Luke Redman
AP Biology
Mr.Ippolito
November 28th 2017
Zimmer, Carl. “Young Again: How One Cell Turns Back Time.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 22 Nov. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/science/youth-cells-aging-worms.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0.
For this week’s current event I read Carl Zimmer’s article for the New York Times, “Young Again: How One Cell Turns Back Time.” The article discusses a biological mechanism underpinning the process of cell birth in worms, and could lead to restore our own damaged cells. Scientists have been puzzling over the germline, which is the lineage of cells that going one generation of organisms to the next, for over 100 years. In theory, over millions of years, the germline should be too weak to produce healthy cells, since each generation takes on the damage from the previous generation of cells. However, on November 23rd, 2017, Dr.Bohnert and Cynthia Kenyon reported one way of how the germline can achieve this pseudo immortality, “Right before an egg is fertilized, it is swept clean of deformed proteins in a dramatic burst of housecleaning.” This feature was discovered by studying the worm Caenorhabditis elegans, which has similar inner working to our own bodies. They noticed while observing the worm’s egg that it had a heavy amount of damaged proteins, but when the sperm of a male worm reached the egg, almost all traces of the damaged proteins were gone. By running a multitude of different experiments, the researchers were able to develop a chain of events. “It begins with a chemical signal released by the sperm, which triggers drastic changes in the egg. The protein clumps within the egg “start to dance around,” said Dr. Bohnert. The clumps come into contact with little bubbles called lysosomes, which extend fingerlike projections that pull the clumps inside. The sperm signal causes the lysosomes to become acidic. That change switches on the enzymes inside the lysosomes, allowing them to swiftly shred the clumps.”
While this is in the very early stages of development, treatments based on this research could develop in the near future. It could allow humans to expand our own lives and help with longevity. This treatment will not be available in the next couple of years, but possibly in a decade. This is extremely beneficial to the human race because it allows us to live longer. It affects our society for the same reason.
The article was well written for the most part, although there were some areas of the text that seemed choppy and rushed, which made the text even harder to understand. However in other areas of the text, the transitions between paragraphs seemed extremely fluid and neat, which was much easier to read. There were a helpful amount of quotes and backstory allowing the reader to understand the content of the article easily, and provided links to all of the research. Overall, the article was extremely interesting and I enjoyed reading the article.
Timothy Cushman
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Ap Biology - Current Events Comment
29 November 2017
Current Events #9
Zimmer, Carl. “Young Again: How One Cell Turns Back Time.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 22 Nov. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/science/youth-cells-aging-worms.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0.
Luke wrote a wonderful review of the New York Times article, “Young Again: How One Cell Turns Back Time.” Firstly, Luke was able to inform the reader, on both the topic of fixing damaged proteins and the steps that were carried out during the research, in a way that allowed for easy understanding. His review was laid out in a logical order and included the most important details from the article to ensure the reader had the necessary information to understand the difficult topic. Another aspect of Luke’s review that was well done was including quotes from the article. This not only aided the reader’s understanding of a complicated topic, it gave his review credibility by being backed up by data. For example, the inclusion of the quote, “Right before an egg is fertilized, it is swept clean of deformed proteins in a dramatic burst of housecleaning” gives the reader important information in a specific way. Finally, Luke did a great job identifying how the article was important to society. He was able to realize the implications for humans in treating problems in human proteins. Luke included that the treatment will not be available for many years as to ensure people understand how this is a preliminary find that needs more research done.
Despite writing an overall great review, there were two aspects of Luke’s review that could be improved. The first improvement to the article could be including actual data. The reader is left wondering how often this is seen in the cells tested and how many damaged proteins stay damaged. The inclusion of this information would allow the reader to formulate an opinion on whether or not they feel this may be able to be used in humans. Including data would also add credibility to his review by having data to back up the claims made. A second part of his review that could be improved is his section about how to improve the article. Luke mentioned how the article was “choppy and rushed, which made the text even harder to understand.” However, he never included his suggestions on how to make this better. The inclusion how he would change this would allow the reader to better understand why Luke thought the article was rushed and choppy. Besides these two improvements, Luke wrote a great review.
I chose to read Luke’s review because the title was intriguing. I wanted to learn more about how the cells “turn back time.” It was a very interesting review that allowed me to better realize how organisms around us can help us better learn about ourselves and how they may help us treat problems in humans.
Robby Schetlick
ReplyDeleteAP Bio
Current Event Comment 9
11/29/17
Citation: Zimmer, Carl. “Young Again: How One Cell Turns Back Time.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 22 Nov. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/science/youth-cells-aging-worms.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0.
