Friday, November 18, 2016

University of Oxford. "Scientists uncover genetic evidence that 'we are what we eat'." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 15 November 2016. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161115111720.htm>.

In the article, “Scientists uncover genetic evidence that ‘we are what we eat”. A study done at Oxford University is discussed. Within this study, researchers selected two different parasites,  eukaryotic parasites and bacterial parasites, in order to test their hypothesis that “ the composition of this food could alter an organism's DNA.” They found that these two parasites, who infected very different host and consumed different foods, had DNA which reflected that. Low-nitrogen, high-sugar diets resulted in more nitrogen in the DNA sequence then vice versa. This discovery was a huge breakthrough in the study of metabolism and evolution as it has finally answered the question to why two closely related species can have such different DNA. The researchers have now advanced their study to test more complex organisms to see if this same conclusion holds true.  
This study is greatly applicable to society and even our own lives as based on further studies, this concept could be applied to human genetics. The idea that the food we consume can actually affect our DNA could be useful in many medical study regarding different diseases or other issues. The co-author Emily Seward concluded that  their study “provides evidence that we really are what we eat.” This idea is definitely applicable to our modern world especially considered the bounds of processed food and GMO’s we consume. Now that we’ve learned food can be a factor in more than just your health, but your actual genetic makeup, we may have to raise some questions about the effects of the products we are eating.

I thought the author of this article did a decent job, but there were definitely areas they could have improved upon. For instance, I feel as though a majority of this piece was quoting the researcher from the study. While it was interesting to learn about this, I felt he only really scratched the surface. It would have been interesting if he brought in outside sources and compared this to other research or really analyzed the impact of these findings. There was definitely a lot that the author could have added, but regardless I learned about a very interesting new concept and noticed i was drawn by the topic.

3 comments:

  1. University of Oxford. "Scientists uncover genetic evidence that 'we are what we eat'."
    ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 15 November 2016.


    Grace did a great job on her review of “Scientists uncover genetic evidence that ‘we are what we eat” by author unknown/University of Oxford. I particularly enjoyed Grace’s analysis of what the study did and the findings it produced. For example, when discussing the study Grace added that “They found that these two parasites, who infected very different host and consumed different foods, had DNA which reflected that.” By adding commentary like this Grace enhanced the perhaps otherwise mundane research and added vitality to it. A second thing upon which Grace succeeded was her ideas about why this study is important and its implications to every person’s life. For example, she stated that “The idea that the food we consume can actually affect our DNA could be useful in many medical study regarding different diseases or other issues.” By giving her opinion I really realized how much of a breakthrough this study is to our society. A third element in which Grace flourished was her final paragraph in which she commented on the article. I appreciated her straightforward analysis that although “the author of this article did a decent job, but there were definitely areas they could have improved upon.” By being blunt about her idea and using supporting evidence Grace made a convincing case about improving the flow of the original article. By observing the critique of the other author I was able to realize, not only that the original article should have been better written, but so should every scientific piece we read. I personally find that so many articles, in the science world, are often written without the reader in mind. This is a major issue throughout scientific literature because if no one can understand your study and findings, then why should anyone care to finance further investigation that could really benefit the health of the world if we only understood it.
    However, Grace did have two areas of her review in which she could improve. Primarily, I would recommend that Grace should proof-read her work more carefully. For example, her sentences: “In the article, ‘Scientists uncover genetic evidence that ‘we are what we eat’. A study done at Oxford University is discussed” and “Low-nitrogen, high-sugar diets resulted in more nitrogen in the DNA sequence then vice versa” both had grammatical errors, that while not impeding the comprehensibility of her review, proved to be a distracting error. The first used a period and then a capital a between the two clauses of her sentences and is evidently a typo. The second sentence had a more unsuspecting error of the misuse of the word “then” instead of the word “than.” Both of these errors are a symptom of a proofreading issue, or lack there of, which could easily be fixed by simply reading her review carefully before posting it to the blog. A second item on which Grace could improve upon is in her use of quotations. This is because Grace used only two quotations throughout her entire review: “the composition of this food could alter an organism's DNA” and “provides evidence that we really are what we eat.” And, although both quotations were used expertly to add a sense of authority, I felt more quotations would have been necessary. This is because I feel that quotations add another layer and expertise to a review that can make it more than a simple summary. Quotations from leading researchers can add emotion and intrigue to the current investigations making for an even more fascinating review. Upon reading the original article there are various quotes from the co-author of the study Dr. Steven Kelly as well as the other study’s co-author Emily Seward. By including the ideas from these two major key players in the study the review would gain a sense of vitality which you further enhance and assert its importance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Overall, Grace did a brilliant job of creating a well-written piece that exemplifies and analyzes a recent study’s new findings about consumer and the consumed. It was fascinating to learn that the less nitrogen you eat, the more is found in your DNA. This oxymoronic relationship was fascinating to learn about and perhaps may hold knowledge about the way we look at other things in science. Essentially, the things we expect are not always the case and we must realize that. I initially chose this article due to the fact that science was finally backing up the old adage that “we are what we eat.” I thought it would be very interesting to read Grace’s review of a study about such a unique research topic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Alexander Plaza
    11/29/16

    University of Oxford. "Scientists uncover genetic evidence that 'we are what we eat'." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 15 November 2016. .


    Grace, I read your review of “Scientists uncover genetic evidence that 'we are what we eat’” by the University of Oxford and I thought that you did a good job. I thought that you did a good job at summarizing the article. I was not confused about your subject. This is good for the readers since it creates a firm base for the rest of your review. Also, it is good that your summary is brief. It does not bore the reader with useless information and you are able to move to the main point of your review quicker. Finally, I like that your connection is meaningful. You connect the application of studying the food we eat on treating diseases. You also connect it to GMO’s which is a debated current topic. Your connections provide interest for the reader.

    Although your article was good, there are some areas that you could improve in. First, I think you should include more quotes from the experts in the study. You critique the article saying that there were many quotes from the researcher so there should be one that stood out. It would be helpful for the reader to get a direct link to the research through a quote. You could include a quote about the scientists thoughts about the research. Also, I believe that you could improve some minor grammatical errors. For example, you could capitalize the “I” at the end of your critique paragraph. This would stop the reader’s attention from being drawn away from the content of the review.


    Overall I enjoyed your review and I was intrigued by the subject matter. I agree that this could be a very important breakthrough in the way we look at our food and our bodies together. It will be interesting to see how scientists continue with this new information and if we take a closer look at GMO’s.

    ReplyDelete