explain results. Talks about potential errors or improvements to experiment.

1.0  pts


Provides a conclusion that lacks organization, lacks specificity, or is overly wordy. The conclusions do not follow the data, and are not justified. Provides an evaluation that lacks organization, lacks specificity, or is overly wordy. Uses some of the feedback loops and mechanisms to explain results. Does not talks about potential errors or improvements to experiment.

4.0 pts
References 2.0 pts Excellent

In-text citations and references are included and properly formatted.

1.0 pts Good

In-text citations and references are included, but are not properly formatted.

0.0  pts Novice

In-text citations or references are not included or properly formatted.

2.0 pts


Guidelines for Writing Scientific
“Write with precision, clarity and economy. Every
sentence should convey the exact truth as simply as
Instructions to Authors


General Comments
ScientiÞc research demands precision. ScientiÞc writing should reßect this precision in the form of clarity. Unfortunately,
a glance at almost any scientiÞc journal will reveal that the above-stated ideal is often not attained in the real
world of scholarly publication. Indeed, many of the accusations by non-scientiÞsts of “obscurity” and “elitism” within
the scientiÞc community probably originate in the sad fact that many scientists are not capable of expressing their
hypotheses and conclusions clearly and simply. Fortunately, much of the confusion can be eliminated if writing is considered
part of the pretentiousness. In practical terms, the Þrst of those two suggestions implies that as much effort and
consideration should be given to the organization of the paper as was given to the execution of the study, and the second
implies that the writer should employ crisp sentences not cluttered with excess verbiage. The purpose of this handout is
to help you achieve your goals.
This argument may seem more compelling if we look at it in terms of dollars. Much is spent to perform research, and
the publication is the distillate of that expensive work, all that will survive and communicate what was learned. Moreover,
the scientist pays to have papers published, currently $50 per page for many journals. If the content is not clear,
the research will be lost, and the money spent to perform it was wasted. If the text is verbose, the author will pay dearly
in page charges.
Do not consider the following guidelines as unbreakable rules. The particular format and style adopted for a given
paper depend upon both the nature of the report and the journal or other publication in which the paper is to be published.
For our purposes, we will use the format of Ecology, the publication of the Ecological Society of America; refer
to recent issues as models. All journals publish “Instructions to Authors” annually in one of the issues. In other words,
there is often more than one “correct” way of doing something, depending on your intentions. However, the practices
adopted here are straightforward and intuitively simple. You are advised to become familiar with details of organization,
section headings, methods of data presentation, and ways of citing and listing references by examining recent
papers in any well-established scientiÞc journal.



The scientiÞc paper has the following elements: Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Literature
Cited. The actual words “Introduction”, “Methods,” etc. are used to head the sections of your paper. Begin a new
page for each section. Tables and Þgures are placed at the end of the text.
In the Appendix you will Þnd an example of a short scientiÞc paper, which contains most of the elements described below,
except for an abstract. Consult that after reading each of the following sections.

The title should contain three elements:

the name of the organism studied;

the particular aspect or system studied;

the variable(s) manipulated.
Do not be afraid to be grammatically creative. Here are some variations on a theme, all suitable as titles:
Sometimes it is possible to include the principal result or conclusion in the title:

The abstract is a one or two paragraph condensation (150-200 words) of the entire work described completely in the article.
The abstract should be a self-contained unit capable of being understood without the beneÞt of the text. It should
contain these four elements:

the purpose of the study (the central question);

a brief statement of what was done (Methods);

a brief statement of what was found (Results);

a brief statement of what was concluded (Discussion, in part).

The function of an introduction is to present the question being asked and place it in the context of what is already known
about the topic. Background information that suggests why the topic is of interest and related Þndings by other scientists
are usually mentioned here. In other words, this section should contain:

a description of the nature of the problem and current state of knowledge or understanding at the beginning of the
investigation (background);

a statement of the purpose, scope, and general method of investigation in your study;

hypothesis/hypotheses and predictions.

