Technical note. An “immunoblot” or “Western Blot” is a method for characterising a particular protein that reacts specifically with a particular antibody. In the method, a protein mixture is applied to a lane a few mm. wide (like a straight running track) in a suitable electrophoresis gel and separated according to molecular size. The electrophoresis is stopped, and the proteins are collected in the pattern that they have formed on the gel by blotting them to a sheet of appropriately treated “paper” to which they tightly bind. Antibodies can be applied to the “paper”, and the reacting proteins defined by the specific antibodies can be revealed by an immunochemical staining method. The size can be calibrated against known standards.
[The fact that in the Korth et al paper immunoblotting
yields multiple bands (usually three) rather than one need not be taken into account].
1)
Read the abstracts, then answer all these questions
a)
Summarise EACH Abstract/Summary in your own words in
no more than four sentences
b) Imagine you are Carsten Korth. Write one paragraph to a medical science
journalist of a serious national newspaper outlining the clinical relevance of
your observations, as you would wish them to be reported to the general public.
c) Write one sentence for each of the
following to show that you understand their meaning as they are used in the
papers: (i) epidemic (ii) prion
(iii) spongiform (iv) ascertainment (v) blood-brain
barrier (vi) tricyclic.
2)
Read the relevant parts of the papers, then answer all these questions
a) Identify the part of EACH paper
that presents the data that underpin the central claim each paper makes. Justify your choice in no more than three
sentences for EACH paper.
b) Comment critically on those data,
in EACH paper, for example by reference to the magnitude of the phenomena, to
the measures of variance, to other ways that the data might have been presented,
or any other aspect. Write about two or
three paragraphs on this, for EACH paper.
c) Choose ONE of the papers. Write down the assumptions that the authors
make, whether explicitly or implicitly, when they interpret the data in their
paper. Comment on whether you think
these assumptions are reasonable.
Identify two references that the authors cite in their bibliography that
you feel you would need to look up; give reasons for your choice.
3)
For ONE of the papers suggest
a) a testable hypothesis derived from
the observations. State this clearly in
one sentence.
b) an experimental
approach that would in your view be a sensible follow-up. The approach you suggest should test the
hypothesis as rigorously as possible.
Include the design principles of this approach.
Will RG, Ironside JW, et al. (1996). "A new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the
Korth C, May BC, et al. (2001). "Acridine and phenothiazine
derivatives as pharmacotherapeutics for prion disease."
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98(17): 9836-9841
mjaw
4.ix.2002