Computer generated transcript

Warning!
The following transcript was generated automatically from the content and has not been checked or corrected manually.

moral principles and maybe general me out and stuff we could help you on. Okay, um, if there's just any random tips, then I don't have anything specific to ask. It's fine. When you announced us No, I was on the court less. Hi. How are you? Um, nervous about this? I see. It's a chunky one. It is a really chunky one. Sorry. And it's worth combined. I see it one and I see two and a bit more. So it is understandably very stressful. Um, but we all get through it, If that's of any reassurance. Did you have any questions specifically, like, I think, at least for us. Um, Irwin and Murphy said that the data, like the actual data like crunching the data is it's basically the difficult part. It's a data interpretation, but I'm not necessarily sure how much how many sessions you've had on the data interpretation where they're really expecting us to go. And I feel like it varies some topic to topic. I'm not sure if that's a question. Have you guys been given the data? We've been given, like a formative, which was, uh, the I say from two years ago but we've started it. I think the feedback session will be useful, but okay, Yeah, just wait until the feedback session. And also it will vary, but I think like the actual Yeah, that's completely right. I think the actual stats that we had to do was fine. There was just a lot of it, like the the amount of data we had last year was like, ridiculously, it was a lot, but the actual stats was really straightforward. And I'm and that's coming from me like I'm so terrible at maths. So hopefully that's reassuring. But it's the interpretation, especially if you've got a lot of data and then you don't have so many words to talk about everything. So you've really got to think about what's important to like the story that you're trying to tell, because I think in real life research as well you might end up doing a lot of experiments, but not end up talking about all of them, um, in your paper. So it's worth thinking about Yeah, I think I see a three. Ben can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think who's gone now? But the most important thing was the story. Basically, um, just making sure that the data supports what you're saying and you don't say that it is more than what it actually is. Because that's one thing that I definitely fell on because I was made a couple of insinuations which were feeble at best. But I was I sounded maybe a bit too confident and that this is what it was suggesting because realistically, it wasn't. And you have to be very clear about the limitations of your data. So I would say that was like, the biggest pitfall that I came across. So it's something for you guys to consider when you're doing a formative and also your final one. Mhm bad. I still can't hear you. I'm so sorry. Okay. So sorry. Um, yeah. Oh, I just have another question. Just, like, kind of building off what you said. Um, Owen said that some of the data that we might be given it won't always necessarily fit the previous literature. But how are we supposed if we do give our opinion on that? How are we supposed to, like strike the balance of saying that? Oh, this is different. And this is our reason why we think it might be different versus like going beyond what the data is actually saying, Yeah, that's a very good point. Um Mm. It's just about making sure that you're not so, for example, it's all in the wording. I think as well a lot of it. So you can like, suggest that this is possibly what's going on. You have to be very clear about the fact that it's it's like going against existing literature, and if you're able to come up with reasons why it might be, um then that's fine. But if you're like if you think that your methodology doesn't have a lot of like strength to it or if there needs to be more mechanistic studies to support that, then you also have to be then clear that it insinuates this. But more work needs to be done. I think they'll make up quite clear if you see the data that they give you as well, it's like they'll make it so that the stats are so obvious. But if it's significant and they don't want to be, um, like, uh, obscure about it, they'll make it so that the P value is like 0.9. but if they want to maybe, like, challenge your thinking about specific thing, it'll probably be like maybe 0.6 and then they'll want to see how you sort of handle that. If that makes sense, going to ask once more. Can you hear me? Yes. So I'm just going to jump back to High ing's previous point about the kind of the assumptions. So what she said is definitely really important. Don't say this means this because they they're only going to give you some data. So obviously they're looking for why you did it. And looking at these different things, they don't mind jumps, but you just can't say that. It has to mean that you have to kind of, like, postulate towards it. Um, so one thing that I got quite a few marks on was like managing to link all of the different. So we had a couple of genes, a couple of like energy expenditure kind of categories and, like I came up with, like, a novel way of linking it all, and they really, really like that in mind, but you have to say, Oh, it's all potential. It's not. This means this. And