stomach tissue and pancreatic tissue

TIPS FOR WRITING

 

Abstract (1/2 page max) = 10 marks

 

1. Main focus of abstract should be the results (a lot of you guys focussed on methods but only mention a brief sentence or two for results).

 

2. Concluding sentence wrapping up the study and relating it back to the rationale.

 

3. No abbreviations in abstract

 

 

Introduction (2-3 pages) = 20 marks

 

1. Begin with the rationale and objective/purpose of the experiment. This should lead you into the background info relevant to understand the purpose of the experiment.

 

2. The background information. A lot of you just rephrased the lab manual. That’s not the point of this section, make sure you read up on articles, go more specific into concepts you introduce. If you think something is specific enough….think again. Detail = good

– CITE CITECITE! Don’t go an entire paragraph without citing your information. Also do not use the lab manual as an info source.

– use PRIMARY articles for your information. It is expected that every piece of info is coming from an outside source.

– You will not be deducted marks for over citing. Remember the minimum is 10 primary articles.

 

3. Next state your hypotheses. Remember to back up your hypothesis with literature.

Example:

Based on a study done by Davies and Edelman (1951), it was hypothesized that stomach tissue and pancreatic tissue would each have average activity indexes lower than that of the kidney. In both tissue, the main role played by CA is pH regulation where in the stomach the forward reaction is favoured to meet the demands of oxyntic cells in making gastric hydrochloric acid while in the pancreas the reverse reaction is favoured to eliminate any excess acid in the lumen (Davies and Edelman 1951; Nishimori et al. 1999). Lastly, based on a study done by Davenport and Wilhelmi (1941) whom reported that carbonic anhydrase is not found in any one cell of the kidney but found in high concentration in all cells, it was hypothesized that kidney tissue would have the greatest average activity index.

 

Notice how the study I am referencing is briefly summarized to tell the reader what information was used to formulate the hypothesis.

 

 

Tip on structuring: Start off with a general intro => get more and more specific => this leads to your own study => state the rationale => objective => hypothesis 1 => how did you come up with this? back up with literature => hypothesis 2 => explain why/back up… etc. => brief methods

 

Methods: = 2.5 marks

 

1. ONLY cite the lab manual, do not write out full methods + note any changes that were made in simple sentences.

 

Example:

 

Refer to “Laboratory 2. Carbonic Anhydrase” (Troje, 2020).

 

 

Results (2 pages for written results; no page limit for figures): = 10 marks for text portion + 15 marks for figures

 

1. Remove all the gridlines and borders from the figures. The figure should nothave a title.

 

Make captions detailed (1-2 sentences is not enough).

 

3. Enlarge figures so that the figure + caption covers most of the page (don’t let captions go to the next page and captions can be single spaced.The first sentence of your figure should be bolded.)

 

4. Make sure the written portion of your results goes BEFORE the figures/tables portion.

 

5. Text portion: intro sentence or two, what was done (brief methods), talk about observations, trends (within and between figures), indicate volumes and concentrations (UNITS!)

– some interpreted the results here, save that for your discussion.

 

 

Discussion (2-4 pages): = 35 marks 

 

Overall flow: start with an introduction paragraph => results (can divide this into subsections). Within these subsections: re-state the hypothesis + why you came up with it => what results did you obtain from the lab (CITE FIGURES!!!!) => were these expected? why or why not? Did the results support/refute hypothesis? Did any other piece of literature refute your hypothesis? Or were your results different from the results obtained and present in literature? => explain results on a cellular/molecular level => explain on a broader physiological level. (DO THESE STEPS FOR EVERY SINGLE RESULT).

 

1. The introduction. Every discussion starts off with a brief introduction, however, it is not the same as your introduction in the beginning of the lab report where you describe concepts and define terms. Instead, in this section, authors will address a few points such as; the rationale of the overall experiment, maybe re-introduce a concept that will be emphasized throughout the rest of the discussion (in this case, I was hoping to see a little re-introduction about the expression and the role of carbonic anhydrase in the different tissues), followed by an objective/ purpose which is specific to your lab.

 

2. Hypotheses. Hypotheses need to be SPECIFIC to the result you are about to perform.

 

3. RESEARCH. You need to critically investigate what the results should have been and actually read how the authors explain those results. The answers are available to you, you just have to find them.

 

4. EXPLAINING RESULTS. Explaining results is the sole purpose of the discussion – you need to make sense of the results yourself and then try to convey that to readers. The best way I can put it is, teach the reader why you got the result. Half of your mark in the discussion is attributed to explaining your results at the cellular and more-broad, physiological level.

 

5. Concluding paragraph. You can end off with a brief summary of your conclusions, future experimental modifications, but most importantly summarizing the general importance of this lab. It is very unprofessional to say “this could be important in pharmaceuticals and drug development” – how? if you are going to state that, then be prepared to back it up and explain. Be specific, use examples from literature. Relating back to physiology is always your best bet in the conclusion. Can expand to other organisms here (should be similar, for example if you’re studying

a mammal, could expand to other mammals).

 

The reference format I want you all to use is:

 

Young, J.D., Leong, L.G., DiNome, M.A., and Cohn, Z.A. 1986. A semiautomated hemolysis microassay for membrane lytic proteins. Analytical Biochemistry. 154(2): 649-654.

 

 

Authors. Year. Article title. Journal title. volume(issue): page numbers.

 

For in-text citation use this:

 

(Young et al., 1986)

 

 

(Autor et al., year)

GENERAL COMMENTS:

– No personal pronouns (say “It was hypothesized…” not “our hypothesis stated…”

– Always introduce the abbreviation you are going to use before you use it. eg. carbonic anhydrase (CA), activity index (AI)

– Times new roman, 1 inch margins

– Titles should be specific (include the organism studied + specific variables tested) = 2.5 marks

 

Flow and editing. Try to make your reports flow so that it isn’t choppy and edit your work!