Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Paper 3: Major + Points

    Uploaded by

    ellorosiroco
    12 views1 page
    This paper summarizes the key points of Paper 3. The major positive points are that it used in vivo experiments with wild-type HSV-1 rather than just transfections, took multiple approaches across different cell types and species, and used animal models not just cell lines. The major negative point is that it lacked a miRNA-unspecific negative control for studying ICP0 silencing. Minor positive points included well-explained figures and a complete discussion, while minor negative points were brief figure legends and missing error bars in one figure.

    Original Description:

    paper3

    Original Title

    Paper 3

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This paper summarizes the key points of Paper 3. The major positive points are that it used in vivo experiments with wild-type HSV-1 rather than just transfections, took multiple approaches across different cell types and species, and used animal models not just cell lines. The major negative point is that it lacked a miRNA-unspecific negative control for studying ICP0 silencing. Minor positive points included well-explained figures and a complete discussion, while minor negative points were brief figure legends and missing error bars in one figure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    12 views1 page

    Paper 3: Major + Points

    Uploaded by

    ellorosiroco
    This paper summarizes the key points of Paper 3. The major positive points are that it used in vivo experiments with wild-type HSV-1 rather than just transfections, took multiple approaches across different cell types and species, and used animal models not just cell lines. The major negative point is that it lacked a miRNA-unspecific negative control for studying ICP0 silencing. Minor positive points included well-explained figures and a complete discussion, while minor negative points were brief figure legends and missing error bars in one figure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Paper 3

    Major + points
    In vivo experiments using the WT HSV-1 and not just transfections with
    ICP0
    Many different approaches for the same conclusion (e.g. many cell types
    from mouse human and rat to quantify miR-138 levels)
    Usage of animal models, not just cell lines to support their results
    Major points
    No miRNA unspecific as negative control to study silencing of ICP0.
    Maybe they should have added HSV-2 along with HSV-1 as they saw
    some possible targets for miR-138 in this virus.
    Minor + points
    Axis and conditions well explained in figures
    Parts of the paper clearly separated with subtitles what makes the text
    easy to follow
    Complete discussion of the results, even for the not so positive ones
    giving explanations or speculations of what probably have happened in the
    assays and further studies to get more insights.
    Minor points
    They could have made a graphical quantification (bar chart) of the viral
    protein expression in figure 3 to make comprehension of the results easier.
    Too short figure legends, lacking some explanations: statistical tests
    performed statistical thresholds for p values to consider a difference
    significant.
    Fig 4A No error bars for the points

    You might also like