SeminarPoster peer-review guidelines
My expectations are relatively straight forward. Take a very close look at 3 the posters you’re assigned.
Create a single Word document with reviews of all 3 posters. For each poster, include all of the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
the poster’s number
feedback on the introduction
feedback on the methods
feedback on the results
feedback on the discussion and
feedback on everything else (other minor components, overall design, and/or quality
and function of other text and images)
Although it’s useful to comment on things the author is doing well, perhaps it’s more useful to be
critical. If you find yourself struggling to write critical feedback, review: documents I’ve shared via
Moodle, Pechenik, and any other reliable sources you find online. Consider whether each section is
clear, concise, informative and precise. Are there gaps in the intro that, if filled, would help you better
understand why the hypothesis is a good one to test? Do you understand what they did to test their
hypothesis? Are the results clearly and concisely communicated? Does the discussion help you
understand what the results mean, why we should interpret them with caution, and which research
projects would be logical next steps?
Effects of Repetitive Mild Brain Injury on Alzheimer’s
Disease Progression in Model Mice
Results
Introduction
• Each year millions of Americans are diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The CDC
estimates that there are currently 6.2 million people in the united states who likely have
the disease yet have gone undiagnosed due to a lack in detectability.
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
• AD has many risk factors that adversely add to the complications already associated
with AD’s mental degradation. These risk factors include high blood pressure, high
cholesterol, type 2 diabetes and erratic body weight and It is ranked the number 5 killer
of people over the age of 65 (“Alzheimer’s Disease and Healthy Aging 2019”)
• The biochemical presence of AD shows itself in patients as two well known parts called
neuritic plaques and neurofibrillary tangles.
• The observations have been linked with increased cases of these observed changes in
brain chemistry through amyloid-𝜷 plaque and its mis-cleave its precursor protein.
• This accumulation cause degradation of memory classically associated with AD.
It suspected from prior research that four traits were important to express the
progression of AD in cases of TBIs in lab mice were listed below.
• Locomotive ability
• Olfactory function
• Epileptic activity
• Blood-based lipid biomarkers (Serotonin levels)
These suspected indicators were observed to see if the mice had
• Mice at the Wilkes Facility were induced with Alzheimer’s Disease (Neonatal
brain injection of viral injection which induces Alzheimer’s) within 24 hours of
their birth. 2µL of either adeno-associated viruses; AAV1, AAV2, AAV9 was
injected into the mice’s brain at this time.
• Groups were identified and isolated with specific age ranges as: juvenile (3-8
weeks old) and mature (2 months – 1.5 years old)
Figure 1 showcases the HIC scores for mice over 6 months old and Figure 2
expresses the HIC mice between 7 to 12 months old, for both the Wild Type and AD
group before and after their TBI.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
• Each of the age groups were isolated into either a 1x traumatic brain injury
(TBI) or a 3x TBI group to describe the number of induced traumatic injury
cases induced by researchers.
• Over a 3-month period each of the sorted groups, juvenile 1x TBI, juvenile 3x,
mature 1x TBI and, mature 3x TBI were tested to determine the physical output
of each specimen.
• The testing was ordered such that each group received a TBI the first week
of experimentation, then the 3x TBI received an additional 2 TBIs each 30
days apart and observed after said TBI.
Purpose
The purpose of the project was to better understand the clinical of diagnostics and
perpetuation between Alzheimer’s Disease and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI).This was
conducted to use a TBI model of to AD model mice and observe different indicators for the
progression of the disease.
Methods
• The research conduced four major tests to track the four different
indicators of AD
Figure 3 displays the average SHIRPA scores for mice over 6 months old and Figure
4 shows the average SHIRPA mice between 7 to 12 months old, for both the Wild
Type and AD group before and after their TBI.
Figure 3. This bar graph represents
the acquisitioned data for the
olfactory Buried Pellet test.
Hypothesis
In procedure we had hypothesized that the usual Alzheimer’s disease progression and
symptoms will be associated with an increased severity of positive symptoms which include
seizure activity, then with negative symptoms with locomotion, olfactory function, and plod
plasma serotonin levels when compared to the Wild type genetic variation of the tested
mice.
