# data[].attributes.body
I have more or less managed to figure out everything to do with the discussion, the only thing confusing me is this question;

"In this ELISA you coated the wells of the microplate strip with an antigen. What was the antigen and how many different epitopes where present?"
I am just wondering how to actually figure out the level of autoantibodies in the results?

# data[].attributes.body
1) For the results analysis section I have included points about precision and accuracy. I have also included points about negative results may be given if there is insufficient incubation time and too much washing? Is this correct?
As well as mentioning about the observation method not being as accurate as it is qualitative data and based on opinion- is this relevant, or should I remove it?
Answer
In regards to ‘possible’ insufficient incubation time and too much washing, this isn’t ‘Results analysis’ it’s discussion, as you cannot identify exactly what any potential influences thes3 may or may not have had.

2) Additionally, on evernote, there are points to include in the discussion. If I have already included them elsewhere, do they still need mentioning in the discussion?
Answer
See above. Also consider what is a result, ie data, and what could have influenced the data - discussion. If there is no doubt, ie you forgot to add reagent perhaps, to one well, that is a fact that should be given in the results and taken into account in results analysis. The influence of this ‘result’ on the interpretation of the final conclusions validity is discussion.
Finally marks will be gained for including correct interpretation. Marks will also be gained for correct/logical
placement of the interpretation ie in results or discussion

# data[].attributes.body
Question
1) If the absorbance readings falls outside of the mean +/- the standard deviation, does this mean that the difference is significant?
2) Does this also mean that the result is inaccurate?
3) Should all the figures and tables be on 1 page at the end of the report?

Answer
1) It is likely significant. To ‘confirm’ would/could do a Students T-Test comparison between the 2 sets of 3 repeats for samples A and B

2) If the procedure was performed correctly, and you are confident with the controls, level of precision etc then you can assume it is an ‘Accurate’ result. The best way to judge this would be to compare with other sets of ‘correctly performed and precise’ data sets. If they agree, then you can be more confident it is ‘repeatable’ and accurate.

3) The design of the layout is up to you. This is part of the assessment marking.

# data[].attributes.body
In regards to the table you provided showing the Laboratory reference value ranges, should we include the table in our report or just state if the values obtained are positive or negative.
If we are to include the table  would we reference you as the author to avoid plagiarism?

Answer - Yes include the graph and table. This isn't plagirism. Determine and state the clinical value number, at a minimum for samples A and B, not +ive or -ive

# data[].attributes.body
I was just looking through some of the Evernote attachments and I was wondering if we had to work out the results like how they are displayed in this attachment?  If so what do we use as the calibrator?

Or if we just compare the absorbance to the reference ranges to determine if there was a flare?

Answer
HI. In our study the clinical value calibration curve is the 'calibrator' and is utilised for 'semi quantitative determination' of the level of auto antibodies. The scales are positive, (red on the scale, not given in IU/mL but as a 'number'), Intermediate (yellow) and negative (green). Hope this helps

# data[].attributes.body
I am trying to write part 2 of the introduction but I'm having trouble finding the three tests you mentioned in the Tutorial. I have looked through lecture 6. It mentions ANA testing, anti-dsDNA autoantibody testing and anti-SM antibod. Are these the three tests?

If you review lecture 6 you should note all the tests discussed detect autoantibodies - which include ANA, anti-Sm and anti-dsDNA.

Section 2 asks for the main 3 types of methods that detect autoantibodies, which are - indirect IF, using HEp2 cells or Crithidia - (anti-dsDNA), ELISA and occasionally Western blot based tests. These are the ones you should research and introduce - ELISA last of course as that will then lead into section 3

# data[].attributes.body
the clinical analysis of results section has bands that don't meet and my mean values fall between the coloured sections do i assume that it belongs to the upper or lower band?

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question. However, I've made a figure which will hopefully address what I think the main thrust of your question is
I've also put this figure in the Practical class results Evernote page

Click to view

# data[].attributes.body
I was just doing some research around HIV pathogenesis and came across an article which describes the use of the viral Nef protein to decrease the number of TCRs expressed on the cell surface, including CD4. The article then goes on to describe how this feature of Nef allows the infected CD4 cells to evade detection by CD8 cells

I figured it out. The lack of presentation of MHC-peptide complexes would lead to recognition as non self. Sorry to waste your time, thank you anyway

Well done it looks like you’ve figured it out, and not a waste of time at all. Reduction in expression of MHC on the cell-surface, leads to activation of natural killer cells (NK). It’s the NK cells that would like to be the main eliminators of the infected cells.

A good review about NK cells in cancer
Nair, S., and Dhodapkar, M.V. (2017). Natural Killer T Cells in Cancer Immunotherapy. Front Immunol 8, 1178.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2017.01178

# data[].attributes.headline
Mutation of Thymus proteasome component predisposes to colorectal cancer 

# data[].attributes.subject
Mutation of Thymus proteasome component predisposes to colorectal cancer 

# data[].attributes.body
Brisson, L., Pouyet, L., N’guessan, P., Garcia, S., Lopes, N., Warcollier, G., Iovanna, J.L., and Carrier, A. (2015). The Thymus-Specific Serine Protease TSSP/PRSS16 Is Crucial for the Antitumoral Role of CD4+ T Cells. Cell Reports 10, 39–46.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2014.12.009

# data[].attributes.body
Hello all

For those who may be interested, below is the citation for the paper that presents intriguing data indicating a potential use of antibodies, generated in cows, for treatment of HIV in humans

Sok, D., Le, K. M., Vadnais, M., Saye-Francisco, K. L., Jardine, J. G., Torres, J. L., et al. (2017). Rapid elicitation of broadly neutralizing antibodies to HIV by immunization in cows. Nature, 548(7665), 108–111.

http://doi.org/10.1038/nature23301