When one’s body becomes infected, the protein CARD11 instructs white blood cells to either make more antibodies and white blood cells in order to attack the invader or to simply stop the task. However, scientists have recently discovered that CARD11 is controlled by GAKIN, a different protein, which administers the information given to each white blood cell. Joel Pomerantz, Ph.D., an assistant professor of Biological Chemistry in the Institute for Basic Biomedical Sciences, and his group of researchers discovered the role of GAKIN in immune cell activation by linking the gene that codes for luciferase to a gene that CARD11 turns on in response to an infection. Their results showed that the more GAKIN they added to the cells, the less the cells glowed. Thus, they concluded that GAKIN moves CARD11 away from the proteins that are needed to activate CARD11.
GAKID is crucial, because if too many T or B cells, particular types of white blood cells, are sent to battle disease, cancer or autoimmune disease can result. And now that researches, like Pomerantz and his team, have identified the importance of this protein, there will be new drugs that can be introduced to enhance one’s immune system. Drugs to slow down hyperactive immune cells in cases like autoimmunity and cancer can also result.
I think that the author did a nice job of explaining his point. While I was initially unfamiliar with the proteins GAKIN and CARD11, this article had a good explanation of their functions within the cell. Additionally, I enjoyed the time it took to actually discuss what was taking place in their study and how they drew the conclusions they did. Such aspects allowed me to really understand what was going on within the article. I also enjoyed the connection the article made to reality. It stated that this discovery may be able to help those with cancer and other diseases. It’s amazing to think that the role that one protein plays in an immune system may help one of the deadliest diseases.
Works Cited:
ScienceDaily 10 December 2010. 12 December 2010
3. First off, the way you went about explaining the topic of the article was clear and straightforward, which I found fantastic. I was unfamiliar with these proteins, so additionally, I like the way you explained their functions within the human cell. I also enjoyed how you kept the professors' experimental findings included in your response, and that you explained their results. You could have simply stated how the addition of GAKIN effected the amount of CARD11 in the body, but you took the time to include the experimental results to further prove the point of the article.
ReplyDelete2. The response mentions how cancer or autoimmune disease can result from the presence of too many T or B cells are sent to fight disease, and that the discovery of the presence of GAKIN can help researchers discover new drugs to prevent these diseases. I would have liked to hear about any up-to-date research on these new drugs, if any was able to be discovered. In addition, if such information is able to be accessed, I would have enjoyed reading about any experiments that have taken place, since you did such a great job of explaining the professors' experimental processes in this article.
1. Like you, I was unaware of these proteins before reading this article, so first and foremost I learned about the functions of GAKIN and CARD11 in the cell. I was impressed with, like you said, the connection that this research made to the real world. It further shows the progress that we are making through science each and every day.
This is author did a good job conveying the physical science by which a body responds to an infection. Before having read this article, I was not exactly sure how white blood cells knew how to, and when to, attack infectios baceteria. This author also speaks specifically to the cause of the gene switch, GAKIN, which activates CARD11. This is incredibly relevant to the studies we have recently undertaken. We also have seen this switch in fruit flies. This author makes a good point of theory application to the science, in showing the consequences of the discovery and its impact on human wellbeing. It is truly incredible to see the inner complexities to even incredibly small organisms inside our body, and how the network of communications functions as it does to relay such a specific mechanism. The author could however, describe what GAKIN is specifically, or how the name relates to its function, as well with CARD11 because we are left in the dark to understand why they could be named as they are. Overall a good, interesting, and relevant article. Kudos.
ReplyDeleteFirst off she explianed her article in a clear and striaght forword way that made it ease for the reader to understand what was being talked about. Second she choose a interesting article that keep the readers attention. Third she did a good job of utilizing parts of the article in her discussion which made her explination more believeable.
ReplyDeleteIt would have been nice if she had talked about any up-to-date research on these new drugs, so the reader could see what was happening and wheather or not the research worked. If this research were available it would be nice if she could explian those experiments as well.
I was unaware of the proteins discussed in the artical before reading this article, so I learned about the functions of GAKIN and CARD11 in the cell.
Kirsten did a great job in reviewing this article. Both her summary and critique were very informative and well written. What I liked the most about her review was that she was very efficient in getting her point across. The concepts she described were not convoluted and she explained them in a very clear and brief manner. Secondly, I liked that she only focused on one experiment in order to back up her summary. Many other articles list random names of doctors and describe random studies in order to make their research seem complete. However, I liked that Kirsten stuck to the one example of Dr. Joel Pomerantz because it made the article much easier to follow. Lastly, I liked the fact that she was effectively able to outline the possible effects of further discoveries. She explained how this would affect the immune system, but she did not make anything too complicated to understand.
