Gabriela McLain
Mr. Ippolito
AP Biology
Current Event 2
October 5th, 2020
Klingerman, Brandi. “Process for Regenerating Neurons in the Eye and Brain Identified.” ScienceDaily,
ScienceDaily, 5 Oct. 2020, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201005122142.htm.
For this current event, I decided to read Brandi Klingerman's article "Process for Regenerating Neurons in the Eye and Brain Identified." Death of neurons in the brain or the eye can cause many different neurodegenerative disorders like blindness and Parkinson's disease. This article explains that a team of researchers from the University of Notre Dame, John Hopkinds University, Ohio State University, and the University of Florida. These researchers created a study when they mapped the genes of animals that have the ability to regenerate the retinal neuron. One example of these animals is the zebrafish. When the retina of a zebrafish is damaged, cells called the Muller glia go through a process called reprogramming. During reprogramming, the Muller glia cells change their gene expression to become more like progenitor cells. Progenitor cells are cells that are used during early development of an organism. These now progenitor-like cells can become any cell necessary to fix the damaged retina. Like zebrafish, humans also have Muller glia cells but if a human retina is damaged, the Muller glia cells respond with gliosis which doesn't allow them to reprogram. After the team determined the varying animal processes for retina damage recover, they had to figure out if the process of reprogramming and gliosic were similar. The researchers ask the question "would the Muller glia follow the same path in regeneration and non-regenerating animals or would the paths be completely different?" This is an important question to ask because in order for Muller glia cells to regenerate retinal neurons in people they need to know if it would be a matter of redirecting the current Muller glia path or if it would be an entirely different process. The research team found that the regeneration process only requires an organism to revert back to its early development process. They also found that during Zebrafish regeneration, Muller glia also go through gliosis. This means that organisms that are able to regenerate retinal neurons follow a similar path to organisms that can't. The researchers were then abe to modify Zebrafish Muller glia cells into a similar state that blocked reprogramming while also having a mouse model regenerate some retinal neurons.
These discoveries are relevant to society today because they could possibly lead to scientists discovering a way to regenerate retinal neurons in the eye and brain. Able to repair retinal neurons, it is possible that scientists and researchers would be able to cure and help with disorders like blindness and Parkinson's disease. This would be a huge advancement in the medical and scientific world.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article and found it very interesting. I thought that the author did a very good job at explaining what regenerating retinal neurons means and how it is done in Zebrafish compared to humans. Although this is a complex topic, the author was clear and I was easily able to understand the topic without any previous knowledge. However, something I think that the author could improve would be to talk more about what this means for society and what are the benefits for doing this research. One way to improve this would be to maybe mention a specific person and explain what this would actually mean for people with disorders of the retinal neurons. I found this article very interesting and I believe this research will have a large impact on medicine in the future.
Klingerman, Brandi. “Process for Regenerating Neurons in the Eye and Brain Identified.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 5 Oct. 2020, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201005122142.htm.
ReplyDeleteGabriela’s review of “Process for Regenerating Neurons in the Eye and Brain Identified” was very interesting to read. One thing she did very well was explaining the context behind the study. There were many terms and concepts that required background information, and Gabriela explained and defined them in ways that made her review easy to follow. For example, she explains to the reader that Muller glia are cells that go through a process of reprogramming. Next, she defines the term reprogramming as a process where the Muller glia cells rewire their gene expression to become similar to progenitor cells. Finally, she defines progenitor cells as cells that are used in an organism’s development. These definitions and clarifications she includes allow the reader to understand the context behind the study. Without it, I would have definitely been more confused reading this review. Another thing she did very well was make a connection between zebrafish, the subject of the study, and humans. She says that humans, like zebrafish, also have Muller glia cells. However, she makes the important distinction that when humans experience retina damage, their cells respond with a different process called gliosis, which does not allow them to reprogram. This comment about humans makes the study seem more relevant because it connects back to something I am more familiar with, the anatomy of humans. It also sets up her next sentence about the scientists conducting research to see if gliosis and reprogramming are similar. Finally, a third thing Gabriela did well was explain and analyze what was in the article. She did not simply quote or recite what was in the study, but she elaborated on it to tell the reader why it was important. For example, after she tells us the research question of the study comparing gliosis and reprogramming, she says that the question they asked is important because it will help them better understand the paths of Muller glia cells in humans. With this information, they can decide whether they have to redirect the current path or do something completely different. After Gabriela’s explanation, we know why the research question is significant. Without it, the study would seem less relevant.
One thing Gabriela could have improved was explaining what gene mapping is. Since this is the method the researchers used to conduct their study, it is definitely important that the reader understands what the term means. Without this information, I was confused about how the scientists were able to make the conclusions that they did make. After looking it up on my own and researching, though, it made more sense to me immediately. I think if Gabriela explained this briefly, it would have been easier to follow the article because the reader would have greater insight into what the experiment actually consisted of. Another thing she could have improved on was explaining how gliosis and reprogramming are different. The only explanation she really gives on this subject is that gliosis does not allow cells to reprogram, while reprogramming does. However, this seems very surface-level. If she expanded on this idea by explaining what causes this difference, or what other differences exist, it would give the reader a better understanding on how the outcome of study can potentially relate to and help humans.
One thing I learned is that damage to neurons in the eyes and brain causes neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinson’s disease and blindness. I also thought it was interesting that if scientists can find a way to repair damaged retinal neurons, they can potentially help or cure these very disorders. I find this fascinating because it is such a small issue that causes these very prevalent diseases, and the fact that scientists are getting closer to curing them is incredible.
