Subacute Necrotizing Encephalomyelopathy and MT-CO1
Scientific Article
| mutation_in_taco1_encoding_a_translational_acivator_of_cox_1_results_in_cytochrome_c_oxidase_deficiency_and_late-onset_leigh_syndrome.pdf |
Popular Press Article
There is a plethera of methods in which the public is able to obtain information from around the world (ex. newspapers, journals, television, films, internet, blogs, to name a few). Each have their own advantages and disadvantages that ultimately lead to their selection. For example, a journals concise manner make them hard to read for the general public, while they are a great resource to divulge a lot of information quickly to researchers. Newspapers are valuable in giving a glimpse of the occurrences around the world, while it only depicts a vague description of each event.
The scientific journal written by the Shoubridge Lab explained a case finding in the Montreal Neurological Institute in Canada. The patient presented with a decreased expression of Cytochrome c Oxidase, due to the decreased rate of synthesis of its subunit 1. The cox 1 synthesis defect was not due to a decreased amount of mRNA, but a mutated transcriptional factor linked to chromosome 17q. The chromosome 17q transfected treatments were completely recovered. The isolation of the CCDC44 gene renamed TACO1, on chromosome 17q was then identified as a mitochondrial matrix protein and a transcriptional activator of COX1.
The journal did a great job expressing their results in figures. This was immense help to those who understood the process and could analyze the findings on their own. There was however, a large amount of acronyms that made the reader stumble at some points. This will not doubt be a much smoother read with more education. The focus on the methods and materials were necessary to other researchers in the field, however, were quite confusing for the general public.
The popular press article was collected from Science Daily. It's purpose was to inform the public on the new findings made in the understanding of SNEM: in this case a genetic cause of SNEM.
The article jumps quickly into the possible future applications of the study completed by the . It suggests "development of diagnostic and predictive tests" to offer genetic counseling for families. This seems very preemptive, however, is the only real application to the public. Due to this reason it was most likely placed at the fore-front of the article.
Secondly, the article explaines in vauge detail the cause of SNEM. The very minimal detail leaves more to be desired. This paragraph made quick but efficient use of text in order to teach the public. Most Importantly, the article informed patients of the early symptoms of SNEM. This gives the readers the ability to pick out symptoms of children and others around them that suspect a health issue. It would have been a benefit to the readers to give information on who they should contact in case of their suspisions (their primary care physician, a hot-line).
After the preliminary paragraphs are complete and the background information was established, quotes were taken from Dr. Shoubridge. The quotes pertain to a vague biological rationale that led the Shoubridge team to undertake the study. Due to the lack of background information presented earlier in the article, this was kept simple, and does not transition well into the next paragraph.
Quotes from Dr. Shoubridge were then used to concisely explain the findings of the study. This summary was extremely short and did not seem to do justice to the amount of effort put into the publication. This may be expected, but was woe-fully inadequate for an article claiming to be focused on the new scientific findings.
Finally, the article focused on the future studies made possible by the current findings that the Shoubridge Lab will undergo.
The differing media in which the articles presented information, and who they targeted changed the focus of the articles. This makes them remarkably hard to compare on with equal parameters. The scientific article was supremely written for those in the educated club of researchers, however would have failed from confusion in the general public's hand. The newspaper article succeeded informing the public of the highlights of the findings, but was primarily useless in a scientific setting. However, together, knowledge is pursed and spread for all of those to understand.
The scientific journal written by the Shoubridge Lab explained a case finding in the Montreal Neurological Institute in Canada. The patient presented with a decreased expression of Cytochrome c Oxidase, due to the decreased rate of synthesis of its subunit 1. The cox 1 synthesis defect was not due to a decreased amount of mRNA, but a mutated transcriptional factor linked to chromosome 17q. The chromosome 17q transfected treatments were completely recovered. The isolation of the CCDC44 gene renamed TACO1, on chromosome 17q was then identified as a mitochondrial matrix protein and a transcriptional activator of COX1.
The journal did a great job expressing their results in figures. This was immense help to those who understood the process and could analyze the findings on their own. There was however, a large amount of acronyms that made the reader stumble at some points. This will not doubt be a much smoother read with more education. The focus on the methods and materials were necessary to other researchers in the field, however, were quite confusing for the general public.
The popular press article was collected from Science Daily. It's purpose was to inform the public on the new findings made in the understanding of SNEM: in this case a genetic cause of SNEM.
The article jumps quickly into the possible future applications of the study completed by the . It suggests "development of diagnostic and predictive tests" to offer genetic counseling for families. This seems very preemptive, however, is the only real application to the public. Due to this reason it was most likely placed at the fore-front of the article.
Secondly, the article explaines in vauge detail the cause of SNEM. The very minimal detail leaves more to be desired. This paragraph made quick but efficient use of text in order to teach the public. Most Importantly, the article informed patients of the early symptoms of SNEM. This gives the readers the ability to pick out symptoms of children and others around them that suspect a health issue. It would have been a benefit to the readers to give information on who they should contact in case of their suspisions (their primary care physician, a hot-line).
After the preliminary paragraphs are complete and the background information was established, quotes were taken from Dr. Shoubridge. The quotes pertain to a vague biological rationale that led the Shoubridge team to undertake the study. Due to the lack of background information presented earlier in the article, this was kept simple, and does not transition well into the next paragraph.
Quotes from Dr. Shoubridge were then used to concisely explain the findings of the study. This summary was extremely short and did not seem to do justice to the amount of effort put into the publication. This may be expected, but was woe-fully inadequate for an article claiming to be focused on the new scientific findings.
Finally, the article focused on the future studies made possible by the current findings that the Shoubridge Lab will undergo.
The differing media in which the articles presented information, and who they targeted changed the focus of the articles. This makes them remarkably hard to compare on with equal parameters. The scientific article was supremely written for those in the educated club of researchers, however would have failed from confusion in the general public's hand. The newspaper article succeeded informing the public of the highlights of the findings, but was primarily useless in a scientific setting. However, together, knowledge is pursed and spread for all of those to understand.
