The scientific article I read this week was concerned with a protein which scientists have recently discovered to be an important aspect of the reproduction of mosquitoes. Mosquitoes, though they are not dangerous on their own, act as vectors for extremely dangerous diseases such as malaria, zika, dengue, and west nile virus. Because of this potential for infection, scientists have been working on a way to reduce the mosquito populations who spread these diseases and therefore reduce the frequency of these diseases. The study found that a certain protein, Eggshell Organizing Factor 1, which is found in the eggshells of mosquito eggs, is vital to the survival of the embryos within the eggshell. In fact, the researchers found that almost none of the embryos within eggshells that lacked the EOF1 protein survived into larvae, suggesting that the protein is essential to the development of the embryo. EOF1 is produced only by the species Aedes, Anopheles, and Culex, all of which are vectors for extremely deadly and widespread diseases. If this protein could be disabled through genetic engineering, it would be an effective way to control the populations of certain mosquito species.
Scientists hope to use this information to genetically engineer genes to control the populations of dangerous species of mosquito. Mosquitos transmit some of the deadliest viruses in the world, and because of their mobility and the size of their population, there is endless opportunity for them to spread disease. If a way can be found to control the populations of disease-spreading mosquitoes, we may be able to prevent the spreading of these diseases further. This would halt the progression of deadly diseases and save many lives, especially in areas where the disease is difficult to treat due to lack of resources or materials. While in western countries we may think of mosquitoes as simply a nuisance, the fact is that diseases which are treatable here can be deadly in countries with less resources, leading to a prevalence of these diseases among those in less developed countries. This new discovery could help to end the higher prevalence of these diseases in certain areas.
Overall, I thought that this article provided an interesting insight into a possible solution to a huge problem in our society. Though the article was short, I thought that it provided sufficient evidence of the claim it was making, and made the implications of their discovery very clear. I do think that the writer could have spoken more on how this technique may be used in the future, as well as its possible effect on those affected by mosquito-transmitted diseases.
Sunday Ladas
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology C EVEN
16 January 2019
Saey, Tina Hesman. “A Protein in Mosquito Eggshells Could Be the
Insects' Achilles' Heel.” Science News, 8 Jan. 2019,
www.sciencenews.org/article/protein-mosquito-eggshells-could-be-insect-achilles-heel?tgt=nr.
I thought that Anna did a very good job writing about this current event. To begin, I thought the beginning paragraph had a really energetic and exciting to it. I thought that she did a really good job in writing with energy. I thought that she also did an exceptional analyzing the writers writing style. I thought that she brought up many points about how the author made it the article easy to read for her. She then followed her statement by providing examples as to how the author made it reader friendly. I thought that was a very interesting observation and point. Lastly, I thought that it was really interesting how she incorporated rhetorical questions into the passage. I felt like the rhetorical questions made the passage a little more captivating.
Anna does a really good job throughout the article analyzing and writing facts however, I felt that she could have had a more captivating introduction. I thought that as a whole the introduction paragraph was captivating however I feel like she needed the passage to be more intriguing in the beginning rather than at the end of the paragraph. Even though starting with a summary is a good way to explain the he article, I feel like it is not the most effective way to introduce a topic. I also felt that she could have elaborated more on the article. Her description of the article was brief and to the point however, I felt she could have added a little more to really help the reader understand the main idea of the article.
I thought that this was a very intriguing topic and a very prominent topic in today’s society. I thought that it was a very interesting discovery in science that is not something write about. I thought that the fact that a protein in a mosquito could potentially be their achilles heel. What if that protein could potentially be in our bodies as well. I thought that is was fascinating how a protein could be an achilles heel in a mosquito but could also be something different in the human body. I think that this discovery can be pulled in many different directions and I think that it will be very interesting to see where this topic goes.
Anabel Maldonado
ReplyDeleteCurrent Event #13
Ippolito C Even
January 16th, 2019
Saey, Tina Hesman. “A Protein in Mosquito Eggshells Could Be the Insects' Achilles' Heel.” Science News, 8 Jan. 2019, www.sciencenews.org/article/protein-mosquito-eggshells-could-be-insect-achilles-heel?tgt=nr.