they did slave me in one of my earlier experiments for saying it means this. So that's really, really important. Like saying from our results, it could mean this, as opposed to being like this obviously means this. Sorry, that was a really worthy way of saying it, but that makes sense. But do you want to share? We could both share hours, and they can see how. Actually, there's quite a bit of a difference in how people might present their work as well. Your You like how you decide, Like quite what order you decide to. I think I'm right. Or maybe not order. But like what sections? You include what we're so everyone will have a different kind of structure. The experiments were given to us in a order, so let me know if you can see my screen in a sec. You see it now? Yeah. Cool. All right. This is mine. Can you still see it? Yeah. Um, so we'll talk about abstract and lay summary in a little bit, but we kind of We were told to do it. The results compendium manner um, so obviously discussing your results from the experiments and they're kind of the reasons for why did the experiments and the kind of explanations of the results after, Um so that's just the general introduction as to why we're looking at it, including hypothesis, which I'm sure will have. It's basically a learning point that need to have, um this was just one looking at the dose of are kind of I think it was an It was an agonist, um, looking how it monitored food intake. So basically saying that G 88 which is a glucagon an analog, does actually decrease your food intake more, you give it. So it's just basically proving that are our analog does work and the way we think it will, so you'll get something similar. I think the year before was actually had 21 they had, like, a very similar kind of experiment looking that it did work, how they thought so this one was a bit weirder. Um, so it was basically showing that yeah, it was showing that when you give our analog, your blood glucose goes up as we'd expect to with glucagon and that your amino acids go down, which will get you know there's a relation to that in relation to glucagon. We won't go into that and then also looking at liver enzymes in there kind of activity based on your analog as well. Again, it's kind of leading you on to what you think its actions are later and how it's effectively working. So this is kind of where you start having a bit more difference between like you and your colleagues works, is how you then interpret that and also lay it out. Uh, then it starts getting quite okay. This can look quite like intimidating. Um, but it's actually quite simple, and one quite important thing to note from it is actually, I left. I left a group of data out from mine. Um, you don't actually have to use all of the data that they give you. If you can't find a way that it's going to fit your experiment, it's kind of advisable. You try and find a way, so don't just, like, get rid of half the data. But if it doesn't perfectly fit your narrative as to why you would look at it and it doesn't fit. Then I would say way it up, but then potentially exclude it. I can't. I can't remember what it was, but I left something out. And again. This is just looking at the general impact of our analogs, Uh, versus kind of a standard protein diet and a high protein diet across like a load of different ranges, like body weight. So all your metabolic markers, So body weight, fat, mass, the mass, uh, all the way through to again the expression of those enzymes And then also, you know, acid. So what again? It will be interesting to see what hirings kind of overall takeaway from the experiment was. But what mine generally was was that we're giving this analogue, and it's able to Sorry, I can't see if I've gone back now, and it's basically able to stop. Sorry, increase energy expenditure. And if you supplement with a high protein diet, then you can kind of get it to target the bits of fat and kind of bits of your body that you want it to. That's a very, very crude way of describing it. But I wonder what hiring kind of made from it. Just trying to find it. Yeah, in general, guys like also, this is my piece of advice. I don't know if hiring would agree. I remember we had a couple of discussion's throughout the process of the the I C A. Talking to your friends and not being snaky is actually really beneficial. Like even if you share like a tiny bit of like something that you came across, it might just be the key that links up a mechanism that you want to like, theorize. Or, you know, they might just highlight something that you might have missed. And ultimately, like you're doing well or them doing well isn't going to mean, um that you're going to do badly. So just because someone else could, like, potentially get even higher mark than you doesn't mean they can't drag your markup. And you could both get first. It's a really easy thing to think about that students as well. Um, for Fatima's question, you would say that is trending to significance like strongly trending significance provided you were using a 0.5, significant interval. You're like an increasing trend trend is just the word that they really like. Although for no 0.6, I would probably say Like this is very strongly trending towards significance, potentially like if you've got words like potentially a repeat experiment with, like, classic, larger