Luke Redman’s current event review is for the article called “Young Again: How One Cell Turns Back Time” by the New York Times. The report is nicely organized, straightforward, and objective. One of the things that Luke does well is explain things in a low reading level so that a variety of readers can understand his ideas. The vocabulary is simple enough that anyone will understand what he is saying, and his sentences flow well together which improves his review’s organization. For instance, in his first paragraph, he explains the context of the article, in this case the discovery of the new cells, and then lists the subsequent important events in chronological order. He then continues to develop the story step by step by explaining exactly how the cells function. The second thing Luke does well in his report is connect what he learned in the article to current times. His second paragraph is clear on how the cell process can be harnessed in the future to repair cells. He believes that with additional testing and development, humans will be able to extend their lifespans in the near future. His argument for this is convincing because his review is well grounded in the text because of many quotes that he uses. The third thing he does well is implement evidence from the article. None of his points and quotes are forced and instead fit right into his paragraphs. For instance, in his first paragraph he quotes: “ ‘It begins with a chemical signal released by the sperm, which triggers drastic changes in the egg. The protein clumps within the egg “start to dance around,” said Dr. Bohnert.’ ” The quote is very helpful and doesn’t feel like a checkmark on a box. He stays true to the article source material throughout his review well.
Although the report is generally well written, there are improvements that could be made to make it better. The first chance he could make would be to flesh out his thoughts. He has many good ideas to share that are simple and easy to understand, but never goes beyond something simple or taken from the text. This led to a lack of content to read for his review, as it might have been longer if he had fully explained his ideas. For example, looking at this second paragraph shows evidence that he had ideas for the application of the cell technology, but he didn’t expand upon him. This is a lot of missed opportunity, and he can improve next time by focusing a bit more on his second paragraph because it is the one that is the most important to connect with the reader. Fixing these minor instances of descriptiveness could really improveme the article. The second chance he could make would be to make his third paragraph more specific. It had nice flow because it continued the short and simple trend of following the general progression of the article, but this also caused it to feel more generic and empty. The words could use support from the text more. He could change this by picking out more specific quotes before he writes his review from the article, and selecting the best ones as he writes it.
This event report taught me about the the study of biology and biomimicry are still very relevant today, especially in the modern world. With a focus on healthcare and technology, it seems as if we are constantly hitting our heads on the ceiling with innovative technology that seems unbeatable. This article served as a reminder that we need to keep researching no matter how high we go, as we still have a lot more to discover and understand, and that we might one day achieve immortality once we can control our cells.
Peyton Kinon
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Current Event #9 Comment
11/28/17
Citation:
Zimmer, Carl. “Young Again: How One Cell Turns Back Time.” The New York Times, The New
York Times, 22 Nov. 2017.
Hyperlink:
www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/science/youth-cells-aging-worms.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0.
Luke did a very good job with his analysis of the article. He did a good job at pointing out what he thought was wrong and right with it. When he was describing how some of the transitions between paragraphs were clunky while others were “extremely fluid and neat”, I knew exactly how he felt and, upon reading the article, I agree with him. Luke described the chain of events that the Caenorhabditis elegans eggs go through in order to prolong their lives very well in a way which made it very easy to understand. He explained how the egg changes its acidity and interacts with lysosomes in order to flush all the damaged proteins very well without using too much scientific data. Also, Luke’s real world application of the topic is very interesting. By saying that this method of getting rid of all the damaged proteins in the germline could possibly become commercially available is very interesting. I know that a lot of people, including me, would like to have the ability to extend their lives in some way.
A couple times throughout the article, Luke’s explanations were a little confusing. For example, when he explained what a germline is, he said “Dr.Bohnert and Cynthia Kenyon reported one way of how the germline can achieve this pseudo immortality.” Luke never actually explained that the germline is somewhat immortal, he just jumps right into that topic after describing what exactly a germline is. Also, there were a couple of times throughout his article where it was a little redundant. For example, in his second paragraph, he says “It could allow humans to expand our own lives and help with longevity.” Longevity and the expansion of one’s life is the same thing, which makes the sentence a little redundant. Both of these problems could have been fixed by proofreading and editing.
I learned a lot from this article. I never knew that it was possible for an organism to be somewhat immortal. I chose this article because I thought it sounded interesting. I thought that it would be cool to read about an organism which is semi-immortal. This will greatly change my perception of life because in college or graduate school, I can study this more and possible greatly increase my life.
Ellie Parson
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
Current Events
Citations:
Zimmer, Carl. “Young Again: How One Cell Turns Back Time.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 22 Nov. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/science/youth-cells-aging-worms.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0.
