The study was conducted by Adam D. Lietzan, Subhanshu Kumar, Martin St. Maurice and Ann L. Menefee of Marquette University, Tonya N. Zeczycki and W. Wallace Cleland of Univesity of Wisconsin, Paul V. Attwood of University of Western Australia and John C. Wallace of the University of Adelaide. It is about the observed interaction of the biotin carboxyl carrier domain and the biotin carboxylase domain in pyruvic carboxylase from rhizobium etli. This particular study sprouted from the previous studies involving pyruvate carboxylase in rhizobium etli.
Although not explicitly stated, the study provided a rationale on why the study being conducted. As can be implied from the paper, the study was conducted to search for knowledge on the activity of the domains of pyruvic carboxylase. The study aimed to capture an informative picture on the Rhozobium etli pyruvic carboxylase (RePC). Understanding better the activities inside the pyruvic carboxylase will give us a better understanding on its effect to our anabolic processes especially in gluconeogenesis and its effect on the glucose mediated insulin release in pancreas will have a medical significance in a very near future.
The study found several things and can be considered as advancements in knowledge in this area. One thing is that while acetyl-CoA is bound exclusively to the top face of the tetramer, the BCCP domains with tethered biotin are disordered on the top face and are observed exclusively on the bottom faces of the tetramers. Although both faces of tetramer are asymmetrical, they are both capable of catalyzing pyruvate carboxylation. In addition that study also found out that the current structure reveals that there is no direct correlation between Coenzyme-A binding and the relative positioning of neighboring catalytic domains in RePC, this is contrary to the results of previous studies. This is can be considered an advancement in science.
Although excellent and informative, the title does not much elicit interest from the audience. The title may include some words that are more appealing to common people. Although I completely understand that it is a scientific paper and it is intended only for people in the field, making it more appealing to common students will not impede its purpose to deliver and discuss research results. The title can be added with a subtitle, “A Scientific Breakthrough”.
I do not see much related literatures but the authors have listed lot of reading materials as references. I should say that I do not grasp the relation of the present study with the past results. It might be stated somewhere in the article but I did not see it. Further, the author should have presented the results of previous studies related to the study and what the study is aiming for. Through this, the reader can easily make connections and follow the course of discussion of what the study is all about.
In any study, the purpose why the study was conducted or in what rationale that this study was conducted should be stated in the introductory part. By this, the reader can easily know as to for whom or what the study for. Moreover, putting the purpose in the introductory part will set the mood of anyone who reads it. It will make the paper appear as with sense to the reader. This also strengthens the situation that there is a need for the conduct of the study. In this part, I think, on my professional and objective judgment, the paper fails. It does not strengthened or laid out that the present situation calls for the study to be conducted.
Methods per se, I would give a high five to the researchers since they have explained the process of their study. Each step is clearly defined. However, some steps can be taken to improve the study. The researcher could have used more sophisticated technologies in data extraction since the results of any research depends on the data extracted from the samples. Further, the statistical treatment of the data were not disclose to the reader, thus I am going to suggest that any statistical treatment of the data would be disclose in the paper in order to understand how the data were analyzed and for checking and verifying purposes as well.
As to the explanation on how the experiment went on, I think that the paper is beyond question. But, there must be a better way on how the experiment conducted. Example of this is the use of more modern gadget in analyzing the result and in capturing the actual interaction in each scenario.
As we can see in the study that the linearity of what the study wanted to achieve and what the study did is present. We would say that the methods employed matched on what the study hoped to realized. However, their method is out of questions since the study did not laid out what their objectives are.
Benefit from Our Service: Save 25% Along with the first order offer - 15% discount, you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
We would say that the conclusions made by the researchers were very congruent with what they have presented. They objectively based their conclusion on the result and just on what they want to conclude. I honestly cannot give further conclusion in addition to what the researchers presented.
I see a very good future for this study. First, this study must be replicated to establish the reliability of the results. Replication of the experiments is usually done to establish the validity of the research results. During the replication, the same methods will be employed. Nothing should change. This is to assure that the results can be used to compare with the previous result. If validity is established, then a research of bigger scope and bigger budget can be conducted. This is for the purpose of enhancing the experiment and putting it to higher level. Here, some alterations can be done. Maybe, a study with more controls can be done or a study using high powered equipment can be realized in order to find more knowledge in this area.
Moreover, the study can be elevated to more sophisticated research that will involve medical application of the findings. In this way, the result will be very more beneficial and practical. The common people can enjoy the results of the study since it is something that they can use. I would like to believe that studies and researches were done for the humanity and not only for the sake of knowledge. Thus, its application must be done in order for the public to utilize it.
In addition to that, the research can pave the way to more researches of the same kind. This can be illustrated like a tree with many branches. The study can branch many more studies focusing to one variable and control employing different methodologies to validate results of the previous studies.
On my professional and objective point of view and on the scale of 10 I would rate the paper 7.5. The strengths of the paper is that it is breakthrough. It found things that were not found in the previous studies. The 2.5 imperfections lies on the format of the paper, its clarity and all. Nevertheless, the paper is quiet good.