This study
focused on 5 different disorders: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism,
major depression, and attention deficit hyperactive disorder. Despite the great
differences in their symptoms and manifestations, they all have the same
genetic basis. The article does not detail what this basis is, but on in the
original paper published by the scientists, they describe four different loci to
surpass the cutoff for genome-wide significance. The study found that
these loci held genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphisms conferring a small
risk of psychiatric disorders. For two of them, it is not clear what genes are
involved or what they do, but the other two, though, involve genes that are
part of calcium channels, which are used when neurons send signals in the
brain. Cross-Disorder Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, a group of
scientists, conducted this research. These findings were all made possible by
the increase in availability of genetic information databases. The researchers used
genetic data generated by studies in 19 countries and including 33,332 people
with psychiatric illnesses and 27,888 people free of the illnesses for
comparison. The researchers labored over people’s DNA, looking for variations
in a long stretch of genetic material containing three billion DNA bases.
This research can have a huge impact
on how we see mental disorders. Two of the aberrations discovered in the new
study were in genes used in a major signaling system in the brain, giving clues
to processes that might go awry and suggestions of how to treat the diseases.
Scientists can now aim to make diagnoses based on the genetic aberrations
underlying diseases instead of on the disease symptoms. This is a great leap
forward and can have visible, substantial effects in the field of mental health
disorders.
I believe that the author did a very
good job explaining the treatment and its implications. However, she sometimes
explained things to vaguely, leaving several questions unanswered. At times, her
progression of ideas was confusing as well. She did do a mediocre job explaining
how the treatment works. One positive is that most scientific articles
describing treatments are difficult to understand and follow, but her
explanation was clear and comprehendible.
Samantha Past
ReplyDelete3.4.13
The review Malika wrote pertaining to the article, “5 Disorders Share Genetic Risk Factors, Study Finds,” begins with a solid incorporation of the facts pertaining to the studies conducted; included within the article. Malika includes into her review important statistics/ facts presented in the article that help the reader to develop an understanding of the study being described in the review/ article. Likewise, Malika does a nice job of incorporating the importance of the study being conducted in the article, as she describes why such studies are so important, and how, “This research can have a huge impact on how we see mental disorders.” In general, Malika did a good job of simplifying the somewhat complicated article, in order to make it more understandable for the reader, and to allow the reader to understand the basics of the article.
Although Malika did a nice job of including certain specific facts within her review, perhaps if she included a direct quote from the article the reader would have understood how those in the scientific research industry are feeling about the studies being conducted. Therefore, instead of solely viewing/ understanding the reviewer’s point of view the reader could comprehend those conducting the experiment, and those working in the scientific world’s point of view. Another aspect of Malika’s review that may have been made even better is if, instead of solely incorporating facts; those facts which was very useful, but also if she tried to incorporate a little more her own writing style/ sense of the article. Therefore the reader instead of sort of re-reading a high majority of facts, there also would have been a little more clarity and flow throughout the article review.
Overall, if found this article to be very interesting and a perfect experiment to study, as the study correlates a recent project we have done in class. Recently, I did a project on bipolar disorder; therefore it was intriguing to read an article which discusses/ furthers classifies bipolar disorder as well as other mental disorders. As a result, I learned more about such disorders, and also discovered one such study being conducted in order to determine the genetic basis of such diseases.
Malika's review of the study "Same Genetic Basis Found in 5 Types of Mental Disorders" was very well done. She kept her summary concise, which made it easy to read. I felt it did not drag on and outlined the key parts of this important study. Malika also did a good job of including certain important information, like where the studies were preformed, what group preformed them, and the exact number and type of people that were studied. This gave me a better understanding of this study. Finally, Malika did a very good job of explaining how this would affect us and the important implications of these studies.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Malika did a very good job with her review of this study, there are a few places where she could have improved. I think she could have gone into a little more detail about the study in a few places because it seems like she left out a few key points. For example, when she explained the two disorders where scientists have identified the affected genes, she did not name these two disorders. I also think Malika could have proof read her review a little more because there were a few typos, which made it hard to read in places.
I found it amazing that scientists are making such great strides in this important field. It is very important for us to identify the issues involved with genetic disorders, so we can better diagnose them and help treat them, and these studies are doing just that.
Malika's review of "Same Genetic Basis Found in 5 Types of Mental Disorders" presents an interesting argument that schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism, major depression, and attention deficit hyperactive disorder are all based on the same genetic basis. It was nice that she reviewed an article that is so relevant to what we were just tested on. Also, Malika's review was very consise and short, making it an easy read. She still managed to include some statistics and important facts also.
ReplyDeleteWhile I liked that Malika's review was consise, sometimes I felt like she was missing crucial details that made her review a little hard to understand. I'm not sure that I understand at all the genetic basis that the five mental diseases shared because her explanation involved techincal terms that were left undefined and unexplained. I definitely think that more detail into her article would have improved her review in general.
I find it amazing that scientsts are making these genetic discoveries about very prevalent mental disorders. It is so fascinating that all of these five diseases may be based on the same genetic basis, because the symptoms vary so greatly. It makes you appreciate the diversity that genes are responsible for and the delicacy of them. I hope that this genetic discovery indicates a great stride in the treatment of these metnal diseases.
Malika read and analyzed "Same Genetic Basis Found in 5 Types of Mental Disorders," written by Gina Kolata. She does a good job explaining the impact genetic information databases have on our evolving knowledge in various disorders. Kolata touches specifically on, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism, major depression, and attention deficit hyperactive disorder. These are 5 prominent mutations found in humans, and Malika should be praised for finding such a relevant article. Our last test was heavy in terms of genes and processes such as replication, which have enabled me to actually better understand some of the topics discussed in this piece. Some of these topics include, terms like loci, neurons, and the genome. Prior to last test, I would have struggled to understand how these diseases affect individual genes, and how some of these treatments are even possible. Although this article was not terribly long, Malika still did a good job in choosing the right information, leaving out some of the excess, unneeded description Kolata goes off on.
ReplyDeleteIn the future, Malika should define terms. In this case, it was the disorders that bothered me. Although most of us are familiar with the majority of these, it is still vital that an individual identifies his or her key vocabulary, supporting these with description. It makes it much easier for the reader to follow along with the review, as it narrows in into more intense, detailed analysis. A second suggestion I have for Malika is that she does further research on treatments. This is the whole purpose of the article and therefore, it should be a primary focus of the reviewer. She belittled the importance of such a profound study. It is interesting to look at the genetic basis for each of these devastating disorders, but what can we do in the future to treat these diseases?
One interesting thing that I learned had to do with the aberrations discovered in genes used in the signaling system in the brain. This, of course, yields to the future hope of potential treatments.