Renal function lab write-up guidance
For this practical you will be provided with the class data written up as a results section. You are required to write a methods section (250 words maximum) and discuss two aspects (2 x 250 words maximum) of the results on the write-up template document. Further guidance for each section is provided below.
METHODS
A methods section has several key aims: to document the methodology employed, to provide an indication of how data was collected (clear enough for a scientist to reproduce your experiments; replicability), and to convince readers that you were careful and systematic. All of these provide the methods with credibility, and the reader more likely to accept your results and conclusions.
To provide enough information to replicate your experiments, certain aspects are critical and must be included, others maybe irrelevant. Any part of the method that may affect the result obtained must be clearly stated, those which do not have a bearing on the results obtained should be omitted. For example, the characteristics of the experimental group may affect the results obtained and should be clearly described. Similarly, the concentration of a solution is important, whereas the volume of solution prepared isn’t relevant (for example it doesn’t it matter if you prepared 200ml or 300ml of a solution, but a concentration of 2mM or 3mM will affect results).
It is important to ensure you describe the supplier of key materials (e.g. vodka (ASDA, UK); orange squash (Robinsons, UK), and Furosemide (Pfizer Inc., UK) as well as equipment that may affect the outcome of results obtained (e.g. Model-410 Flame Photometer (Sherwood, UK)).
Methods sections are written in the past tense, describing what was performed, and in the third-person (i.e. not 1st person “I”, “we” – or 2nd person “you”, “they”).
An example of a well written and poorly written method sections are shown below:
Growth rates were determined by estimating the number of bacteria in a culture at zero time and after 1 hour of growth at 37°C. In order to make this estimation, a dilution series was performed by diluting aliquots of the bacterial culture, at each incubation time, by a factor of 10, 100, and 10 000 with nutrient broth, and each dilution plated onto quadrants of a sterile agar plate. Following one week’s incubation at 25°C, the colonies of the plate were counted manually. In this excerpt no amounts or descriptions of equipment have been included nor would they have been necessary, as someone wishing to repeat the experiment could change these and get the same result.
We did a serial dilution by pipetting 0.9 ml broth into labelled tubes, then adding 2 drops (0.1ml) of the original culture to tube 1, 2 drops of tube 1 to tube 2, 2 drops of tube 2 to 3 and 2 drops of tube 3 to tube 4. Mix the tubes and spread a loopful of each tube onto a different quadrant of a labelled agar plate. The personal pronoun we could have been avoided by using the passive voice (a serial dilution was carried out).
Keep explanations as simple as possible.
Avoid unnecessary repetition. In the present tense, this reads like an instruction, not a description of what you did. The past tense should be used (The tubes were mixed…)
(examples taken from ‘Examples of method sections’ https://unilearning.uow.edu.au/report/2biv1.html)
When using either animal or human participants it is important to state if the experiments have been ethically approved (this practical has been approved by the local ethics committee), and that human participants consented for their inclusion. It is also important to remember that the statistical analysis employed is a method that also needs stating (two-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey analysis, P<0.05 considered to be significant).
Additional information that may prove useful in relation to the participants:
Squash group
Total number = 23
Average age = 20.4 ± 1.37 (mean ± Standard Deviation)
Male: Female = 3:20
Alcohol group
Total number = 23
Average age = 20.7 ± 1.61 (mean ± Standard Deviation)
Male: Female = 15:8
Furosemide group
Total number = 21
Average age = 20.0 ± 0.949 (mean ± Standard Deviation)
Male: Female = 7:14
DISCUSSION SECTION.
The purpose of a discussion section is to explain the results obtained within the context of the experiments performed, and the wider literature. A discussion should be written in clear, simple, effective language throughout. Normally, this section will be written in three parts:
- An introductory paragraph
- Intermediate paragraphs, typically addressing each of the study’s results in turn
- A concluding paragraph
The discussion section can be the longest in a research article, but for the purpose of this write-up you are asked to address two study end-points – which would equate to two ‘intermediate’ paragraphs. You should attempt to demonstrate your understanding of kidney physiology by answering the specific questions. Additional marks will be awarded for the inclusion of relevant primary research article references (do not reference lecture notes).
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Criteria Weighting
Method: Clear concise description of the methods employed. 40%
Discussion: Simple, clear, effective explanation of the experimental results demonstrating an understanding of renal physiology. 60%
The grading criteria for each section are given in the table below. In general, your overall mark will be based on the following:
80-100% All assessment criteria have been achieved to an exceptionally high level
70-79% All assessment criteria have been achieved to a very good standard and some at an exceptionally high level
60-70% All assessment criteria have been met fully at a good or very good standard
50-59% All assessment criteria have been met, some may have been achieved at a good standard
40-49% All assessment criteria have just been met
30-39% One or more of the assessment criteria have not been met
10-29% Most of the assessment criteria have not been met
0-9% Almost none of the assessment criteria have been me
Grading criteria for BY266 Intermediate Physiology respiration practical
Marking scheme % total mark 80-100% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 30-39% 0-29%
Method
A concise description of the methods used to perform experiments, following the guidance provided 30 % Criterion is met in full and to an exceptional standard. Pertinent information is included, the presentation is of the highest quality and reflects the methods employed Criterion is met in full and to a very high standard. Pertinent information is included in a logical order, the presentation is of very high quality and reflects the methods employed
Criterion is met in full and to a good or very good standard. Any errors or inaccuracies are minor. Work is well-organised, and the presentation is of high quality. The methods employed should be well reflected, Criterion is met. No significant inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings. Work is appropriately organised, and the presentation is of good quality. The study methods may not be completely reflected. Criterion is mostly met. Some inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings. Work may lack appropriate organised and the presentation is acceptable. Aspects of the study methods should be clear – but not all. Criterion isn’t met, or significantly lacking in parts. Inaccuracies and/or misunderstanding. Work is poorly organised, typically with limited presentation quality. Study methods not reflected in the text. Criterion isn’t met. Poor presentation is likely, with a lack of content, or misrepresentation of the study methods.
Discussion text
A simple, clear, effective explanation of the results provided. Text should demonstrate a good understanding of kidney physiology underlying experimental data. 60 %
(2 x 30) Criterion is met in full and to an exceptional standard. Pertinent information is included in a logical order, the presentation is of the highest quality and discussion reflects the results. Supported by appropriate sources Criterion is met in full and to a very high standard. Pertinent information is included in a logical order, the presentation is of very high quality and discussion reflects the results
Supported by some sources Criterion is met in full and to a good or very good standard. Any errors or inaccuracies are minor. Work is well-organised, and the presentation is of high quality. The results should be well reflected in the discussion. Maybe supported by appropriate sources. Criterion is met. No significant inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings. Work is appropriately organised, and the presentation is of good quality. The study results may not be completely reflected in the discussion. Few or no external sources. Criterion is mostly met. Some inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings. Work may lack appropriate organised and the presentation is acceptable. Aspects of the results should be clearly discussed – but not all. May not have any supporting sources of information. Criterion isn’t met, or significantly lacking in parts. Inaccuracies and/or misunderstanding. Work is poorly organised, typically with limited presentation quality. Study results not reflected in the discussion. Criterion isn’t met. Poor presentation is likely, with a lack of content, or study results not reflected in the discussion text.