Honors Organismal Biology Laboratory


Do not get lost in reviewing background information. Remember that the Introduction is meant to introduce the reader to
your research, not summarize and evaluate all past literature on the subject (which is the purpose of a review paper). Many
of the other studies you may be tempted to discuss in your Introduction are better saved for the Discussion, where they
become a powerful tool for comparing and interpreting your results. Include only enough background information to
allow your reader to understand why you are asking the questions you are and why your hyptheses are reasonable ones.
Often, a brief explanation of the theory involved is sufÞcient.
The statement of purpose expresses the central question you are asking and thus presents the variable you are investigating.
For example:
This study investigates the relationship between tree density and fruit size.
The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of enzyme concentration on the reaction rate of ….
The hypothesis is the explanation you are proposing for certain observations. It is a tentative answer to the question you
have posed above. It should be accompanied by a prediction of results expected under certain conditions if the hypothesis
is correct.
If competition lowers reproductive output, then fruit size shuld be smaller when tree density increases.
Some editors think that the principal results and conclusions should be summarized in the Introduction. This practice is
advocated by Day (1983). Most biologists disagree, arguing that such a summary appears in the abstract and should not
be repeated in the Introduction. You should avoid the practice except when writing for a journal that requires it.
Write this section in the past or present tense, never in the future. Avoid expressions like “This study will examine

The function of this section is to describe all experimental procedures, including controls. The description should be complete
enough to enable someone else to repeat your work. If there is more than one part ot the experiment, it is a good idea
to describe your methods and present your results in the same order in each section. This may not be the same order in
which the experiments were performed -it is up to you to decide what order of presentation will make the most sense to
your reader.

Explain why each procedure was done, i.e., what variable were you measuring and why? Example:
DifÞcult to understand: First, I removed the frog muscle and then I poured Ringer’s solution on it. Next, I atttached it to
the kymograph.
Improved: I removed the frog muscle and poured Ringer’s solution on it to prevent it from drying out. I then attached the
muscle to the kymograph in order to determine the minimum voltage required for contraction.

Experimental procedures and results are narrated in the past tense (what you did, what you found, etc.) whereas conclusions
from your results are given in the present tense.

Mathematical equations and statistical tests are considered mathematical methods and should be described in this section
along with the actual experimental work.

Use active rather than passive voice when possible. Always use the singular “I” rather than the plural “we” when you
are the only author of the paper. Throughout the paper, avoid contractions, e.g. did not vs. didn’t.

If any of your methods is fully described in a previous publication (yours or someone else’s), you can cite that instead
of describing the procedure again.


Example: The chromosomes were counted at meiosis in the anthers with the standard acetocarmine technique of Snow

The function of this section is to summarize general trends in the data without comment, bias, or interpretation. Statistical
tests applied to your data are reported in this section although conclusions about your original hypotheses are saved for the
Discussion section.
Data may be presented in Þgures and tables, but this may not substitute for a verbal summary of the Þndings. The text
should be understandable by someone who has not seen your Þgures and tables.
Incorrect: The results are given in Figure 1.
Correct: Temperature was directly proportional to metabolic rate (Fig. 1).

All results should be presented, including those that do not support the hypothesis.

Statements made in the text must be supported by the results contained in Þgures and tables.

The results of statistical tests can be presented in parentheses following a verbal description.
Example: Fruit size was signiÞcantly greater in trees growing alone (t = 3.65, df = 2, p < 0.05).

The function of this section is to analyze the data and relate them to other studies. To “analyze” means to evaluate the
meaning of your results in terms of the original question or hypothesis and point out their biological signiÞcance.

The Discussion should contain at least:
the relationship between the results and the original hypothesis, i.e., whether they support the hypothesis, or cause it to
be rejected or modiÞed.
an integration of your results with those of previous studies in order to arrive at explanations for the observed phenomena.
posssible explanations for unexpected results and observations, phrased as hypotheses that can be tested be realistic
experimental procedures, which you should describe.

Trends that are not statistically signiÞcant can still be discussed if they are suggestive or interesting, but cannot be
made the basis for conclusions as if they were signiÞcant.

