Report write up guidelines:
Cloning Brachyurygene into pNEB193 plasmid in E. coli
Abstract
No more than 200 words.
The key to writing a good abstract is to break it down into 5 key sentences, and then use
these to structure the abstract. The sentences should contain key information
‘abstracted’ from each section of your finished report.
1. The first sentence. This should introduce the overall topic, state the problem you
tackled or the key research question you asked. Build on it, and focus on one key
question within that topic. If you can’t summarize your report into one key
question, then you don’t yet understand what you’re trying to write about! Keep
working at this step until you have a single, concise (and understandable)
question.
2. The second sentence. This should be derived from literature review/introduction.
It should summarize why nobody has adequately answered the research question
before. Your introduction will cover some/all of what’s been previously published
in the literature about this research topic. Boil this information down to one key
sentence. Don’t try to cover all the various ways in which people have tried or
even succeeded; explain how this particular research/project is unique, and is
required to fill a ‘gap’ nobody else has successfully completed yet. You can
phrase the sentence such as “previous groups have not (include your unique
research)…”.
3. The third sentence. This should come from the project experimental plan. It
should explain how you tackled the research question. What was the idea/plan?
What was the overall intention you introduced in sentence 2?
4. The fourth sentence This should also come from the results. State how you go
performed the research. What experiments did you do? This is likely to be the
longest sentence, but don’t overdo it! – still just one sentence that you could read
aloud without having to stop for breath. Remember, the word ‘abstract’ means a
summary of the main ideas with most of the minute detail left out.
5. The fifth sentence This should come from the discussion. It should state what
the key impact of the research is. This should include the the overall outcome of
the experiments but must also include a summary of the implications/conclusions
can you draw from the research. Why should other people care about your
‘result'? What could they do with this research?
Introduction
No more than 1000 words.
Your introduction must cover some/all of what’s been previously published in the
literature about the research topic. It should also give ‘background’ information on the
experimental procedures being used and a brief overview of the overall experimental
plan. The introduction MUST be correctly and well referenced with current relevant
literature from peer reviewed scientific journals. In this report you should ‘introduce’
1. Brachyury
2. Restriction digest cloning
3. Blue/white selection
Material and Methods (no mark, formative feedback only)
No more than 1000 words.
You should write up the material and methods for Week 1 Day 2: Preparation of plasmid
for restriction digest cloning
Results
No more than 2000 words.
The results should contain a number of sections, each related to a specific overall aim.
You should decide how many sections should be presented and how best to structure
and order these to enable a logical progression through, the experiments we performed,
to the final end ‘result’ we achieved.
Each section you produce must contain...
☐A short explanatory section explaining the overall aim of the procedures for the
particular result section
☐Text explaining fully processed results data for the particular result section
☐Figure(s) and/or table(s) presenting data to support the text and be referred to from
the text
The results sections MUST contain at least the following figures and tables.
Figures
1. RNA extraction figure: This figure should have 2 parts. Part A will be your data
from the group agarose gel image result of Week 1 Day 4. Part B will be an image
from the Experion data for your lane/well.
2. Plasmid and Brachyury Preparation results: This figure should have 2 parts
Figure 2(A) and (B). I have prepared an example for you in the template. Figure 2
(A) contains the image of the pBlueScriptsk+ plasmid after EcoRI digestion,
phosphatase treatment and gel purification. (B) should be your OWN set of
results from your group image. You must 'crop' this image down to include your 4
lanes: 1) theEasy ladder, 2) the Acin PCR lane, 3) the Brachyury PCR lane and
finally 4) the Brachyury PCR purified lane.
3. Colony PCR results: This figure should be your OWN set of results from your
group image. You must 'crop' this image down to include your 1 lanes: 1) the Easy
ladder, 2) colony 1 PCR, 3) colony 2 PCR 4) colony 3 PCR 5) colony 4 PCR
4. Plasmid Map figure: This will be a produced from the results of your plasmid
purification and plasmid maps for the plasmid you purified
☐Each figure must be presented on a single page, NOT within the text sections of
the results.
☐Each figure must have a suitable title (above the figure) and legend (below the
figure).
☐Legends must provide a key to the data the figure presents and note any key
points from the data.
☐Each figure must be capable of 'standing alone’ i.e. the reader should not have
to refer back to the main text for information to interpret the figure data.
Tables
These data for the tables should be fully processed from the Excel class data files NOT
just a reprint of the Excel spreadsheet.
They must contain a statistical analysis of the data (standard deviations and average)
and contain your own particular data set(s).
1. Table 1: Class plasmid preparation data from Week 1 Day 2.
2. Table 2: Class total RNA concentration data (Qubit and Experion data) and cDNA
value data.
3. Table 3: Class transformation results data.
Discussion
No more than 1000 words.
The discussion MUST be correctly and well referenced with current relevant literature
from peer reviewed scientific journals. The discussion should have 3 sections.
1. Section 1: Discuss the final results you obtained for each stage. Clearly explain
the main findings from each section and how one results section lead on to the
next, highlighting any issues that may have affected your results and/or
progression from one stage to the next stage. i.e. create a logical progression of
the ‘flow’ of the whole experiment from start to finish.
2. Section 2: You should then come to a final conclusion discussion point as to the
success or otherwise of the entire experiment. What conclusions can you draw
from the project?
3. Section 3: Finally you should discuss what would you and/or other researches
could/should do next with your findings. Include some/all of what’s been
previously published in the literature about this research topic. State what the key
impact of your results in relation to previous findings. Why should other people
care about your ‘result’ and what you or they could they do with this research.
NOTE!!
This assessment will judge the quality of the data presented; how clear and easily
interpreted are the figures and tables, the level of scientific English used in the
report and the referencing quality/quantity in the report and final bibliography.
1. Presentation quality of the data:
All figures must be presented as outlined in the guidelines and the
template document. All figures must be fully processed with key data
clearly annotated/outlined. Annotations (e.g. arrows, numbers etc)
must not obscure figure data.
2. Scientific English:
You’re writing this thesis/report for scientists, who expect to read accurate
unambiguousscientific English. Sentences like ‘the band is bright’ or ‘I
saw a fat band in the gel’ are examples of poor scientific English. Band 1
displayed a higher intensity relative to band 2, indicating it contained
a higher concentration of DNA’ is an example of higher quality scientific
English. If, for example, you can attach figures to the intensity, even
better.
3. Quality/quantity of referencing and final bibliography
For research to pass 'peer review’ and be published in a quality journal, the
paper presenting it must contain sufficient current relevant background
literature to support the experimental plan, and set the research findings
and final discussion/conclusions into context.