Acknowledgments
Figure 4. The graph showcases the
concentration of plasma
phospholipids for mice less than 6
months old, before and after TBI.
Discussion
We believe that the results of the data provide enough statistical evidence to suggest
that the early detection of AD could be diagnosed with the tests highlighted. The early
diagnoses for AD patients is crucial to medical guidance of those afflicted.
Further Research could be conducted to determine the change in these
Musculo/conative tests under the conditions of pharmaceuticals in attempts to mitigate the
astounding mental and physical degradation.
The procedure for the experimentation could have been improved by creating a better
procedure to conduct the buried pellet test. The test was set such that the pellet was placed
in the same position rather than randomizing its placement perhaps altering results.
Effects of endophyte infected tall fescue grasses on herbaceous plants
Introduction:
Results:
• Allelopathy is the natural occurrence where one plant releases
a substance which inhibits or stimulates the growth of other
nearby plants.7
• Allelopathy significantly affects the growth, dominance,
succession, and formation of plant communities.7
• Endophytes are parasitic and mutualistic fungi that live
intercellularly within the tissues of their host.4
• Tall Fescue (Festuca arundinacea (Schreb.)) is a polyploid,
perennial, cool-season grass 3. It is native to Eurasia and North
Africa but is a prevalent in North America after it was widely
planted as a forage grass in the 1940s.2, 6
• A large percentage of fescue is often infected by the endophyte,
Epichloë coenophiala.1 The fungus grows intercellularly in the
meristems on the epidermis of fescue leaf sheath.1
• The fungal infection is mutualistic; the fungi survive by
absorbing nutrients produced by the grass and the fungi
produce metabolites which improves the growth, increases the
competitiveness, and increases the adaptability of the tall
fescue grass.6,7
• Previous research suggests that endophyte infected tall fescue
(E+) can inhibit the germination and growth of neighboring
plants including several herbaceous plants and hardwood
species. The allelopathic ability is thought to be caused by
bioactive secondary metabolites produced by the fungus and
grass.4
• The purpose of this experiment is to determine if E+ tall fescue
leaves affect the germination and inhibit growth of several
herbaceous plants: pale dock, rattlebox, and showy tick trefoil.
• We hypothesized that plants would produce less biomass and
shorter root length when exposed to E+ extract or E+ plant
materials.
E+ and E- extracts:
•
•
Root length was lower for lyreleaf sage and pale dock exposed
to E+ extract. Root length was increased for rattlebox and
showy tick-trefoil.
Increased root length was observed for all species exposed to
E- extract.
E+ and E- plant material on soil surface:
Figure 3: The mean (+/- 1 sd) root biomass of species from
laboratory experiment when grown with minced tall fescue
leaves present on soil surface in 3 conditions: E+, E-, control. *
indicates a statistically significant difference. Root biomass of was
lower for pale dock and showy tick-trefoil in both experimental
conditions. E+ material reduced the root biomass more than Ematerial.
Discussion:
•
Figure 1: The mean (+/- 1 sd) root length of species from
laboratory experiment when grown with minced tall fescue leaves
present on soil surface in 3 conditions: E+, E-, control (no plant
material on surface). * indicates a statistically significant
difference. Root length of E+ exposed pale dock and showy ticktrefoil was decreased.
Methods:
•
•
•
We conducted 2 experiments to measure the effects of E+ and
E- tall fescue on herbaceous plants:
E+ and E- extracts:
• Exposed 20 seeds of pale dock, rattlebox, and showy ticktrefoil to whole leaf E+ and E- extracts (7/08mg/mL).
• Grown with 5 mL of extract in petri dishes with three filter
papers under 12 hr of light for 7-14 days. Root lengths
measured.
E+ and E- plant material on soil surface:
• Grew 10 seeds of pale dock, rattlebox, and showy tick-trefoil in
Stuewe and Sons Inc. ‘cone-tainers’.