Klingerman, Brandi. “Process for Regenerating Neurons in the Eye and Brain Identified.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 5 Oct. 2020, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201005122142.htm.
ReplyDeleteGabriela’s review of “Process for Regenerating Neurons in the Eye and Brain Identified” was very interesting to read. One thing she did very well was explaining the context behind the study. There were many terms and concepts that required background information, and Gabriela explained and defined them in ways that made her review easy to follow. For example, she explains to the reader that Muller glia are cells that go through a process of reprogramming. Next, she defines the term reprogramming as a process where the Muller glia cells rewire their gene expression to become similar to progenitor cells. Finally, she defines progenitor cells as cells that are used in an organism’s development. These definitions and clarifications she includes allow the reader to understand the context behind the study. Without it, I would have definitely been more confused reading this review. Another thing she did very well was make a connection between zebrafish, the subject of the study, and humans. She says that humans, like zebrafish, also have Muller glia cells. However, she makes the important distinction that when humans experience retina damage, their cells respond with a different process called gliosis, which does not allow them to reprogram. This comment about humans makes the study seem more relevant because it connects back to something I am more familiar with, the anatomy of humans. It also sets up her next sentence about the scientists conducting research to see if gliosis and reprogramming are similar. Finally, a third thing Gabriela did well was explain and analyze what was in the article. She did not simply quote or recite what was in the study, but she elaborated on it to tell the reader why it was important. For example, after she tells us the research question of the study comparing gliosis and reprogramming, she says that the question they asked is important because it will help them better understand the paths of Muller glia cells in humans. With this information, they can decide whether they have to redirect the current path or do something completely different. After Gabriela’s explanation, we know why the research question is significant. Without it, the study would seem less relevant.
One thing Gabriela could have improved was explaining what gene mapping is. Since this is the method the researchers used to conduct their study, it is definitely important that the reader understands what the term means. Without this information, I was confused about how the scientists were able to make the conclusions that they did make. After looking it up on my own and researching, though, it made more sense to me immediately. I think if Gabriela explained this briefly, it would have been easier to follow the article because the reader would have greater insight into what the experiment actually consisted of. Another thing she could have improved on was explaining how gliosis and reprogramming are different. The only explanation she really gives on this subject is that gliosis does not allow cells to reprogram, while reprogramming does. However, this seems very surface-level. If she expanded on this idea by explaining what causes this difference, or what other differences exist, it would give the reader a better understanding on how the outcome of study can potentially relate to and help humans.
One thing I learned is that damage to neurons in the eyes and brain causes neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinson’s disease and blindness. I also thought it was interesting that if scientists can find a way to repair damaged retinal neurons, they can potentially help or cure these very disorders. I find this fascinating because it is such a small issue that causes these very prevalent diseases, and the fact that scientists are getting closer to curing them is incredible.
Emily Plaza - 3-2-1
ReplyDeleteKlingerman, Brandi. “Process for Regenerating Neurons in the Eye and Brain Identified.” ScienceDaily,
ScienceDaily, 5 Oct. 2020, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201005122142.htm.
In her review Gabriella provides commentary on the article "Process for Regenerating Neurons in the Eye and Brain Identified." The first thing I noticed that Gabriela did very well was articulating the ideas of the article in a concise and interesting manner. Gabriela chose to write on a topic that she seemed to have only a beginner's knowledge on yet something that she finds interesting, which is felt through the tone of her writing and her personal thoughts on the article. Additionally despite not having prior knowledge she was able to communicate thoroughly to the reader what the research done in the article was about, and in turn prove her new understanding of the topic. A skill that shows comprehension of new information. This can be seen when she writes, “Like zebrafish, humans also have Muller glia cells but if a human retina is damaged, the Muller glia cells respond with gliosis which doesn't allow them to reprogram.” In these lines you can see her connecting the last definitions and scientific explanations to the next portion of the research. She does this in a very comprehensible manner which helps the reader grasp the information and displays her new expertise. Lastly I think that Gabriela was very thorough in her reflection to what the author could improve on with their article. She provided solid criticism with valid solutions as well.
Gabriela’s review is very strong and has few areas that need to be improved upon. Primarily, although she does introduce the importance of this article to biology and science in the second paragraph, she could potentially expand her ideas further and cite more examples. Her paragraph is succinct with a message that is clear and logical. I believe that by including maybe a contrast to the current lack of a cure for blindness and parkinsons’ it could highlight how truly significant this research could be. Furthermore she seemed to understand the article and the research done to the point where she could have included more of her own opinion on the topic or even her stance on the importance of discovering new medical breakthroughs and innovation. She did mention how this would be extremely beneficial, but again could use supporting knowledge or even knowledge of other beneficial breakthroughs to enhance her commentary. These suggestions however are easily resolvable and potentially don’t need to be implemented any way as the review provides a factual and concise review of regenerating neurons.
I thought that this review was particularly interesting to read. I have always been fascinated by the way scientists are able to discover ways in which animals are capable of phenomenal things that the human body is not then attempting to apply it to a human. There are so many functions that animals are capable of which if harnessed could revolutionize and eradicate certain illnesses’. Thinking about this is exciting and fascinating as the medical and science world is constantly evolving. Although we have so much knowledge and information in this day and age we are constantly learning more about other species and how organisms function differently from us. It got me thinking about what the future holds for curing the currently incurable like alzheimers.