| What am I required to do in this assignment? |
| You will carry out two practicals. 1. In the first practical, you will use a computer software to generate and analyse data through which you can interpret how drugs and receptors interact (protocol on BREO) 2. In the second practical, you will run a SDS-gel to separate the proteins and to study biomarker discovery in human breast cancer cells (protocol on BREO) Following the practical sessions, you are expected to produce a single laboratory report based on the 2 practical sessions. The lab report should be structured like a research article in a scientific journal. The word limit of the report is 2500, excluding references. Guidance on the content of this report is given below and will be further discussed in tutorials before and after the practical |
| What do I need to do to pass? (Threshold Expectations from UIF) |
| Submission Deadline | Marks and Feedback |
| Before 10am on: 20/11/2019 |
20 working days after deadline (L4, 5 and 7) 15 working days after deadline (L6) 10 working days after deadline (block delivery) 18/12/2020 |
| Unit title & code | BHS006-6 |
| Assignment number and title | Assignment 1: Laboratory report |
| Assignment type | Written practical report |
| Weighting of assignment | 30% |
| Size or length of assessment | 2500 words |
| Unit learning outcomes | 1. Demonstrate a critical understanding of drug and receptor interaction and the underlying signalling transduction associated with mechanism of drug action, and system biology techniques applied in the drug development 2. Critically analyse and evaluate experimental data and scientific literature to understand current research advances in the area of molecular pharmacology, present and debate information clearly and effectively in the written form. |
2
| Demonstrate the skills necessary to generate, analyse and present laboratory data obtained from a practical exercise in the area of molecular pharmacology Produce a written report in the form of a scientific paper that discusses and provides critical analysis of the results of the practical sessions according to expectations described in the assignment brief. |
| How do I produce high quality work that merits a good grade? |
| In order to be awarded a good grade you should follow the following advice regarding report content. There will be 2 distinct studies to this report: 1. “Data analysis of dose-response curves using a computer software” and 2. “Biomarker discovery in human breast cancer cells”. Each practical will carry equal weight. Clarity of English language and presentation is essential throughout. Your report should consist of clearly labeled sections: Introduction (including Aims), Methods, Results, Discussion and References. There should be a single reference list section listing all references cited in both sections (practical 1 and 2) of the report. Approximate number of words suggested below is for both the practicals together. Introduction (including Aims) (approx. 600 words) The introduction should orientate your reader around your topic, providing them with the information needed to understand your whole report. It should summarise the published background literature relevant to this study. It must explain what your experimental studies were about, and place them in context of the previously published literature. It should clearly state the scientific aim of the studies. Methods (approx. 300 words, no bullet points) Describe the methods used concisely in your own words. Ensure you give sufficient detail for someone to reproduce your experiments, but avoid unnecessary detail. Methods should be described in a paragraph (no bullet points), in the past tense, using the format of scientific journals (see BREO, tutorial for examples). There is no need to restate the content of the practical protocol/handout. Results (approx.750 words, excluding legends) You must begin your results section with a paragraph to briefly recap the purpose of the experiment and state what data you will present in this section Data may be presented in text, tables, graphs, diagrams, or photographs as appropriate for your particular studies. Ensure that figures and tables are fully labeled, titled and each has a separate legend. You MUST also include text (in addition to the figure legends) in a separate paragraph to describe the data shown in each of your figures/tables. Create professional quality graphs/tables using Excel or similar program (no hand drawn figures please). Results should describe your findings/observations and may state brief conclusions. However, do not interpret the meaning of findings in this section. Discussion (approx. 750 words) In this section you should: Explain your data and interpret your results in relation to the experimental aim and hypothesis tested (if any) |
3
| Critically evaluate the quality of your data and reliability of the experimental technique. You should identify any problems with the technique or data and suggest possible improvements. You should compare your findings to previously published findings or your expected findings, and should place your results in the context of published scientific literature. References should be cited in appropriate places and be included in the reference list. Discuss how and why the assay you performed or similar assays are used in research, industry etc. Are there alternative assays/techniques? References list/Bibilography There should be a SINGLE reference list listing all references cited. You should include peer-reviewed scientific journal articles or textbooks as sources. Cite all sources of information at appropriate points within the text. In-text citations and the reference list should be formatted according to the UoB Harvard format which is described in detail here: https://lrweb.beds.ac.uk/a-guide-to-referencing/) You MUST NOT copy any text from any sources, even if you cite the source – you must write about what you have read in your own words. – this is very important. Students are