Virology report instructions: Please choose ONE only of the articles below for your critical review: You will find these articles on the blackboard. Adjusted Particle Size Eliminates the Need of Linkage of Antigen and Adjuvants for Appropriated T Cell Responses in Virus-Like Particle-Based Vaccines Ariane C. Gomes, Anna Flace, Philippe Saudan, Franziska Zabel, Gustavo Cabral- Miranda, Aadil El Turabi, Vania Manolova and Martin F. Bachmann. Frontiers in Immunology doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2017.00226 A bivalent heterologous DNA-virus-like particles prime-boost vaccine elicits broad protection against both groups 1 and 2 influenza A viruses Wenbo Jiang, Shuangshuang Wang, Honglin Chen, Huanhuan Ren, Xun Huang, Guiqin Wang, Ze Chen, Ling Chen, Zhiwei Chen and Paul Zhou. Journal of Virology doi:10.1128/JVI.02052-16 Axl Mediates ZIKA Virus Entry in Human Glial Cells and Modulates Innate Immune Responses. Meertens L, Labeau A, Dejarnac O, Cipriani S, Sinigaglia L, Bonnet-Madin L, Le Charpentier T, Hafirassou ML, Zamborlini A, Cao-Lormeau VM, Coulpier M, Missé D, Jouvenet N, Tabibiazar R, Gressens P, Schwartz O, Amara A. Cell Rep. 2017 Jan 10;18(2):324-333. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.12.045. A combinational CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing approach can halt HIV replication and prevent viral escape. Lebbink RJ, de Jong DC, Wolters F, Kruse EM, van Ham PM, Wiertz EJ, Nijhuis M. Sci Rep. 2017 Feb 8;7:41968. doi: 10.1038/srep41968. EBOLA VACCINE. VSV-EBOV rapidly protects macaques against infection with the 2014/15 Ebola virus outbreak strain. Marzi A, Robertson SJ, Haddock E, Feldmann F, Hanley PW, Scott DP, Strong JE, Kobinger G, Best SM, Feldmann H. Science. 2015 Aug 14;349(6249):739-42. doi: 10.1126/science.aab3920. Epub 2015 Aug 6. GUIDELINES AND MARKING OUTLINE Word count: 2000 + or – 200 words 1. Read through the questions below that are used to assess scientific manuscripts. 2. Read the article you have chosen. 3. Write a review of the article with the following sections: 1. Cover sheet- your name, the article you are reviewing, word count. 2. Summary and Background 3. Critical Review 4. References. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE JOURNAL ARTICLE REVIEW: Report Formatting: The Journal article reviews are to be written using a scientific format. The purpose of scientific writing is to inform the reader of the procedures and results of an experiment. For example; the introduction section provides the background and context for the reader. The writing should be clear, logical and easy to understand. For this reason scientific writing usually follows a defined format. Key points: • The reviews are to be written using a scientific format. • The report should be word-processed. • Use font 12 or higher and double space the report. • Include a computer generated word count • Record the word count on the coversheet of your assignment • At least one table or figure with results should be included. • Pages should be numbered. • Use Vancouver reference style Please note: the word limit for any report does not include tables, figures or reference list. This word limit is for the entire report, not for each individual exercise. Referencing: Please use the Vancouver referencing style in your report. The easiest way to do this is to use referencing software (eg. Endnote). Students can access Endnote software through the RMIT library. Please see: http://www1.rmit.edu.au/library. Please ask for advice on installing and using Endnote at the library or IT. Endnote training sessions are run on a regular basis. ---- JOURNAL ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDELINES Summary of Background and Contents50% of marks Write a detailed summary (2-3 pages) on the background and content of the paper, this should cover the background literature and a summary of the study and its outcomes. This section includes a review of the background of the article, making the article’s context in the field of virology clear. This forms a short discussion, which includes other relevant published articles in the study area. You may include studies referenced by your article and other relevant studies the authors haven’t mentioned. For example if a novel technique is used there might not be many published articles using this technique, thus in this case you should state the novelty of the technique and focus your discussion of the background to the paper on the problem it is addressing and the significance of this problem. Please note as your journal article is written largely for virologists working in the field there may be some sections that are difficult to understand. In that case you may need to read some background literature to understand the techniques used. Reference should be cited using the Vancouver referencing system. Critical Review50% of marks The aim of this section is to show the examiner that you have understood the purpose, need for and content of the paper (particularly in relation to other published work in the field). In this section you will present a critical review of the article. The following points below will be helpful in the review. It is not however, essential that you answer all questions, as not all will be directly relevant to the article you have chosen. Please use the points below as a guide and check list. ***The major focus of the critical review should be the findings of the study, or the experimental approach in relation to other published work in the field. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER WHEN CRITICALLY REVIEWING AN ARTICLE: Examples: Originality of the paper: o How novel is the paper? For example, is the paper simply applying the same methods used in another study to a new situation or is the idea/techniques completely novel? o Are there many previously published studies on the same topic? • What is unique about this study? • How important is this study to the field of virology? • Writing style: o Are there any sections of the paper that are too long and could be shortened? o Is the writing clear, simple and concise? Remember also to critically analyse the writing style of the paper: Are there any typographic and grammatical errors? Or state whether you think some parts of the paper are too long, or difficult to understand, but do not devote a large part of your review to these issues as they are minor. Abstract Does the abstract outline the aims of the study, main methods, results and conclusions? Introduction • Does the introduction state the research question to be addressed? • Is sufficient background provided for the reader to understand the research question? • Is a topic area missing? Materials and methods • Have the appropriate methods been used to address the research question/s? • Are the methods described in sufficient detail to be repeated? Is there any important information missing? • Have references been provided for all the methods, except new ones developed by the authors? Have any new methods been described in enough detail? • Are the experiments sound? Did they include controls/replicates, details in their methods Results • Are the results of the paper clear and concise? Do they follow a logical order/progression? • Are there any results in the text that would be better presented in a table or figure? • Is there any repetition of results in text and in a table or figure? • Are the results sound? For example: Do the author’s show a representative example and/or they provide replicates? Do they show error bars? Is the sample size high enough? • Do the figure legends describe the figure and the statistics used? Are the statistics correct? Do they provide and explain error bars? Are the error bars accurate? Discussion • Do you agree with the interpretation of results? • Is the study significant? • Have the authors clearly distinguished between their own results and the results of others? • Have the authors discussed all findings? For example are there any negative findings in the results that could be important but have not been discussed? • Have the authors adequately discussed their results and conclusions in relation to the results of other investigators and the literature? • Does the findings of the study agree or contradict other studies in the field? • Are the author’s conclusions acceptable? Are they overstated? Does the study provide sufficient evidence to draw those conclusions? Please note: You are free to agree or disagree with the author’s. Please justify your statements and explain with relevant references to support your argument. References • Are all statements in the paper referenced appropriately? • Has the author referenced widely? Are only the author’s own studies referenced? • Are there any relevant studies on this topic that have not been referenced? • Does the author include references which may disagree with their own results? Or suggest an alternative finding? Tables and figures • Do all tables and figures have complete legends so that they can be understood without referring back to the text? Are error bars described? Are sample sizes described? Appropriate controls used? • Could any of the tables and figures be omitted or simplified? • Does the paper require additional figures? Supplementary data? Ethics and Conflicts of interest: • If relevant, was the study approved by the relevant animal or human ethics committees? • If relevant, are any conflicts declared? Are any commercial or industry interests declared? Is there any conflict of interest not raised?