Nina Veru
AP Bio, C-odd
Current Event 23
4/30/18
“Forty-Four Genomic Variants Linked to Major Depression.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 26 Apr. 2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180426130031.htm.
In an article I found on Sciencedaily.com, I learned that there has been 44 genomic variants associated with depression. Throughout this study, scientists discovered 30 new and 14 previously identified loci. In addition, 153 significant genes proved that “major depression shared six loci that are also associated with schizophrenia.”
Two hundred scientist participated in this study from all other the world that work with the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. The studies co-leaders include Dr. Patrick F. Sullivan of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine and Dr. Naomi Wray of the University of Queensland in Australia. Sullivan claims that this study is a “game changer” because “figuring out the genetic basis of major depression has been really hard.” What makes this study so reliable is the fact that a variety of scientists across the globe have contributed. Although life experiences are the largest factor in depression, Wray claims that “identifying the genetic factors opens new doors for research into the biological drivers.”
According to Dr. Josh Gordon of the NIH, the study is important because it shows how essential large scale collaboration is when conducting scientific studies. In addition, the study shows great importance because depression impacts many people and is considered one of the world’s most pressing health problems. Doctors believe that insight into the genetics of depression will enable researchers to develop more beneficial treatments. The study can be used to target antidepressant medications to each individual. In addition, the study showed that the genetic basis of depression correlates with other psychiatric illnesses, such as bipolar disorder and insomnia.
Overall, I think this study is extremely important due to the prevalence of depression in our society. This study is definitely reliable due to the many contributors. I liked how the article mentioned the amount of contributors several times to show the study’s accuracy. In addition, I liked how the article contained many quotes and opinions from numerous scientists. However, the article could have benefited from identifying some of the illnesses mentioned, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
Abbey Thomas
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
30 April 2018
“Forty-Four Genomic Variants Linked to Major Depression.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 26 Apr. 2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180426130031.htm.
For current event 23, I reviewed Nina’s response to “Forty Four Genomic Variants Linked to Major Depression” from Science Daily. One thing Nina did well was include quotes from researchers and experts on the topic, and gives her response credentials and helps the readers see what is happening from the point of view of the people who are apart of the study. Another thing Nina did well was connect this study on depression to another topic, schizophrenia. And by doing so she helps the reader understand how important this discovery is, since it affects more than one condition. The last thing that Nina did well was analyze if the article was reliable or not, and she did this by researching the people mentioned and quoted in the article.
While there were many aspects of Nina’s current event that were good, there are some parts that can be improved. For example, she could have included more critiques and areas of improvement when analyzing the article. Another thing she could have done was include what the next step in the study will be.
One thing I learned from Nina’s response was that there are genetic variations that contribute to both depression and schizophrenia. Overall, Nina wrote a detailed current event that helped the readers understand the importance of genetic research.
Isabella Dibbini
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
April 30, 2018
“Forty-Four Genomic Variants Linked to Major Depression.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 26 Apr. 2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180426130031.htm.
Nina wrote an excellent review on the article: “Forty-Four Genomic Variants Linked to Major Depression” from the online news source Science Daily. She developed a great summary and included quotes to support her arguments. For example, she quotes “figuring out the genetic basis of major depression has been really hard.” Nina also brings up previous research, which helps her address the main ideas of this article. Lastly, she does a good job of including detail.
Overall, this review is extremely well written, however, there are a few small things that would make it even better. For instance, Nina could incorporate even more detail and quotes into her review to make her argument more compelling. Also, if she wanted to make her article even more interesting, she could include outside research to support her ideas.
After reading Nina’s review of the article “Forty-Four Genomic Variants Linked to Major Depression” from the online news source Science Daily, I learned that research conducted in the past is extremely important for studying new topics in the present or even in the future. Overall, I really enjoyed reading this review believe that Nina did a great job.
Jack Kochansky
ReplyDeleteAP Biology EF Even
Mr. Ippolito
29 April 2018
Forty-Four Genomic Variants Linked to Major Depression
By University of North Carolina Health Care
Reviewed by Nina Veru
“Forty-Four Genomic Variants Linked to Major Depression.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 26 Apr. 2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180426130031.htm.
This week, I decided to review my classmate Nina’s current events review. She did a great job and chose a very relevant article that concerned an issue that affects so many people today. First of all, Nina’s choice of a credible and relevant article was very well done, which made this interesting to read and learn about. She also included several useful details that added to the credibility of her review, such as the names of doctors and specific facts, such as the identities of some of the gene loci that are linked to depression. Finally, Nina did a good job expressing the importance of this finding for the medical community and for those affected by depression.
However, there were a couple of things upon which Nina could have improved. For example, she did not include many quotes, and adding a few more might have benefited the current events response. She had one or two along with facts, but more might have added to the credibility. She also could have gone into a little more detail in her critique paragraph, which only includes one suggestion for improvement. Overall though, Nina did a great job with this current events review.
This current events review was very interesting to read because it concerns a very relevant issue, and scientists had never previously been able to identify the genes behind depression. I never knew that there could be such a definitive genetic link that could be isolated from other genes, and this helped me to realize that for just about every part of a person, both nature and nurture play a part. Even when a biomedical issue seems too difficult to tackle, our own advancements and discoveries often surprise us.
Kunzang Namgyal
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology EF-even
30 April 2018
“Forty-Four Genomic Variants Linked to Major Depression.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 26 Apr. 2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180426130031.htm.
This week I read my classmate Nina’s review on the article “Forty-Four Genomic Variants Linked to Major Depression.” This article highlighted a study in which over two hundred scientists participated in through the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, in which these scientists discover “30 new and 14 previously identified loci” that are associated with major Depression. Nina did a good job of establishing the studies credibility by highlighting the lead scientists, “Dr. Patrick F. Sullivan of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine and Dr. Naomi Wray of the University of Queensland in Australia.” By giving the lead scientists’ credentials, the reader is assured that this study is credible. Nina also did a very good job of relating this article to her audience, explaining that "the study shows great importance because depression impacts many people and is considered one of the world’s most pressing health problems,” and this study could help find more efficient cures. Nina also used statistics when describing the different loci this study discovered, which provides readers with relevant specifics.
Although Nina’s review was quite comprehensive, there were a few areas in which she could improve. There were a few places in her review in which she made spelling and grammatical errors, and to fix this Nina could carefully reread her work before submission. I also believe that readers would have benefitted from a more in depth description of the study, as Nina only listed and analyzed the study’s findings without explaining to the reader the process used in the study.
One interesting fact I learned from Nina’s review is that a huge number of scientists are able to successfully collaborate on a study. This massive collaboration would not be surprising if it were multiple scientists working together on text-based research, however they were performing an interactive study, so it is astonishing that so many were able to contribute without creating disorder.