Expression-Based Cell Lineage Analysis in Drosophila Through a Course-Based Research Experience for Early Undergraduates.

A variety of genetic techniques have been devised to determine cell lineage relationships during tissue development. Some of these systems monitor cell lineages spatially and/or temporally without regard to gene expression by the cells, whereas others correlate gene expression with the lineage under study. The GAL4 Technique for Real-time and Clonal Expression (G-TRACE) system allows for rapid, fluorescent protein-based visualization of both current and past GAL4 expression patterns and is therefore amenable to genome-wide expression-based lineage screens. Here we describe the results from such a screen, performed by undergraduate students of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Undergraduate Research Consortium for Functional Genomics (URCFG) and high school summer scholars as part of a discovery-based education program. The results of the screen, which reveal novel expression-based lineage patterns within the brain, the imaginal disc epithelia, and the hematopoietic lymph gland, have been compiled into the G-TRACE Expression Database (GED), an online resource for use by the Drosophila research community. The impact of this discovery-based research experience on student learning gains was assessed independently and shown to be greater than that of similar programs conducted elsewhere. Furthermore, students participating in the URCFG showed considerably higher STEM retention rates than UCLA STEM students that did not participate in the URCFG, as well as STEM students nationwide.

Evaluation of biofield treatment dose and distance in a model of cancer cell death.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the potential influence of biofield treatment on cultured human cancer cells and whether such influence was affected by varying the duration of the treatment (dose) or the distance between the biofield practitioner and the target cells. DESIGN: Biofield treatment dosage was assessed from a short distance (0.25 meters) in three independent experiments involving 1, 2, or 5 treatments, along with another set of three independent and comparable mock experiments. Biofield treatment distance was assessed at 0.25, 25, and ∼ 2000 meters involving two treatments in three independent experiments along with another set of three mock experiments. INTERVENTION: Biofield treatments were delivered by a highly acclaimed biofield practitioner with the intention of diminishing growth of the cells or inducing cancer-cell death. OUTCOME MEASURE: Cell viability was quantified 20 hours after treatments, using a spectrophotometric assay for live-cell counting. The dependent measure for each experiment was the log ratio of the cell viability values of treated samples (biofield or mock) over the values of untreated control samples. RESULTS: A trend of decreasing cell viability with increasing biofield dose was evident in the first set of experiments assessing dose-response; however, no such effect was evident in the second set of experiments evaluating biofield treatment distance. Mock experiments yielded relatively stable viability ratios in both sets of experiments. Linear regression analysis and hypothesis testing of the data taken as a whole did not yield statistical significance at p<0.05. CONCLUSIONS: These results represent the first indication of a biofield treatment dose-response in a controlled laboratory setting. The data are inconclusive because of the inability of reproduce the cellular response in a replicate experiment.