Redman, Luke. “‘Young Again: How One Cell Turns Back Time.’” Review of The New York Times .
Luke Redman wrote an exceptional review on the article “Young Again: How One Cell Turns Back Time” by the New York Times author Carl Zimmer. One aspect he succeeded in can be found in his summary. Here, Luke descriptively explains the idea of the “germline,” and what scientists are doing to find out of it can reach immortality. He elaborates on the idea that the germline should be full or errors but somehow they errors are cleared in a fertilized egg, allowing readers to understand how the germline may not be inevitably doomed for mutations. Another aspect he excelled in was his critique of the article. Redman swiftly addressed what made the article hard to read, using detailed words to depict the article without quotes Although his language my seem casual, his readers will better understand what the word “choppy” means over a word such as “inclement.” Finally, Redman flourished in his review in his connection to society. He clearly connected both the possibilities of cells living a long life to humans eventually gaining this benefit, opening the eyes of readers as to how this discovery can affect them.
Although Redman’s review had many aspects well done, there were a few errors to be fixed. For example, in his connection to society Redman states “It [this treatment] affects our society for the same reason” but does not explain how a human’s ability to live longer affects our society. A solution to this would be for Redman to write a few sentences explaining the effects on society, such as the fact that more children could meet their great grandparents because they are able to live longer. Another error to be addressed can be found in his summary. Luke’s summary is close to being one-third of just quotes. At the end of his summary, he adds in a elongated quote to explain the results of the study instead of explaining it in his own words and reviewing it. To fix this issue, Luke could restate the article’s information without too many quotes by paraphrasing, writing half of a sentence himself to introduce the quote and then using a quote to finish his sentence so he can still include the study’s data.
From reading this review, I began to think about my great grandmother who lived beyond the age of 100. I can only imagine what it was like to see a century of the world, but if the data from this article is true, then living to be 100 may not be as rare as it is now. I learned that the egg of this worm has a miraculous ability to wipe itself clean of errors once a sperm is introduced, and that alone is an amazing biological phenomenon. I chose this article as it could be very telling of our future as a society and how science may be able to defy time.
Kirsten Ircha 12/6/17
ReplyDeleteAP Biology E/F Even Current Event #10
Citation:
Zimmer, Carl. “Young Again: How One Cell Turns Back Time.” The New York Times, The New
York Times, 22 Nov. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/science/youth-cells-aging-worms.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0.
My fellow colleague, Luke Redman wrote an insightful review on the article, “Young Again: How One Cell Turns Back Time.” At the beginning of the review, Luke does an amazing job of introducing his topic by providing and in depth and easy to understand summary of the subject. He does this through stating, “In theory, over millions of years, the germline should be too weak to produce healthy cells, since each generation takes on the damage from the previous generation of cells. However, on November 23rd, 2017, Dr .Bohnert and Cynthia Kenyon reported one way of how the germline can achieve this pseudo immortality, “Right before an egg is fertilized, it is swept clean of deformed proteins in a dramatic burst of housecleaning.”” By providing this information, the audience is given a good basic understanding of the scientific background in order to comprehend the rest of he review. Furthermore, Luke uses a substantial amount of well placed quotes throughout the text. This makes the review feel well supported and legitimized by scientific data collected by Dr. Bohnert and Cynthia Kenyon. Lastly, the sentence structure was greatly varied. As some sentences were short and some sentences were longer, the reader is constantly engaged with the text and does feel bored or as if the information is irrelevant. Furthermore, by using multiple sentence types, the piece appears more advanced.
Although I enjoyed the review, I feel a couple of areas could be easily improved. To begin, I feel that some parts of the piece were written with very informal language. For example Luke states, “The article was well written for the most part, although there were some areas of the text that seemed choppy and rushed.” These types of sentences make the piece feel less academic and more conversational. Since this review is an academic piece, Luke can improve on this in the future through sophisticated word choice and avoiding any form of slang. Furthermore, I feel that Luke overuses words such as “extremely” and “very”. These words are often unneeded and just serve to make his sentences more confusing. This issue can be easily solved in the future though deleting these types of words.
What shocked me most is when Luke states, “While this is in the very early stages of development, treatments based on this research could develop in the near future. It could allow humans to expand our own lives and help with longevity. This treatment will not be available in the next couple of years, but possibly in a decade. This is extremely beneficial to the human race because it allows us to live longer.” I found this so interesting as it shows how research done now could be available within coming years. Additionally this research could provide treatments to allow people to live longer, and this related directly to my lifespan. This will change my life as I am deeply interested in the topic and will follow updates on this issue in the future.