cohort or varying factors. Exactly. Um, also, guys, have you just on the chat or in general, have you all used prison before? Prison graph pad. Okay, so, no, even if it's one person, if you download it now and get used to playing around with it, uh, for, like, general functions and how to make the graphs, even if even if you just learn to make graphs from the data, there's a ton of, like, really, really easy YouTube tutorials. I learned it in a day, but I learned it like pretty much the first day that the I C A. Came out. So it was kind of a bit of waste of time versus like a friend of mine already knew how to use it. So he got like, half a day's kick start on me just because, and also, to be honest, I used it for hours and hours and my final project. So it's not really going to be. How long did you use it for your final project or what? Prison? Yeah, Yeah, I did. And I I really recommend it as well, because I didn't I think three. And I do think you'll see my graphs now They look really terrible. The ones that I use them, My final prob let literally like those graphs there it does it all for you if you just didn't put the data and then you get to just pick the colors taking a bit of time. But there's, like, so many videos online. Very helpful. People have, like, explain it. So, uh, also guys, as someone that likes to use other people's work in previous years just as a basis for what gets marks and what doesn't. This I see, is really, really hard to do it, Uh, because the projects are quite different each time. It's quite hard to say, Oh, they worded this like this and made this assumption. Therefore, if I do it and kind of transpose it to mine along the same lines, it will get an equally good like response from the markers because ultimately it's going to vary what your work is, how you've interpreted the data and also who's marking it? Quite variable. Thank you. Um, I would say, Yeah, I would say one thing. That is even, I would say, actually, going off the back front of your points when I think that although it might be useful to, like, discuss certain point, I do think you help you worry about everyone just following the crowd. Even if you think that actually, that is the wrong interpretation. Because I think they said, I think they said to us the year before us, Um, there there was like a large majority Got a certain part of those really wrong. And it's, uh, they suspected, because people are like, like, followed that opinion. I suppose so. It's just something to think about. So, yeah, just just a small thing to heard about that. Yeah, I can show my my I was going to say you and I both had different like conclusions we did. I mean, I didn't Yeah, and it's worth saying as well cause I didn't. This was my one of my worst ones. Uh, like I think I was like, maybe 0.5, mark off the first Triple five, but I can show you I'll try and, like, demonstrate to you guys. What? I think I did do very well. Uh, also guys, they do. Or at least in our year. Judging from all of our marks, they do mark this one quite harshly, I think, like, as a proportion. And also, you know, if you've if you've done really well on your first two, it doesn't necessarily mean if you put the same amount of work in for this one you're going to It's not letting me show my screen until I quit Chrome. So I feel like I don't uh okay. Is it worth me questing and then joining back on? Is that gonna be long? I don't know. It depends whether those guys think, uh, seeing another would help. Let me know if you guys need to leave, like, now, then It's fine. Uh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Do you guys have any other kind of pressing questions about, uh, how how to kind of go about it in general? Uh, okay. Uh, no other questions. Uh, I would recommend the prison, though. Honestly, like just if you if you get it nailed now, it's going to make life a ton of easier by the time you actually get released. I see a three. Yeah, And you can also, if you if you're struggling to download it, don't pay for it because you get it for free for a year under. You're kind of imperial and no thing. So if you just talk to bring or curve, they should be able to help you out. If you are struggling, I think it's all on like med learned about how to go about getting it. Yeah, mhm. Say, um oh, yeah, a point that I was going to go over in mine. So as far as I was aware, I got one of the higher marks out of the people I know. So I got, like, I think it was like a 71 9 or something, which is, you know, it doesn't seem like much over at first, but like I said, I don't think many people got, like, real big margins over the first. For this, uh, I see a one bit that really let me down, which you don't want to lack on is your abstract and your lay your lay summary that you have to do a lay summary. Um, I kind of tried to fob these in the last day, day and a half. And, uh, yeah, the market is kind of kind of absolutely slated. It basically and said that, like, I missed a key bit that I was kind of describing in my data. And, uh, yeah, if you don't leave if you don't leave yourself enough of word, I can't remember. Did the lay summary have its own word count? I can't remember hiring. Yeah, I can't hear you. Uh huh. Hello? Hey. Yeah, I think it had, I think, Yeah, I think the abstract and the lay will have their separate word counts. Yeah, I'm