14 thoughts on “D96 – Waikar

    1. Yeah the error bars were definitely larger than we had hooped for. This was mostly due to the fact that we only had enough time to do two replicates. As the error bars represent the standard deviation, having only two replicates meant that the standard deviation was quite large.

    1. While it doesn’t impact the research, the standard deviation does mean that the data that we showcased may not necessarily represent the effects of Clofazimine on the survival of Drosophila. To remedy this, we would need to run many more replicates.

  1. Great presentation and poster – well done! You mentioned creating a dose response protocol in your future directions section. What does this look like? (i.e. how would this protocol be implemented)?

    1. To implement the expanded dose response protocol, we would have to create new solutions that ranged in concentrations between 1M and much lower than 0.125M. Once we had these solutions prepared we could test the doses in the fly food (the effective dose in the fly food is always going to be 1000x less than the actual solution concentration).

  2. Great poster and presentation – well done! In the future directions section, you mentioned creating a dose-response protocol. What does this look like (i.e. what are some of the specific steps in this protocol)?

  3. Is it common when exploring new chemotherapeutic to see it behave like a poison or is this a result just found in your experiment?

    1. I’d say that the most common outcome when testing new potential chemotherapeutics is for there to be no significant effect. The interesting part comes into play when there is an effect, are the Drosophila dying because the compound targets a pathway critical to tumor genesis, or are they just dying because the compound is super toxic. I’d imagine that it’s probably more common for a compound to be a potential toxin than it is for it to be a chemotherapeutic.

  4. Great job! Why do you think the standard deviation was so large for some data points and so small for others? Do you think you could have improved your methods to prevent this, or was it the nature of the experiment?

    1. Yeah the error bars were definitely larger than we had hoped for. This was mostly due to the fact that we only had enough time to do two replicates. As the error bars represent the standard deviation, having only two replicates meant that the standard deviation was quite large. So I guess it was more to do with the time constraints we had than the nature of the experiment or protocol.

  5. How does the cellular composition of your model organism model head and neck tumors?

    1. To my knowledge, it is to do with how many undifferentiated cells the third instar larvae contain. This ultimately allows them to undergo the rapid growth and differentiation that we see as a hallmark of cancerous tumors.

Leave a Reply