Anna’s review was very intriguing for me. Sometimes, critics leave out information simply because they think their audience already knows it. Yet, Anna was very successful when explaining all of the terms and their roles in our lives - such as EOFI and mosquitos. For instance, she stated and then defined these terms when stating, “The study found that a certain protein, Eggshell Organizing Factor 1, which is found in the eggshells of mosquito eggs, is vital to the survival of the embryos within the eggshell.” Another thing that Anna succeeded with was when she explained possible solutions. Many forget to mention the solutions and trials that are occurring through the experiment. However, unlike most, Anna explained multiple solutions in a concise and simple way. Lastly, I think she really thrived when speaking about the impact this topic has in our lives. She spoke about a new and relevant issue - which myself and I’m assuming many of my classmates have not heard about. By explaining the issue and solution with passion, she illustrated the importance and effects this dilemma forms. She clearly states the importance this has on our society, but also the impact for our future.
Though, there is some room for improvement. If she personalized her writing a bit more, this review would have been perfect! In order to do so, she could have included answers to questions such as: Why did I choose this article? Did I know about this blood test before reading? In addition, I think Anna’s review would have been perfect if she cited her current event using EasyBib. If she were to include the MLA citation, her readers would have felt more secure about where the information was coming from. In addition, her source would receive#13 full acknowledgement. Other than these minor issues, her review would have been flawless!
This article was very interesting for me! I usually critique reviews that speak about climate change… yet this was a intriguing change for me! I have never heard of this problem and the effects of this dilemma are tragic. However, Anna stated “This new discovery could help to end the higher prevalence of these diseases in certain areas.” Alongside others, I am eager to help make a change.
Anna Normand summarizes the article quite well. For example, Normand gave the context right at the beginning as to what types of mosquitoes would die off as a result of the EOF 1 protein being destroyed in the eggs: the ones that cause terrible diseases such as malaria and Zika. She knew the audience would be more inclined to read the article if they knew immediately that breaking eggshells may be a way to prevent such diseases, as much as calling the mosquitoes “bloodsuckers” is a witty attention grabber. Another tactic Normand used to keep her summary concise and powerful was to leave out all of the less interesting facts about the egg color, leakiness, and bumps on the eggs that were different between the normal eggs and those lacking in EOF 1 - she only included the fact that so few of the embryos survived to produce larvae as a result of depriving the eggs of this one protein. Furthermore, Normand’s insight in her “impact” paragraph raised an astute point not made in the article: disabling this one chemical may be a much more simple and affordable method for treating these diseases, which are found mostly in countries that lack the expensive and complex technologies we have in the West that make mosquitoes not a nuisance here. This will heighten the readers’ interest, as they will be wondering if such an affordable yet simple method of disease control is too good to be true.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this review is well-written, there are a couple of very minor improvements that could be made: the first half of the “impact” paragraph does not touch on the affordability point: it simply states that mosquitoes are good at spreading diseases and that scientists are trying to prevent the disease by controlling mosquito populations. While the “size and mobility” point is good for explaining part of what makes them more dangerous, it is already obvious to the reader at this point that the scientists intend to prevent disease/control populations through genetic engineering thanks to the summary. A better way of opening this paragraph would be to first maybe explain just how scary diseases like Zika and the West Nile virus are based on what they do, and then state how furthermore they spread like wildfire due to mosquitoes being such good vectors. This would make for a paragraph rich in Normand’s own knowledge/insight/background research of the topic as well as one that resonates with the reader. Lastly, although Normand’s summary is quite powerful starting with the second sentence; unfortunately, the first sentence dilutes the whole part somewhat because first impressions are important. Just saying “a protein concerned with reproduction in mosquitoes” is not a shocking attention grabber - readers will have no idea why that matters, so they already lose much of their desire to power through. On the other hand, saying that disabling one protein before mosquitoes are even born could prevent Zika, as well as others, would immediately hook readers’ curiosity.
For me, this article reinforced an important concept in the scientific process: check everything. While so many methods for disease prevention and cure involve handling the disease itself and its spread, it is harder sometimes to not think beyond this narrow lense to everything about the life processes of a vector; however, it turns out that checking even areas that seem only loosely related to the disease itself such as the development of mosquito embryos was immensely important in this case. This reminded me of the discovery of DNA being the inherited material instead of proteins: only those who were scrupulous enough to not rule it out and compare it to proteins in experiments (ie Hershey and Chase) caught the reality of DNA that lead to modern day genetics. By checking the more esoteric egg and embryo development of vectors, could one protein be the equivalent of the discovery of DNA in disease prevention? As I intend to pursue a career in science, the “check everything” philosophy will be immensely important to consider when deciding what to study.