BIOL 252 University of Massachusetts Boston Gel Electrophonic Lab Report

  • Post category:Nursing
  • Reading time:7 mins read
  • Post author:

BIOL 252 University of Massachusetts Boston Gel Electrophonic Lab Report

Description

Nursing homework help

 

For each gel picture, make a figure caption and legend, so you can refer to them in the text. The order of the lanes is the same as the examples in lab, and as given in the manual. (A key is provided below for reference.)

First, briefly describe the appearance of the gel. Where do you see bands? What size are they? Are they bright or faint? (e.g. “Lane 2, the known male, shows a bright band of about 750 bp…”)

For the discussion, you should analyze each gel picture they way we did in lab. What conclusions can you draw from the gel? How confident are you about these conclusions?

In addition to the main goal of this experiment (what was it?), this experiment is intended to get you thinking critically about experimental control and troubleshooting. In order to reach any conclusion based on a gel, you have to look at all the controls that were part of this experiment. Each part of the experiment had controls, which allow you to narrow down where possible error had occurred. Before you dive into analyzing the gel pictures, discuss what each of these controls was and how you can use them to tell whether each part of the experiment worked as expected or not. Where (which lanes and what size) would you expect to see amplified bands on a gel if everything worked as expected?

Specifically, your discussion should address the following: How can you tell whether the DNA extraction worked? Which controls were in place for this step? How can you tell whether the PCR worked as expected? Which controls were used for this step? How can you tell whether the gel electrophoresis worked well? What were the controls for this step? As you address each gel picture, discuss your interpretation of the controls.

Finally, address any specific issues that came up in your group’s experiment (remember you had to take careful notes during the experiments) and how it might have affected the results. For example: Did any of your samples look different or not as expected during weeks 1 and 2? Did you run out of any of the reagents? Did you have to redo anything? Were pipetting errors involved? Don’t just list mistakes, but rather, think about and discuss the possible effects of each.

Give a brief concluding statement. What does this lab demonstrate overall?

  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

 

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

 

Supported by at least three credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

 

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

 

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Post is cited with two credible sources.

 

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Contains some APA formatting errors.

0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

 

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

 

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Contains only one or no credible sources.

 

Not written clearly or concisely.

 

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Main Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Posts main post by day 3.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not post by day 3.

First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 12 (12%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 11 (11%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Total Points: 100