Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Mr T-cell

I read an article titled “Mr. T-cell” which analyzes a new type of technology that could help cure cancer. T cells are used in the immune system to recognize molecules that are a threat to the body. Researchers extracted these cells and then create a custom built virus that is implanted in the cell with an entirely new set of DNA. The DNA tells the cells exactly what to look for and precisely where to attack in the body. This is difficult because the CD19 gene was only found in Acute lymphoblastic leukemia so it was easy for the cell to track it and not destroy other healthy cells. There are no other cancers that we know of which have a gene only specific to them and not found anywhere else in the human body. This would become an issue because the t cell would kill the healthy tissue where that gene is found as well. So far the results have been unprecedented in an ALL clinical trial where 93% of the patients are now in remission. The only complications were with a cytokine storm which is a runaway immune reaction due to the t cells replicating so quickly. This seems to only affect the patient’s whose cancer was the most widespread and two patients died from this complication.
This article is relevant because it is possible that in the future this could be a new way to treat and cure cancer. Our technology has increased so much that research into this treatment is going very quickly and there is more than just one use for the t cells. Scientists also believe that the cells stick around in the body for a while and could offer up to 10 years of protection against cancer.
This article was very clear and well written. I found it in the economist so of course there were no errors and the author made it easy to understand because it wasn't necessarily scientists reading it. The article gave me hope that a cure for cancer is possible and technology is drastically improving our chances of finding it.

"Mr T-cell." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 20 Feb. 2016. Web. 02 Mar. 2016.

8 comments:


  1. Dryden,

    Your article review was very pleasing to read. It was short but concise because you only provided relevant information and excluded any technical terms that may have been confusing. I liked the first paragraph because I knew right away what I was reading about. You described well what T-cells are, how they may be able to help cure cancer, and how scientists were manipulating them to do this. In addition, your relevance and article critique paragraphs were well written and insightful.

    One area you could improve on could using the word “this” less and describing what “this actually is” (i.e. this technique). Eliminating this problem will make your review read more clearly. Also, I did not like how you did not include a period after “Mr” when referring to Mr. T-cells. Small grammar mistakes such as this one make your work seem less credible.

    Overall, i enjoyed your review. Today’s technology is in fact improving, which will benefit cancer research in hopefully countless ways such as researching T-cells. I am hopeful that we will soon make a breakthrough, and this article supports that hope.

    Sam Connors

    "Mr T-cell." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 20 Feb. 2016. Web. 02 Mar. 2016.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dryden’s review on the article, “Mr T-cell” was very clearly and concisely written. She did a fantastic job of explaining the role of T cells in our immune system, and how scientists are able to use these cells to potentially cure acute lymphoblastic leukemia, an acute form of cancer of the white blood cells. Her overall explanation of the process of extracting these cells was also very clear and she refrained from using technical scientific terms, so her review is quite easy for almost any reader to follow. Additionally, her acknowledgment of the complications with a few of the clinical trials added credibility to her review since she recognized the possible risks of using this new technology to cure one type of cancer.

    Although this review was well written, there are a couple improvements that can be made. The summary paragraph was very descriptive, but it could be even better if a quote from a professional was mentioned. A few doctors involved in this study were discussed in the article, so I think she could benefit from directly quoting a statement made by one of the experts from the article. Also, the opening sentence of the review could have been more interesting. It states the main idea of the article, but a more intriguing statement would help to draw the reader in.

    Both this article on T-cells and Dryden’s review introduced me to a new technology that is being used to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Although the doctors were only able to find a cure for this singular cancer, hopefully this study on T-cells will lead them to find cures for other types of cancers as well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great review Dryden! You gave a good summary-- it was cohesive and easy to understand, while also giving all the important information and covering all the points of the article. Additionally, your explanations were well written. I really understood the process of how T-cells are used and how this technology has been tested and shows great promise for humans in the future. Another great point of your review was the second paragraph: it was a great addition that connected really well to the real world.

    Although your review was extremely strong, to make it even stronger I would add a quote from a scientist. Getting an expert’s opinion on a topic is always a good idea because it increases the credibility of the reviewer.

    The most interesting thing to me in this article was the fact that scientists have found a potential new way to treat cancer! Extracting the T-cells to create a virus which is then injected into the body to fight cancer causing genes is so fascinating to me and I cannot wait to see what scientists do with this new and groundbreaking discovery in the future.

