http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/335157/title/Vaccine_makes_headway_against_trachoma
This article told about a vaccine currently in development that would combat the blinding disease known as trachoma. The author explained what trachoma exactly is. Trachoma is a bacterial infection in the eye by a microbe known as C. trachomatis. Patients who suffer trachoma aren’t actually afflicted by the bacteria itself, but rather the immune response to the infection, which can lead to ocular scarring and blindness. The author then went on to talk about the vaccine, which would cause the bacteria in trachoma to trigger a less harmful immune reaction from the body. The article even stated that scientists are not quite sure how the vaccine works because the protein used in the vaccine is not completely known, “The plasmid encodes a protein whose function is unknown, so exactly how the vaccine works is unclear.” The author also spoke to the coauthor of the study, Harlan Caldwell, about this vaccine. The article further explained the basis behind the vaccine, “Caldwell suspects the plasmid “is driving a very strong innate immune response that, in a sense, becomes the pathology” for the infection. Removing the plasmid might allow a more specific immune reaction against the microbe with fewer harmful effects, he says.” Finally, the article talked about how the vaccine is being studied, with the experimentation on monkeys. In the study, six of twelve monkeys with a C. trachomatis infection were treated with the vaccine, and three of the six treated exhibited immunization to the infection. The other three only showed mild effects of the infection, while the six who were not treated showed moderate to severe eye disease.
This article and in particular this vaccine has a very widespread effect on humanity. If this vaccine is eventually perfected and tested to be safe for people with trachoma, then many people across the world would be able to have a chance at fighting this infection and possibly keep their eyesight. While it was explained in the article that any mass produced vaccine is in the distant future, after further experiments and reiteration, this vaccine could be patented and used to fight trachoma.
Overall, this article was well written, it summarized the current research into the vaccine for trachoma, and explained what scientists are doing to find the cure for this infection. The author did a good job of explaining, with the help of the coauthor of the study, how the vaccine would prevent eye disease, even though researchers don’t even know fully how this vaccine works. One thing that the author could have done better would be to explain who are the organizations currently taking part in this research and who else is looking to find this vaccine.
The first thing Amiel does well is telling the reader what exactly Trachoma is. I had no idea what trachoma was, but now I have a better idea. He was able to make it clear that is not the trachoma bacteria itself that causes blindness, but rather the way the bodies immune system fights of the bacteria. The second thing Amiel does well in his review is he does a good job of explaining how the vaccine will work. The vaccine alters the way our bodies immune system fights off the virus. The immune system will still cause damage, but people will not lose their eye-sight completely. The protein used in the virus, however, is very mysterious, and we are unsure of how it works. The final thing I like about Amiel’s review is that he makes sure to explain that the vaccine is not going to be ready for many years. At this point the vaccine is only being tested on monkeys, and has in no way been perfected.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I did not like about this article review is the explanation of the vacine’s test results. Amiel gives the data on the monkey, but the data he gives is not exactly clear. Also, he does not really describe what the data means. The second thing I did not like about the review is Amiel’s description on its relevance to society. He does state that many people will not lose their sight across the world, but he does not really saw how many, or how cured they will be.
What I found most interesting about this article is the protein they are using for the vaccine. This protein is so mysterious that not even the scientist know what its exact name is, or how it works.
Amiel provided a very clear and detailed review of an article about Trachoma. One thing he did very well was immediately inform his readers on the exact definition of what Trachoma is. Secondly, now that i was able to understand what the disease caused i found it very helpful that Amiel used a direct quote from the coauthor of the study. This enabled me to understand the point that Amiel was saying about how the vaccine will alter our immune systems to fight the virus. Lastly, He provided data from a specific study which showed that the vaccine is not guaranteed to solve the disease.
ReplyDeleteIf there was one area that i wish amiel improved on i would recommend him to explain more in depth about who has Trachoma. I say this because i have never heard about this disease and would like to learn more about it. Also i think amiel could have provided more evidence of testing results, if any, because what other ways have scientists been approaching this disease?
I found it very interesting that the scientists themselves are not entirely sure how the vaccine works. Therefore I am guessing that this vaccine will not be used on humans for a long period of time because what if there are serious side effects that have not occurred yet. I am glad that scientists have seen positive test results from this vaccine but i think there isn't enough evidence to be content.
Amiel’s review of the article about the Trachoma vaccine is very well written and well thought out. The first thing I liked about Amiel’s review is that he did a very good job explaining what Trachoma is. He explains that Trachoma is a bacterium that is present in the eye. It can be very harmful and cause blindness. The second thing Amiel did very well was to explain how Trachoma is harmful in a different way from most bacteria infections. He explained that the bacteria itself doesn’t cause blindness, but the process of the immune system fighting off the disease damages the eyes of the person, causing complete blindness. Finally, another thing Amiel did very well was explained how the vaccine will work. The vaccine, which is still far from being completed will not alter the bacteria but alter the immune system causing it to do less damage and therefore saving some of the person’s eyesight.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I think Amiel could have improved on is his explanation of the trachoma bacteria and how many people the bacterium affects a year. I have never heard of this disease and would like to know a bit more background on it.
I think the most interesting thing about the article is the fact about the vaccine. It is extremely interesting that the scientists don’t even know what the name of the protein in the vaccine is nor do they know how it works.