• Minced E+ or E- plant material on soil surfacre
• Growth in greenhouse (63-70°F, 50-70% humidity, average
10 hr of daylight) for 36 days. Obtained root length, dry total
biomass, root biomass, shoot biomass.
• We performed one-way ANOVA with results
•
Patterns in results suggest possible allelopathic effects but the
lack of statistically significant results make it difficult
to determine if E+ grass negatively affected the growth.
Variable results in allelopathy studies of E. coenophiala
infected grasses have been previously observed (Hager et al.
2021).
Further studies should include a larger number of replicates
and additional plant species.
The use of minced E+ and E- material should not be used in
further studies, as this is unlikely to occur naturally and thus
does not provide realistic results. The control group for this
experiment did not have any material on the soil surface,
which may be a confounding factor which makes drawing
definitive conclusions from the control more difficult.
Acknowledgments:
I would like to thank Biology department for the funding, facility, and
support needed to conduct this research.
References:
Figure 2: The mean (+/- 1 sd) biomass of species from laboratory
experiment when grown with minced tall fescue leaves present on
soil surface in 3 conditions: E+, E-, control. * indicates a
statistically significant difference. Total biomass of E+ and Eexposed pale dock and showy tick-trefoil was decreased. The E+
matieral had a greater effect than E-.
1. Azevedo MD, Welty RE. 1995. A Study of the Fungal Endophyte Acremonium coenophialum in the Roots of Tall Fescue Seedlings.
Mycologia. 87(3):289–297.
2. Ball D, Lacefield GD, Hoveland CS. The Tall Fescue Endophyte. :7.
3. Barnes RF. 1990. Importance and Problems of Tall Fescue. In: Biotechnology in Tall Fescue Improvement. CRC Press. 12 p.
4. Buta JG, Spaulding DW. 1989. Allelochemicals in tall fescue-abscisic and phenolic acids. J Chem Ecol. 15(5):1629–1636.
5. Clay K. 1988. Fungal Endophytes of Grasses: A Defensive Mutualism between Plants and Fungi. Ecology. 69(1):10–16.
6. Guo J, McCulley RL, McNear DH. 2015. Tall fescue cultivar and fungal endophyte combinations influence plant growth and root
exudate composition. Frontiers in Plant Science. 6.
7. Hill NS, Belesky DP, Stringer WC. 1991. Competitiveness of Tall Fescue as Influenced by Acremonium coenophialum. Crop Science.
31(1)
8. Reigosa Roger MJ, Pedrol N, González L, editors. 2006. Allelopathy: a physiological process with ecological implications. Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer.
Presenter: ___________________________________
Evaluator: ___________________________________
Topic: ________________________________________________________________________
Results:
Methods:
Introduction:
Poster Info:
Subtotal
Mastery
5
Skilled
4
Title conveys economically &
exactly the main thrust of the
work. Names & affiliations
included. Acknowledgements
detailed & funding sources
identified.
Title appropriate & descriptive
of the work. Names &
affiliations included.
Acknowledgements lacking
some detail
13-14
11-12
9-10
0-8
Purpose & background
present but lacking some
detail necessary for a
complete understanding of
the project.
Hypotheses/objectives are
stated but do not fully
test/address the project goals.
Purpose & background
present but lacking the detail
necessary to determine the
reason for the investigation.
Hypothesis/objectives present
but not clearly articulated &
are not suitable for addressing
the goals.
Purpose & background poorly
articulated, no justification,
and/or no
hypotheses/statement of
objectives.
10-11
9
7-8
0-6
Concisely/economically
explained but detailed so that
the reader can reconstruct
how the work was conducted.
The procedure is ideal for
answering the investigation
question.
Some detail is missing but the
reader can appreciate how
the experiment/investigation
was conducted.
Details are missing causing the
reader to question how the
experiment/investigation was
conducted, but can deduce
the proper sequence. Aspects
of procedure do not
appropriately address
experimental question.
14-15
12-13
9-11
Clear & concise description
supported with figures and/or
tables. Figures & tables of
appropriate type for data, &
formatted correctly (heading,
error bars, legend, etc.).
