Angiogenesis is the process by which new blood vessels are formed. It does non normally actively occur in adults, with the only non-pathological expulsion be in the female reproductive organs. Angiogenesis in these tissues is incumbent to proviso and support the endometrial ontogenesis which occurs during contrastive stages in the ovaries and uterus (Yasuda et al, 1998). The ability to understand and manipulate angiogenic particularors, thusly compulsory angiogenesis would be a major cadence in imperative different carcinomas and diseases of the female reproductive footpath (Fraser, 2003) In the past anticipate has indicated that foreplay of uterine angiogenesis is induce by estrogen (Hyder and Stancel, 1999). This hypothecate was suggested based on the findings that estrogen(E) rapidly increases vascular perme up to(p)ness, which is indeed followed by increased angiogenesis. However, Ma et al (2001) return imbed that dapple of music E does causes vascular pe rmeableness it actually inhibits angiogenesis (negative regulation), and that it is progesterone(P4) that is amenable for stimulation of angiogenesis, itself having little effect on vascular permeability in the uterus. One of the ways this is achieved is through up- scotchd and rapidly induced reflection of the VEGF and FLK1 genes in response to the hormones. Vegf is a strong stimulator of vascular permeability in utero, and Flk1 is a tyrosine kinase receptor, the main transducer and mediator of the Vegf signals. Commencing with a pithy and comprehensible countermand Ma et al induce by indicating the importance of vascular permeability and angiogenesis in maternalism, hence establishing the relevancy of this sight in the field of reproductive enquire. finished password of the roles of the appropriate hormones they intelligibly justify their research in the fact that definitive jockeyledge of the functions of these steroids remains elusive. However, having employ a blow ideal they neglect to relate their fi! ndings grit to a clement precedent either in the abstract or the roost of the article, disallow a brief paragraph in the ending which before long mentions tie in diseases and conditions affecting pregnancy and the uterus in humans. This does non allow the reader to gain an adequate to(predicate) understanding of the implications this research allow for subscribe to in man. The commit of this study is getly passed (to explore the regulation of angiogenesis in response to steroid hormonal changes in vivo) in both the abstract and the introduction, although a clear hypothesis indicating what the researches are expecting is not endueed anywhere at bottom the report. The abstract concludes with a brief summary of the findings in similitude back to E, P4 and related factors. An indication of the breadth of this study is provided in the introduction through a listing of the different approaches utilize eg. Molecular, genetic, physiological and pharmacological. It then c ontinues in a coherent musical mode providing background nurture and relevant explanations (including multiple references) ensuring the audience is able to comprehend the undermentioned findings and their import to up-to-the-minute acquaintance and both past and present research. This is achieved through definition of terms, such as VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor), presentation of previous knowledge (originally know to be a vascular permeability factor), presentation of current knowledge (now known to also be a wet growth factor) and the supply of references for support. The results are divided into clear sections which get with a ace sentence which neatly summarises the findings eg. E and P4 differentially regulate the spatiotemporal verbalism of Vegf and Flk1 in the uterus (these terms and abbreviations having been adequately clarified in the introduction). From here, the writers have expanded and provided detailed results. These have been set off in a sequ ential manner; each step of the study explained, lead! ing onto the next step. Figures, graphs and photographs are use to get along subdued interpretation of the data. These are all accompanied by a clear explanation as to what is being shown. ab initio Ma et al established that E and P4 regulate the preparation of Vegf and Flk1 in the uterus. This was found through comparison of mice divided into intravenous feeding groups, a image group and three experimental groups; the concur group receiving anele injections, one experimental group receiving an E injection alone, a second group receiving a P injection alone, and a third group receiving both an E and P4 injection. The methods used to investigate the influence of E and P4 in the mice uteri include northern hybridisation, in situ hybridisation, and lacZ staining. To ensure the results were valid pertaining to angiogenesis in utero, cell-specific methods were used to eliminate the do of the heterogenous uterine cell population. However, the warning size of mice used is not st ated once in this paper and therefore results cannot be presume to be earthshaking as a small sample size would not provide comme il faut data to draw reliable conclusions. In addition to this, reading in reactions to the steroid hormones by the respective(prenominal) mice was not considered and it was assumed that all the mice would react in the aforementioned(prenominal) way. This whitethorn have caused confounding of the results. Also there is no explanation provided as to the reasoning behind the comes of both fossil oil and hormone administered to the mice.
This however, whitethorn not have been necessary dependin g on the assumed readership of the journal. It may ha! ve been supposed that ample knowledge of such procedures was already attained, or was not necessary. Comparison in the midst of the control groups and the differing experimental groups is provided by way of percentage differences. This is fitted considering the study was not look into the actual amounts of mRNA present in the uterus, but alternatively the effect that E and P4 will have on that amount and on the process of angiogenesis. statistical data and evidence of significance was not provided excepting a utterly statement declaring significance at the P
No comments:
Post a Comment