8 thoughts on “D2 – Sanders-Demott

    1. These actually were not our initial compounds of choice. The ones we chose (Avastin and Zelpolib) got delayed in shipping and these were suggested by Dr. Harvey as a similar, available alternative although Zelpolib is not an FDA approved chemotherapy and would have been really interesting to do research on a newer drug and a drug that is extremely effective yet also extremely toxic (Avastin).

    1. Our plan, time allowing, was to redo the experiments with higher dosages, broader range of dosages, a definitive number of larvae introduced into the test vials and controlled method of integration of the drugs into the fly food.

  1. What do you think were the shortcomings in your method and how do you think these affected your results?

    1. It was multifaceted. The Number of larvae introduced into each test vial was estimated and not controlled. Additionally the quantification only accounted for pupa on the sides of the vials and neglected those that never made it out of the fly food.

  2. Very cool! Could you explain how altering the feeding methods will improve your future results?

    1. Our thought process was this may or may not have been a factor. The feeding method was not consistent, meaning that when the drug was introduced into the vials, it was introduced when the food was at different levels of setting and either introduced on top of the food or stirred into it. Our belief is that more reliable results would come from consistent integration of the drug into the food.

Leave a Reply