http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110113213104.htm
Sunday, January 16, 2011
100-Year-Old Specimens at California Museum Help Determine When Avian Pox Hit Galapagos
Using the vas assortment of Galapagos birds that have been collected over many years a group of scientists have been able to pinpoint the year the avipoxvirus or avian pox hit the Galapagos Islands. The year was 1898. The avipoxvirus is a pox virus that only affects birds. It's symptoms are pustules full of pus lining the skin and diphtheria-like symptoms. Diphtheria is an upper respiratory tract illness. Also this virus can be passed on to humans, but only if the birds are in very close contact with the human. All this research happened in San Fransico's Academy of Sciences. They found the year that the avipoxvirus hit the Galapagos by inspecting the birds skin for lesions associated with avian pox. They found 226 candidates that had lesions. The lesions started occurring on the birds around 1898 and after. Then the scientists took 58 specimens and took tissue samples to show further evidence to back up their theory. In the end 21 of the 59 specimens scored positive for avipoxvirus. They found this by using histology or taking the tissue and examining it under a microscope and if it had hints of the virus then the bird was positive for avipoxvirus. The scientist also used genotyping, which is screening for viral DNA. In the end the scientists concluded that with this invaluable collection of Galapagos birds we can continue to provide insight into the evolutionary and ecological processes of the islands. Also that with the combination of the collection, modern genetics and histology they have found the arrival date of an important virus that threatens even todays populations of unique birds.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There are a few points about this article that I particularly enjoyed. First of all, I felt that this response was written creatively to begin. The way that Katherine laid out the background information of this topic was done creatively, which caught my interest right off the bat. Her explanation of the virus was also straight-forward, making it clear for readers to understand.
ReplyDeleteThere are, however, some aspects of this response that I would alter. Toward the end, I feel that this response became less clear, there are even sentences that I felt didn't make sense. For instance, at one point it was stated that 58 tissue specimens of birds were taken in hopes to find further evidence of the avian pox virus. Right after, it states that 21 of the 59 specimens taken checked out for avipoxvirus. This is confusing, considering this data does not match up.
Overall, I was impressed by the way the information of the article was presented in the beginning. The layout of the background information of the virus in the beginning of the response was cleverly written, I just wish the same manner of writing was carried out throughout the rest of the response.
John Gray
ReplyDeleteKatherine did a swell job of reviewing the article she chose to read. The first thing she did well was that she got right to the point. In these types of informative pieces of writing it isn’t beneficial to meander. The next thing that she did well was that she described exactly what her article was about in a brief yet descriptive way. She didn’t skimp; I felt very informed by the time I had finished her first paragraph. Finally Katherine described the experiments that were done to come to conclusions that were made. She described in adequate detail that anyone could understand.
There were a few things Kate could have done better. While she did mention the name of the research facility that conducted the experiments on the birds, Katherine neglected to mention the names of the specific scientists who worked on the project. It is important, in the field of science, that scientists get credit for their discoveries. This is because scientists are excessively embittered but necessary to the advancement of our society. It is this bitterness that keeps them going, they think, “one day I’m going to discover something sweet and everyone will love me.” It is good to keep the scientists spiteful and ill disposed so they have this drive, but we must not make them too bitter (say, by not giving them credit for the discovery they think is going to make them important) as this will cause them to give up, and we need scientist to make TVs and stuff. The format of the review was also a little annoying. There was no paragraphing; it was just a big block of text. The review was also a little short and while I do appreciate a concise bit of writing, it was a little too short.
I found the article to be quite interesting myself after having given it the once over. It was actually fascinating to learn about these museums in which they keep hundreds of specimens on reserve should scientists need them. Plus I got to learn the names of some of the scientists who worked on the project. Love you Dr. Patricia Parker, you’re fantastic. <3 XOXO. Now get back to work on my television.