just saying, don't don't lack on the abstract and work out and leave it to, like, last last minute It does. You know, it's quite easy to get a fairly poor mark on it. I was really I was really pushed for time that guys like for this whole thing. I do think that I do think we had a lot of data. Is it just me? In comparison, we had almost like 1.5. Honestly, I I think always two times the amount of data from the previous year Yeah, which is a struggle trying to make it all work, which is, uh, okay, I'm going to shut my screen, Okay? Okay. Can you guys see my document? Yeah. Cool. OK, so first of all, the title they slated it because Because it wasn't that it actually like, there was no proof that it was genuinely through suppression about Jevtana immediate catabolism. And it's just worth thinking about. You have to be really careful. I think there's a temptation almost with this, too. Because your shortfall of words as well in general it There's a temptation to not, like, explain the fact that you and be very clear with the fact like there are limitations, this certain data within the one that you've been given, if that makes sense. So that was just one thing, Um, you know, if I just included, like, through possible or through suggested suppression or something like that, it would have been fine. So just take a note of that. And graphical abstract was fine. Um, it does take some time, though, and yeah, it's it's good. It's a good way of showing if you actually understood the possible mechanism. But again, um, it's not so good if you've got it completely well, so it's just it's just worth thinking about, um, and used by Orender for that if you're gonna do it. Um, late summer. I think you're quite like it to be honest. Um, yeah, yeah, I think they quite liked it. Just being careful about, like, the amount of big words that use, um Then Inter, I think, was all good. So, yeah, my first one that I did was so again, these parts of terrible do it in prison if you can. But it was just just to show that this long acting different analog Indians is her particular can you genesis and increases blood glucose, and they keep things. So it was just basically proving what has been shown already. I think then that's probably quite similar to fairly similar to what you showed. Um, in the first instance, um and yeah, I just I needed to confirm current understanding. We generated this analog. Uh, just explain what it does. Um, and just show that this is a preliminary experiment. Basically, Um, and this was just so that to show that it essentially activates, um, some of the like gene expression involved with producing Click. It's so that's just like the basis. And then the second one was that You know what? I really bad, I don't know. But I really struggled because there were so many parameters. So, for example, this looked at like, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. But on top of that, you have to consider obesity. And on top of that, you have to consider, like, diabetes. And I just found that really difficult, so I stripped it right back for that. So is this the one looking at Is the one looking at trying Lyssarides? I think not. Not the not the expression one. The, uh Oh, yeah. So I try to not look at it as a marker for each of the, um, like pathologies. Right? So, like, diabetes or fatty liver disease, More as just a market that it could be used for metabolic diseases as a whole. Because I've wrote the paragraph for that and broke it up. And then it was like way over word count. So decided it didn't help the narrative if I just pushed it as a This is an analog that can work in general. Then they refine it later. Which is why I kind of like my big, huge table. I was looking more, uh, kind of how it impacts the entire system and then broke it down from there. Yeah, but this is why it's really important guys to, like, not just like like Hying said, go with a massive general drift. We both took this into hugely different ways. Yeah, and we both got, like, a decent actually. Like Like, look back at it now. But as far as I know, the rest of the cohort got, like, mid to high two ones. Yeah, the vast majority. Yeah. Um, I also would just suggest don't do what I've done and have these, like, the outlines of the text boxes. I personally thought it looked neater, but they really disagree. And I think looking that probably Yeah. Um, but yes. Okay. Uh, yeah, moving on. I don't know how much to describe this, but, um, I just said that basically the anti glycemic effects of G 88 are independent of FGF 21. We already struggled with, like, trying to figure out how this come about. That makes sense. Um, I think I can't remember what conclusion I came down to? There was not one paper that said, Yeah, there's something about chronic glucagon receptor organism mimicking, mimicking hyperglucagonemia. Um, yeah. I don't know how you saw any of this is actually, um so this is the thing they they only want to see. Really? Like the main takeaway from this is to basically back track and create your own experiment in a way. So they giving you the results, you want to see that you can put together results in a scientific manner That explains why you've looked at these different things and then being able to draw some sort of, like explanation. Yeah, so that's the aim of this entire. Like I say, it's not just like it's