Avoid redundancy between the Results and the Discussion section. Do not repeat detailed descriptions of the data and
results in the Discussion. In some journals, Results and Discussions are joined in a single section, in order to permit a
single integrated treatment with minimal repetition. This is more appropriate for short, simple articles than for longer,
more complicated ones.

End the Discussion with a summary of the principal points you want the reader to remember. This is also the appropriate
place to propose speciÞc further study if that will serve some purpose, but do not end with the tired cliche’ that “this
problem needs more study.” All problems in biology need more study. Do not close on what you wish you had done,
rather Þnish stating your conclusions and contributions.

Honors Organismal Biology Laboratory



Tables and Figures:
Tables and Þgures should be used when they are a more efÞcient way to convey information than verbal description. They
must be independent units, accompanied by explanatory captions that allow them to be understood by someone who has
not read the text. Do not repeat in the text the information in tables and Þgures, but do cite them, with a summary statement
when that is appropriate.
Whenever possible, use a Þgure instead of a table. Relationships between numbers are more readily grasped when they
are presented graphically rather than as columns in a table.

Do not repeat information in a table that you are depicting in a graph or histogram; include a table only if it presents
new information.
It is easier to compare numbers by reading down a column rather than across a row. Therefore, list sets of data you
want your reader to compare in vertical form.
Provide each table with a number (Table 1, Table 2, etc.) and a title. The numbered title is placed above the table.

These comprise graphs, histograms, and illustrations, both drawings and photographs. Provide each Þgure with a
number (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, etc.) and a caption that explains what the Þgure shows. The numbered caption is placed below
the Þgure.
Figures submitted for publication must be “photo ready,” i.e., they will appear just as you submit them, or photgraphically
reduced. Therefore, when you graduate from student papers to publishable manuscripts, you must learn to prepare
Þgures that will not embarrass you. Lines should be drawn with black ink (not ballpoint or marker). Symbols,
letters, and numerals must be produced by stencil or mechanically, and should be large enough to withstand reduction.
Proportions must be the same as those of the page in the journal to which the paper will be submitted.
Graphs and Histograms
Both can be used to compare two variables. However, graphs show continuous change, whereas histograms show discrete
variables only. Compare Figures 1 and 2 in the Appendix. You can compare groups of data by plotting two or
even three lines on one graph, but avoid cluttered graphs that are hard to read, and do not plot unrelated trends on the
same graph.
For both graphs, and histograms, plot the independent variable on the horizontal (x) axis and the dependent variable on
the vertical (y) axis. Label both axes, including units of measurement.
Drawings and Photographs
These are used to illustrate organisms, experimental apparatus, models of structures, cellular and subcellular structure,
and results of procedures like electrophoresis. Preparing such Þgures well is a lot of work and can be very expensive,
so each Þgure must add enough to justify its preparation and publication, but good Þgures can greatly enhance a professional
article, as your reading in biological journals has already shown.

Litature Cited:
This is the last section of a scientiÞc paper. References are listed by author, as indicated by the following sample list.
Papers are not referred to by footnotes as in literature papers but are cited within the body of the text (see Section I below).

We will follow the format of the journal, Ecology. Other journals use variations on this theme. Ask your instructors
for the speciÞc format they want you to adopt for your work.
(Journal): Strong, D. R., Jr. 1980. Null hypothesis in ecology. Synthese 43: 271-285.
(Book): Eadie, W. R. 1954. Animal control in Þeld farm and forest. MacMillan Co., New York, New York, USA.


in a book):
Werner, P.A. 1979. Competition and coexistence of similar species. Pages 287-310.

O.T. Solbrig,
S. Jain, G. B. Johnson and P. Raven, editors. Topics in plant population biology. Columbia University Press,
New York, New York, USA.
(Multiple authors): Gross, K. L. and P. A. Werner. 1978. The biology of Canadian weeds. Canadian Journal of Plant
Science 58:401-413.
(Thesis): Calvo, R. N. 1990. Pollinator limitation, cost of reproduction, and Þtness in plants: a demographic approach.
Dissertation. University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA.
(Technical report): Heinselman, M. L. 1981. Fire intensity and frequency as factors in the distribution and structure of
northern ecosystems. Pages 7-57

H. Mooney, I. M. Bonnicksen, N. L. Christensen, J. E. Loten, and W. A. Reiners,
editors. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report WO-26.

authors must be named in the Literature Cited; use “et

only with the text.

