Review Article Discussion Worksheet
The goals of this worksheet are many-fold and include:
-helping you focus your reading so you can get the most out of these articles
-encouraging your critical thinking and analysis skills
-aiding you in reflecting on the process of scientific writing, thus helping you become a better writer
Complete this worksheet before lab and sign the pledge below that this assignment consists exclusively of your own work. Answers should typed (feel free to use additional pages as needed), should consist of full and complete sentences, and should be in your own words. During our discussion, you should take additional notes by hand.
I, _______________________, pledge that this assignment consists exclusively of my own work.
Sign here: ________________________________________ Date:_______________________
I. “Yeast and drug discovery” by T.R. Hughes
1. When well written, review articles should achieve several key goals, including definition of key terms and explanation of the significance of the research being summarized.
A. Does the author (Hughes) do an adequate job of defining key terms? Briefly justify your answer.
B. List key terms that need further explanation.
C. How might you use this article as a springboard for explaining the significance of yeast as a model organism to a non-scientist? Write a brief “elevator pitch” (http://www.businessweek.com/careers/content/jun2007/ca20070618_134959.htm) for yeast in the space below.
2. Quickly read through pages 78-83 of your textbook (starting with “Is There a Model Eukaryotic Genome?”; feel free to skip the Discovery Questions). Based on what you have read, if Hughes (the author of this review article) and Campbell and Heyer (the authors of your textbook) got together for a beer, would they agree with each other regarding the utility of yeast as a model organism or would things dissolve into a barroom brawl? Briefly justify your answer.
3. Briefly compare and contrast the two phenotype-based screening approaches described in this article. Which strategy might you apply to better understand the mechanism of action of KP019? Could this same strategy be used to identify off-targets of KP1019? Briefly justify your answers, and be sure to integrate a definition of the term “off-target”.
II. “From bench to bedside – preclinical and early clinical development of the anticancer agent KP1019” by Hartinger et al.
4. When well written, review articles should achieve several key goals, including definition of key terms and explanation of the significance of the research being summarized.
A. Do the authors (Hartinger et al.) do an adequate job of defining key terms? Briefly justify your answer.
B. List key terms that need further explanation.
C. Use one word to summarize the significance of the research reviewed in this article.
5. In the Phase I clinical trial summarized in this article, no dose-limiting toxicity was observed for KP1019. What feature(s) of KP1019 allow it to specifically target cancer cells, thus minimizing the damage to normal cells?
6. According to Hartinger et al., how is KP1019 imported into cells? How might you go about determining whether this uptake pathway exists in yeast? (hint: think bioinformatics!)
III. Integration of the Hartinger et al. and Hughes articles
7. Figure 1 in the Hughes article highlights the functional classes of genes that are conserved between yeast and humans. Which of the biological processes associated with these functional classes are most likely to be impacted by KP1019? Briefly explain how you arrived at your answer.
8. Use the space below to reflect on both articles. Were they well-written? Was the flow of this article logical and easy to follow? Was one article “better” than the other? Why or why not?