    "Mr T-cell." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 20 Feb. 2016. Web. 02 Mar. 2016.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dryden, I really enjoyed your review of the article “Mr T-cell.” There were a few things that stood out. One, I liked your summary. It was concise enough for me to understand the point of the article, and not too long that I was bored. Two, I liked how talked about the complications that could be involved with this new technology because you are showing that there are some risks involved. Additionally, I thought your critique and relevance paragraphs were very insightful into the real world and what effects this new technology could have on society.

    Although your review was great, there are a few things you could do to make it even better. One, it would have been nice if you added a quote or two from the article. A quote from an expert in this field would have provided a greater sense of authority. Two, you mention the word “this” a lot and it would have been helpful to define what “this” actually is.

    It was great to read about an article that has found the cure for a single type of cancer. I didn’t know about this technology prior to reading your review. Hopefully within the coming years, with our improving technology, we can find the cure to many more cancers. Again, I really enjoyed your review.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tommy Maldonado
    Current Event #14 - Comment
    3/9/16

    Dryden,

    I loved your review for so many reasons. First, you instantly drew me in with an curious hook to start off your review. You opened your review by stating that the article “analyzes a new type of technology that could help cure cancer.” This really caught the reader’s eye, making him or her want to find out more about a possible cure to the silent killer. Another aspect I thought you did really well in was keeping your review clear and concise the entire time. One part specifically that I thought you presented the article’s points especially clearly was the part in which you presented the technique the researchers used to identify their target within the body. Here, you said, “Researchers extracted these cells and then create a custom built virus that is implanted in the cell with an entirely new set of DNA. The DNA tells the cells exactly what to look for and precisely where to attack in the body.” This is extremely clear, and it also provides a nice, concise summary of how the researchers’ ‘targeting system’ works. Finally, I liked the way you backed up the author’s argument through statistics proving the treatment has good results. For instance, you stated, “So far the results have been unprecedented in an ALL clinical trial where 93% of the patients are now in remission.” This directly backs the author’s argument, making it much more credible. Overall, it was a wonderful review.
    While there were numerous things I liked about your review, like those aforementioned, you also had some room for improvement. For example, one thing I didn’t like about your review was the fact that you didn’t go into the actual process that the T cells use to fight off “threat[s] to the body.” The only thing you mentioned on this topic was, “T cells are used in the immune system to recognize molecules that are a threat to the body.” I think you should have added some comment on how these cells do their job. Another reason I didn’t like your review was that you failed to introduce the CD19 gene. The first time you mentioned this gene was when you said, “This is difficult because the CD19 gene was only found in Acute lymphoblastic leukemia so it was easy for the cell to track it and not destroy other healthy cells.” You could have improved your review if you had a short introduction before this sentence explaining what the CD19 was. These were the only two reasons I didn’t like your review; other than these, it was perfect.
    This review was great, and I learned a lot by reading it. I thought it was very informative, for it took on a huge topic (the cure to cancer) and did a great job of introducing what could be a new, viable cure. Because of this, I am now able to understand the way T Cells can help lead us to the cure to cancer. The reason I chose this article review out of all the others is because of its funny title. When I saw the title “Mr. T-Cell,” I laughed a little and simply had to read it. This review also made me consider my own life, body, health, etc. Since cancer is such a common disease in this world, it made me wonder how likely it is that I would get cancer (sorry if this sounds morbid). Because of how applicable this article is, I may research more on the T-Cell if I ever get cancer.

    Citation:
    "Mr T-cell." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 20 Feb. 2016. Web. 02 Mar. 2016.
    Hyperlink:
    http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21693185-boosting-immune-system-fight-cancer-mr-t-cell

    ReplyDelete
  6. For my current event comment, I read Dryden’s review of the article “Mr. T-cell” in The Economist. From the start, there were things that immediately caught my eye about Dryden’s review. First, her specific use of diction was riveting and drew me in as a reader. For example, her use of the word “unprecedented” in the first paragraph caused me to feel an immense amount of suspense towards what was coming next. Second, her depiction of the T-cell with regard to what it is, where it is found, and how it functions, were second to none. She was clear and concise while still maintaining an authoritative, instructive tone and provided me with the background information necessary to understand the points she was making. Third, her relevance paragraph struck a cord with me. I am interesting in treating people and becoming a professional doctor when I get older, and cancer (along with all of its notorious, awful effects) is a huge part of that realm.
    While Dryden’s review was strong, there were certain things that I thought could have been improved. First, I would suggest including quotes in the review, specifically in the summary paragraph. Quotes from reputable sources like professors, scholars, or experiment conductors, add an incredible amount of authority and backing to the arguments you make. Also, I would suggest elaborating on the way in which the experimenters discovered the “t-cells” and how they conducted their experiment with the patients. While your use of statistics was helpful, it would be even more helpful if you included how they calculated those statistics, etc.
    Overall, this review was excellent. Before reading this review and the article corresponding to it, I had no idea who or what t-cells were. Seemingly unknown to the majority of the scientific/medical world, I learned a remarkable amount simply by reading Dryden’s work. Perhaps I will research these t-cells or look to do research on that branch of biology, cancer, in college, where I would have firsthand experience with them. Great job Dryden!