reminded of their responsibilities concerning academic integrity and that plagiarism (the use of others’ words, published or unpublished, and failing to acknowledge the influence of another’s work or attribute quotes to the author) is a serious academic offence. This is an individual assessment, so collusion is also an academic offence. Appendix: (if any) Your appendix, if any, should contain your raw data only. This information should be presented as a table, titled and fully labeled Support: Support for this assessment will be given through a briefing tutorial before the start of the practical. During the practical class further individual support will be available from the academic and technical support staff. Additional details of practical protocols and briefing notes are available through the BREO. General writing support is available centrally through StudyHub as well as the communication skills classes. The text book Knisely (2017) “A student handbook for writing in biology” Fifth edition (ISBN: 9781319121815; http://library.beds.ac.uk/record=b1606656~S20), and the associated companion web site (https://knisely5e.sinauer.com/), are also highly recommended resources to help guide students in preparing practical report. |
| How does this assignment relate to what we are doing in scheduled sessions? |
| The assessment report will document the findings of two different practical sessions and communicate their significance. The assessment will provide you with the opportunity to demonstrate a sound understanding and knowledge of principles of drug receptor interactions, SDS gel electrophoresis and importance of biomarkers covered in the relevant lectures of the unit. |
4
| How will my assignment be marked? |
| Your assignment will be marked according to the threshold expectations and the criteria on the following page. You can use them to evaluate your own work and consider your grade before you submit. |
| Pass – 40-49% | Pass – 50-59% | Commendation – 60-69% | Distinction– 70%+ | |
| Quality of understanding and analysis of scientific principles and knowledge base (20%) |
Satisfactory levels of understanding of the scientific principles and knowledge base with some inaccuracies. Adequate review of relevant literature, though some omissions or tangents. Superficial attempt to relate work to broader context and explain aim and approach. |
Good understanding of the scientific principles and knowledge base. Sufficient review of relevant literature. A reasonable attempt to relate work to broader context and explain aim and approach. |
Commendable level of understanding of the scientific principles and knowledge base. Appropriate review of relevant literature. Highly competent attempt to relate work to the most relevant features of the broader context and define the experimental aim. |
A comprehensive understanding of the scientific principles and knowledge base. Detailed and focused review of previously published literature. Broader context of work clearly described. Experimental aim and approach accurately defined. |
| Data handling and presentation (40%) |
Data analysis is mostly correct with few errors or omissions. Clarity and quality of presentation are barely sufficient. Some attempt is given to explain what is being presented. |
Data analysis is correct. Presentation is generally clear and appropriate. A reasonable attempt to explain what is being presented. |
Data analysis is correct and complete. Presentation is clear, appropriate and suitable for arguments. Well-structured explanations of what is presented. |
Data analysis is accurate, thorough and complete. Presentation is exemplary reflecting professional norms. Clear explanation of what is presented is given. |
| Critical evaluation and discussion (30%) |
Acceptable evidence of reflection or evaluation of scientific approach though at times a little shallow. The work is largely descriptive with some but limited interpretation and critical evaluation of data. Demonstrates some ability to discuss links between the current scientific thought and the work in hand, but it is rather superficial. |
Evidence of reflection and evaluation of scientific problem and approach. Sound interpretation and critical evaluation of the data. Reasonable connections discussed between subject matter and current scientific thought. |
Evidence of high quality reflection and evaluation of scientific problem and approach. Appropriate interpretation and critical evaluation of the data. Plentiful connections discussed between subject matter and current scientific thought. |
Demonstrates a well developed ability to evaluate scientific problems and to discuss clear evaluative links between the current scientific thought and the work in hand. Shows deep interpretation and critical evaluation of the data. |
5
| Written expression and structure. (5%) |
Written expression uses simple syntax and contains some grammatical and spelling errors. Some parts of the work are disorganized. |
Written expression is generally clear and arguments can be followed without undue difficulty. The work is suitably structured. |
Written expression is clear and precise and supports well the development of the argument. The work is logically structured. |
Written expression is clear, precise and concise. Arguments are put forward succinctly and the structure of the report is well planned, well-thought out and logical. |
| Use of literature and referencing. (5%) |
Limited range of relevant reference sources, or limited range of literature cited. Use of UoB Harvard referencing format with a few errors. Omissions in citations within text of report. |
A reasonable range of literature accessed. In text citations are used appropriately and UoB Harvard format is generally used correctly. |
A significant range of primary sources is accessed including important primary sources. Correct UoB Harvard formatting of citations. |
A wide range of primary sources is accessed. Correct UoB Harvard formatting of citations and reference list used throughout. |