Captions accurately explain
fig./table. If used, stats
accurately address the
question & correctly
presented.
Description clear but missing
minor points. Figures/tables
are appropriate type but have
minor formatting issues. Some
missing caption information.
Statistics address the question
& are correctly presented.
Description intelligible but
lacking in detail. Some figures
& tables not appropriate &
captions missing key
information. Statistics mostly
address the question & are
presented reasonably.
A clearly articulated purpose
supplying background &
justification for the project.
Hypotheses/objectives are
stated & accurately address
the goals of the
experiment/investigation.
Adequate
3
Title addresses work but
vague & inefficient. Names &
affiliations included but
missing detail.
Acknowledgements lacking
detail.
Inadequate
1-2
Title unclear and/or does not
reflect the work presented
(possibly disingenuous).
Contact information not
present or poorly written.
Acknowledgements not
present.
Numerous gaps in detail, the
reader cannot understand
how the experiment was
conducted and/or the
procedure does not address
the experimental question.
0-8
Description missing major
points. Figures & tables are
inappropriate and/or missing
significant caption detail.
Statistical analyses do not
address question & not
presented correctly.
Comments
Presenter: ___________________________________
Evaluator: ___________________________________
Topic: ________________________________________________________________________
Mastery
18-20
Clear/concise & correct
interpretation of results with
logical inferences that are
supported by data. Results
interpreted/synthesized in the
context of background &
previous analyses. Future
directions discussed. If
appropriate, experimental
flaws & negative results
explained.
Skilled
16-17
Clear & mostly correct
interpretation of results with
sound inferences that are
supported by data. Results
related to background &
previous analyses. Future
directions mentioned. If
appropriate, experimental
flaws mentioned &
explanation of negative
results attempted.
Adequate
12-15
Intelligible interpretation of
results but inferences are
superficial & some may not
follow from data. Some
attempt at interpretation in
the context of background &
previous analyses. Future
directions not discussed.
Inadequate
0-11
Unclear prose with
Interpretations that do not
follow from results or data.
Little to no interpretation in
the context of background &
previous analyses. Future
directions not discussed. No
attempt at addressing flaws or
negative results.
12-13
9-11
0-8
Text of appropriate detail with
minimal formatting,
grammatical, & spelling
errors. Text visible from 4’
away. Visuals designed well
with minimal formatting
errors. Visuals support the
text.
Text detail not sufficient.
Several text formatting,
grammatical, & spelling errors
are present. Text visible.
Visuals ok with some
formatting errors. Visuals
mostly support the text.
Substantial detail missing.
Text formatting, grammatical,
& spelling errors throughout.
Text visibility compromised.
Visuals poorly designed
and/or numerous formatting
errors. Some may have no
relevance to text.
Quality; Text/Visuals:
14-15
Text formatting (ex. citations,
figure referrals) consistent
throughout & visible from 4’
away. Text of appropriate
detail with no grammatical or
spelling errors. Visuals have
clear role in supporting text.
18-20
16-17
12-15
0-11
Defense of Poster
Discussion & Conclusions:
Subtotal
Speaking voice clear with no
hesitation in relaying material.
Has a concise & practiced
strategy for presenting
material. Shows expert
command of material &
defines technical terms if
used. Answers all questions
correctly & completely.
Understands the
context/significance of their
work.
Speaking voice clear with little
hesitation. Has a presentation
strategy. Shows command of
material & defines technical
terms if used. Answers all
questions adequately.
Understands basic
context/significance of their
work.
Speaking voice low &
indistinct. Hesitation present
when relaying information.
Presentation has some
strategy (i.e. reading the
poster & rehashing its
format). Knows enough of the
project to relay the thrust of
the work. Answers some of
the questions correctly &
others inadequately, has
difficult time with
context/significance.
Poor speaking voice.
Hesitation & uncertainty
when relaying information.
Presentation w/ little to no
strategy. (i.e. Jumps from one
aspect to another w/o
connection; reading poster).
Shows little understanding of
project & purpose for the
work. Answers questions
inadequately, has no
command of
context/significance.
Total
Comments
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