Amiel does a very good job summarizing his article. He did a very good job defining terms to make a complicated subject easier to understand. Amiel as also successful in explain how the vaccine works, by going into detail about how the vaccine alters our immune system, and explaining that people will still have eye damage, but just not a severe. A final positive in the summery is that Amiel organized the summery well, explaining everything in sections. Which make the it easier to read and understand. One thing that could improve the summery is that Amiel could have gone into greater detail about the disease itself, and what a person who has it expeririences on a daily basis. Another thing that could be improved is that Amiel could have explained better why he choose the article and what it means to him in greater detail. I thought this article was very interesting just because a vaccine for this disease would be very important to a lot of people who are blind. Maybe the vaccine could help scientists lean about how to better prevent even more diseases.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Amiel does a great job explaining what Trachoma was. He made it clear that it is not the bacteria that causes blindness, but the body's immune response. Another area that I though Amiel did a good job explaining is that the vaccine contains a protein that is unknown to scientists. The next step for the vaccine is for scientists to figure out what exactly this protein does and how it lessens the effects of trachoma. Lastly, he provided detailed information about how the scientists developed the vaccine using monkeys. Since monkeys are primates, their response is probably very similar to the response humans would have to the vaccine.
ReplyDeleteThe review could have been made better in two ways. The area where Amiel discusses plastids is a bit confusing and could be written in a different way since the information is crucial to understanding what scientists understand. Another possible addition to the review would be some background on what scientists are working on this vaccine and where.
However, I was still fascinated by the points Amiel brought up. Perhaps one of the most interesting point came in the later review. Amiel mentions that the scientists believe that this vaccine will be easy to mass produce, so this will hopefully keep the cost down, making it accessible to the majority of the people with trachoma.
I though that Amiel’s review of “Vaccine Makes Headway against Trachoma” was very well written and logically presented. One thing that Amiel did extremely well was he explained exactly what Trachoma was and how it affects people. A second thing Amiel also excelled at giving evidence for his argument by providing quotes from the article and various scientists involved in the research. A third thing that Amiel did well was he explained the impact that this vaccine could have on humanity.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Amiel’s review was very good, one thing he could have done better is analyzing the data about the monkeys that he provides in his review. Although the data is accurate, I was not exactly sure in what context it was given. A second thing Amiel could have done better was explained where Trachoma is most common and who is most likely to be effected by it.
The most interesting part of this review was the fact that although scientists believe this vaccine works, they have little knowledge of why it works. Overall this review was informative and engaging.
In this article Amiel does an excellent job describing exactly what Trachoma is and what its effects are. For those reading this helped establish just how serious of an illness it is and exactly what happens when one contracts Trachoma as well as how exactly it does its damage. Afterwards Amiel does a good job describing the impact the vaccine will have on the illness. Because he directly addresses the vaccine after describing the effects of the disease, it allows for the reader to exactly connect will what is happening when the vaccine is used. Finally the final thing that I enjoyed about Amiel’s review of the article was that he implemented useful quotes from the author, which allows for the reader to not only understand from Amiel’s point of view but also from the point of view of the author. What I didn’t like from the review was that Amiel didn’t completely describe both the effects that the vaccine has done on monkeys in detail, nor exactly when this vaccine may be brought into our lives. Additionally, Amiel also didn’t do a great job of explaining both how well will the vaccine alleviate the impact of the disease or how efficiently it will be used. I found most interesting exactly how Trachoma is contracted. It differs from many diseases in that it is not the disease that hurts people but it is ones own body’s attempts at hindering the disease that ends up hurting the infected people.
ReplyDeleteOverall Amiel did a very good job at reviewing this article about Trachoma. In particular, I think one thing he did well was explain what Trachoma is exactly is. I for one had never heard of it, and he gave a very to the point, straight forward definition. Also, he did a good job at explaining the vaccine that is used against it. It was interesting to learn that scientists did not truley understand how the proteins within the vaccine worked. To go on, he also described how the vaccine was tested. He gave a very straightforward, prompt explanation of the experiment they preformed to test the success.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the review was good, there were improvements that could have been made. For instance, Amiel could have described the potential that Trachoma has on the general population. Who does it affect currently? Does it have the ability to affect a larger population? Also I did not like how Amiel simply began giving information about the plasmids, without giving the basic explanations around it.
The most interesting part of the article I found was the way they tested it on monkeys. Did the monkey’s already have the disease or were they infected. Does this mean anybody can be easily infected? Furthermore, if they previously had the disease, is it common and people are just not aware? It would be interesting to find the answers to these questions.
Amiel’s incorporation of direct quotes was an interesting addition that I have not seen in other reviews and enjoyed. He also described the methodology of the experiment well. The article was a good choice, as he elucidated well on how the science would affect humanity. My two criticisms are mostly style caveats. For one, I think the summary of the article could have been developed in a more elegant fashion. There is no need to repeat that the author said this, the article said this, at the beginning of every sentence since this is a given. Second, there were some instance were two sentences were connected by a comma instead of a period or semi-colon, which bothered me.
ReplyDeleteI was impressed to learn more about trachoma, because I had always assumed it was a bacterial degradation of the human body rather than an immune response. I wonder how many more “diseases” are actually are bodies’ harmful reactions to pathogens?