ReplyDeleteWhile I liked the fact that this article review was brief and to the point, I would have preferred it if it were just a little bit more focused on specific explanations. The review just jumps into the role of the CARD11 protein and the GAKIN protein. I would have liked it if she took a little bit more time to explain what exactly these proteins are. Also, while I liked how she stuck to elaborating only on one experiment (with Dr. Joel Pomerantz), she could have added a few more details regarding that experiment. While statistics and numerical figures can sometimes be confusing and not useful, they can many times also strengthen an argument.
This article struck me because I learned that we may be on the brink of discovering a new way to improve our immune system. With the help of the GAKIN protein, we may be able to slow down the onset of certain diseases. This is definitely important in the medical world, because it will largely decrease the number of illnesses affecting people.
Kirsten did a great job reviewing this article. One thing that she did well was explaining why GAKID is so important and how with out it cancer and other disease would result. I also thought that Kirsten did a great job explaining what CARD11 was. I had never heard of either of these proteins, but I know now how important they truly are. CARD11 is crucial to while blood cells because it instructs them “to either make more antibodies and white blood cells in order to attack the invader or to simply stop the task.” I also really liked hearing Kirsten’s opinion on the article. It gave me a sense of what she thought about the article, because she did not know anything about the topic before reading it, same as me. She then explained everything very in her review so that readers could understand it more.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Kirsten wrote a very good review there were a few things that I wish she had done. First of all, I thought that, at times, it was a bit confusing. For instance, when she talked about the scientists experiment, it was very choppy and confusing. Also, I thought that her facts were very good and they were all in the article, but it did not flow very well. It was almost like she just listed the facts one after another, not caring about sentence variation, making the article hard to follow. But overall I thought she did an excellent job.
I learned a lot from this article. It showed me that scientists are still learning about human immune systems, which is great because it could someday lead to cures for many diseases.
John Gray
ReplyDeleteKirsten did a very concise and informative critique and overview of the article she selected for her review. The first thing that she did well was that she never lingered too long on one facet of the article. She would explain the pertinent information attached to each point and then move on. This style made for a review that was very accessible while still being informative. The next thing she did well was explaining what her article was about in an understandable way. In less than five minutes I was able to understand what GAKID is and why it is important to people. Another thing Kirsten did well was that she gave credit to the individuals involved in the discovery of this new protein. She made sure to mention the names of the men who worked on the project and the experiments they devised.
There were a few things Kirsten could have done better. While brevity is a good quality in that it makes a piece of writing accessible, I feel that perhaps Kirsten’s writing lacked complexity. When I read I like to experience some interesting prose and there wasn’t much to be had in Kirsten’s article. Also, while Kirsten explained a lot of the science behind her topic I was still lost on one point. How do overactive white blood cells cause cancer? I can make my own conjecture as to why this might be that might be somewhat accurate, but I’d like to see a scientific explanation.
I found the article to be quite interesting myself after giving it the once over. Any study that helps to lessen the frequency of cancer is interesting to me because I don’t like to see people die.
Kirsten did an excellent job of summarizing the article. I know from experience and from reading the article itself that the authors often write them using terms that are not universally understood and that the content is often convoluted and difficult to decifer. This review however, made this difficult topic almost easy to understand by explaining any new terms and making sure her sentences were clear and concise. Also, the inclusion of one specific experiment from the article as a crucial factor that made this review so effective. If Kirsten had not included the experiment, than the topic details would not be as clear to the readers, however, if she included more than one example, her review would become crowded and the reader would get caught up in certain details instead of grasping the concept of the entire discovery. Finally, I felt that this review really made a strong connection between the discoveries in the lab and their impact on the real world. These real world applications are what makes these findings real to the general public and makes it that much more meaningful for everyone.
ReplyDeleteFor her next review, Kirsten should included more outside information and interpretation into her reaction of the article. Although the review was very informative, I could tell that the information came straight from the article. A little extra research would make the review writer more knowledgable of the subject from which the review would greatly benefit. One last improvement that Kirsten could make would be to improve the flow of her review. Yes, it provided me with a good bed of knowledge on the subject, the review felt choppy and with smoother writing and insertion of facts, quotes, etc, the reader would have an easier time fully understanding her points.
I was immediately drawn to this article because I am interested in biomedical sciences and it was really neat to see how biomedical engineers and the like are making a difference in our society.