No reference is listed in this section unless it was cited somewhere in the text.

Format for Citing References in the Text:
You must cite another researcher whenever you refer to his or her results, conclusions, or methods in your paper. The reference
in the text is made only to the author’s name and date of publication. There are three ways of doing this:

Both the name and date can go inside parentheses is the name is not actually part of your sentence. Not all journals
include the comma between author and year. For example:
Enzymes are inhibited by cyanide (Grubb 1977).
Because enzymes are inhibited by cyanide (Grubb 1977), I expect to Þnd….
Notice that the parenthesis is placed at the end of the sentence of clause containing the reference and that punctuation
FOLLOWS the citation.

Another way to cite a study is to make the last name of the researcher the subject or object of the sentence or clause
and follow it immediately with the date of the study in parentheses:
Grubb (1977) found that cyanide inhibits enzymes.
Because Grubb (1977) found that cyanide inhibits enzymes….
These data support the conclusions of Grubb (1977).

If you wish to emphasize the date of the cited study, you can omit the parentheses:
As early as 1977, Grubb observed the inhibitory effect of cyanide on enzyme action.
This strategy is often effective for presenting an historical perspective of the problem (i.e., useful in Introduction).

It is INCORRECT to separate the date of publication from the author’s name:
Incorrect: Grubb found that cyanide inhibits enzyme action (1977).

If you wish to cite more than one study per reference, i.e., if more than one author has reached the same conclusion or
worked on the same problem independently, you may list them together in the same parentheses and separate their
names by semicolons:
Cyanide has been found to inhibit enzyme action (Grubb 1977, Smith 1980, Taylor 1983).
By convention, these citations are listed in chronological order.

In the case of more than three authors, you may use et

(from “et alii,” Latin for “and others”) after the Þrst
author’s name:
Cyanide has been found to inhibt enzyme action (Jones et


Honors Organismal Biology Laboratory



On the following pages you will Þnd a short scientiÞc paper, reproduced here because it contains examples of most of the
elements described above. Note that it has no abstract. The journal Ecology publishes very short papers under “Notes and
Comments” without abstracts because one can read the whole text in a few minutes. However, in just a few paragraphs the
authors state hypothesis they wish to test, describe their methods, present the data collected and reach a conclusion about
the validity of the hypothesis as it applies to the species studied. Their paper is also useful for our purposes because it
includes tables, a histogram, and a graph.

Written principally by Sandra Steingraber in 1985, with subsequent modiÞcation by Dr. Claudia Jolls, Dr. Debra Goldberg,
and others. Minor changes were made to Þt the format of this manual.

Ambrose, H. W., III. and K. P. Ambrose. 1995. A handbook of biological investigation. 5th ed. Hunter Textbooks, Inc.
Winston-Salem, NC.
Day, R. A. 1983. How to write and publish a scientiÞc paper. 2nd edition. ISI Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
McMillan, Victoria E. 1988. Writing papers in the biological sciences. St. Martin’s Press, Inc., New York, New York, USA.
Neter, E., P. L. Altman, M. W. Burgan, N. H. Holmgren, G. Pollock, E. M. Zipf. 1983. CBE style manual: a guide for
authors, editors, and publishers in the biological sciences. 5th edition. Council of Biology Editors, Inc., Bethesda,
Maryland, USA.
Woodford, F. P., editor. 1986. ScientiÞc writing for graduate students: a manual on the teaching of scientiÞc writing. Committee
on Graduate Training in ScientiÞc Writing. Council of Biology Editors, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland, USA.




Calculate the price of your paper

Total price:$26

Need a better grade?
We've got you covered.

Order your paper