also to get you into a bit of scientific writing structure and also like, graph making it to be really clear with how you're describing the results. But it's to get you really thinking along the lines of how you're going to do your final project, which is I'm looking at this. Uh, this is what I'm going to like, how I'm going to get the results. So that's why you need to describe how you got these experiments? These are the results. And then what you can take away from the experiment. So it's kind of like a mini final project where they've just plunked you in the middle and got you to work both ways out. Supposed to your kind of classic linear timeline. Yeah, that's basically it. But my conclusion was essentially and they actually said I got, like, the majority of a mecca like what's probably going on, right? But it was just that I was too confident in what I was saying. Um, but what I was suggesting was that when you like, chronically activate glucagon receptor that mimics starvation in mice, um, and that induces production of new glucose, Um, from, like making yeah, like dietary protein and stuff like that, Um, when you don't have enough dietary proteins. So when the mice were on the normal protein diet, you have 21 levels increased, and that resulted in the breakdown of tissue, and it also increased energy expenditure. So what I suggest, I said, that's possibly because it's more activates, make life to move around more possibly it's because they're trying to search for more food to sort of compensate for that deficit. And then that's when you when you then replace the dietary protein that they are lacking once you chronically activate glucagon and receptors, then that consequently suppresses the fef 21. Um, and that also stops then tissue catabolism PSA tissue breakdown. Um, and that just is possibly just like an evolutionary thing. Um, and then also reduces image expenditure. And possibly because again the most, I'm looking for more food. Um, so I basically said that high protein diet, along with glucagon treatment, can stop muscle atrophy. Which is one thing that people were worried about, um, using Elocon in the treatment of obesity. Um, but it also maintains the sort of anti diabetic and anti, um, non alcoholic fatty liver disease of X of glucagon treatment. Um, so that was my conclusion. Basically, and honestly, they said it was fine, but it was just the fact that I was a bit too confident, and I didn't use like was like, possibly suggest. And I didn't go more in detail into, um, specific experiments that I could do to actually support what I was suggesting was going on. So that was the main takeaways, I would say from my thing, Um, I'm just going to end. I think I think that's basically what I got as well, Apart from not going into as much for the, uh, not nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and diabetes, I think honestly, like looking at high ing's and then to mine to be really harsh, dying the truth. I think the two odd percent difference between mine was probably Prism. Just making it look very honestly, I think that's it. Very much clearer. Yeah, And then the only other thing that I did was I found, like, a really novel pathway between, like, thermogenesis bat one gene, uh, the U C P and the muscle expenditure. So rely. Relying on like an a m p k pathway. I just found some, like, bullshit literature on it. That suggests this could be this to this to this, so that when I then said, That's how it works, there was a bit more kind of potential backing, like literature backing it. And then I just said you could then have a look at that pathway. So, to be honest, like, we came to the same thing overall, but just looking at different. That's that. I think what Hying said about the word potentially and stuff, particularly when you're like cutting words at the end. Just be really careful, because if you do cut words like potentially, which are often the first to go, to be really honest, it can, like change the entire. You need your sentence really, really quickly and easily, particularly when you're stressed and it's like 11 PM you haven't slept particularly. It's also something that you don't realize is a part of research and academia, like you just can't conflate what your results are suggesting because you people just yeah, when the peer review in your work, they would agree with you. So I don't know last minute questions because I have to leave at half past or if you want my email, I can't use the chat, but it's my short code is H. L. 10918. If you want, it's gonna be email. Welcome to stunned to science. It's honestly, really stressful before you start it, but you just power through it will be fine. Yeah, I was also going to say like one tiny, like, pretty depressing bit of advice is just, you know when you're going to get it. Try not to plan too much during that week. Um, I worked harder on it than I thought I would just I think I under underestimated it. Um, So, yeah, just trying to give yourself time. I think it's an easier one than I see two. In my opinion, I thought, Well, I said, Well, I can't, um, bias by C to a very well. I thought it was a lot easier, but thank you. No worries. So were you gonna say something? Kushell? Yeah. All right. There's two of you. Sorry. I was looking at the other one on the other one. Cool. In which case Cheers, guys. Bye bye.