    ReplyDelete
  7. You did a really nice job, Dryden! I really enjoyed reading your current even report about T cells. I had no prior knowledge about T cells, so it was interesting to read your article. One thing that I think you did a very good job on when writing your current event is explaining an overall definition of T cells and what their roles are. Having little prior information, your simple and concise explanation set up the readers for an understanding of the rest of the report. Secondly, you did a nice job connecting the article to a more relevant topic. Most people have some sort of connection to cancer, whether themselves, a family member or a friend was effected. Showing the use of T cells in treating Leukemia made this article relevant to almost everyone’s lives. Thirdly, you did a great job explaining the clinical trials and how they were difficult. Showing both the positive and negative discoveries from clinical trials makes your information more realistic because there are always flaws in experiments.
    While you did a great job reporting on this article, there were a few areas that I would recommend editing. One thing that would make your report stronger is a direct quote from either the article or the scientists behind this research. A quote would better give an understanding of the author’s point of view and the scientists. Secondly, I think it would have been interesting if you incorporated more of your own thoughts. With cancer being a big topic in today’s society, weighing in your opinion could have been an interesting add in.
    I chose to read your current event because the title included something I had little prior knowledge of. It was interesting to hear about the modern research being put into cancer cures and seeing that progress has been made it very exciting. Reading this article will cause me to keep mmyself more up to date on discroveries made regarding cancer research.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ford Neild March 17, 2016
    Current Event 15 Comment

    Dear Dryden,

    I felt that, overall, you explained the article in very concise manner without skipping over any of the essential details, as many people often do when summarizing. First, you were able to support your claim by inserting statistics and facts from the article, something that many people struggle with in these current events. Prior to reading your summary I would have never guess that the cure to cancer could be sitting in our own body and your statics helped me consider this exciting possibility. Second, you described the scientist’s viewpoint in a very interesting way that held the reader's attention. Often people do not sound passionate when arguing scientists opinions, but you did a fantastic job of that in this description. One reason you were able to do this is through the use of the quote,”some modified cells were so durable that they might be able to protect their owners for a decade or more.” It helped add a scientist's description that further captured the reader and added a new perspective. Thirdly, your descriptive vocabulary showed real depth of understanding on your part and added additional detail that helped to create a clear image of this previously confusing article.

    Though, overall this article was very well written, there is room for improvement yet. Previously, I had commented that your descriptive vocabulary was intelligent and descriptive, however, for many of these words, they were too complex. To fix this, I recommend putting in parentheses the definition of the word. For example, I was not familiar with the term ‘cytokine storm’. After doing personal research I found that a cytokine storm is a potentially fatal immune reaction consisting of a positive feedback loop between cytokines and white blood cells, with highly elevated levels of various cytokines. In your relevance paragraph, you consistently mention the possible caners that it could potentially treat in the years to come. I was disappointed that you did not give specific examples of which types of cancers these new techniques could treat. If these were not mentioned in the article, I recommend doing independent research in order to fix this issue.

    From your summary I learned a lot. Specifically, I was amazed with the potential our body has to detect foreign agents and destroy them. Personally, my uncle has cancer, so this article concerned me deeply. As previously mentioned, prior to reading this article I would have never guessed that our own T-cells could cause cancer to go into remission. More importantly this helped me realize a much broader truth: Our bodies are the result of millions of years of evolution and as such many of the cures for diseases we are looking for may not be found in a lab, but rather within ourselves, wait to be activated..

    Citation:
    "Mr T-cell." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 20 Feb. 2016. Web. 02 Mar. 2016.
    Hyperlink:
    http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21693185-boosting-immune-system-fight-cancer-mr-t-cell

    ReplyDelete