1. The first article I read was an overview article which looked like it might have been written for a popular weekly magazine-type audience; the article discussed the promising attributes of stem cell research and how they might be used to develop into cells a damaged body is deficient in--if only they weren't rejected by the host. The second article particularly discussed Hematopoietic Stem Cells (HSCs) which have been widely researched and observed to develop, when properly stimulated, into a number of various body cells. The final article I read was an in depth journal article which used flow cytometry and other staining methods to determine which of a multivariable collection of HSC types could survive in various regions of a host mouse and for how long.
2. These readings varied quite dramatically in terms of accessibility for me--ranging from overly simplified (and quite appreciated) background information, to the journal article on HSC that I found barely comprehensible. The biggest challenge in reading the article was all of the abbreviations which the authors assumed the readers to be well versed in. I am afraid that to really comprehend what was being said I would have needed to go out and read five more articles explaining the origin of such terms as the c-kit+ (K) lineage -/lo--what the heck does this mean?
3. I found the "Biological Perspectives" article particularly interesting, and enjoyed the level of detail it went into (too little, too much, juuuust right). I like the idea that "niches" along the surface of the cells which HSCs interact with could have a hand in determining those HSCs ultimate identity. I also found the work done in the FLK-2 journal article to determine which stem cells lasted for how long and tying these lifetimes down to particular markers very cool.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment