Requirements for the paperRequirements for the paper
The Scientific Method
All steps of the scientific method in the provided research study are clearly and accurately identified and described. Experimental design, control, treatment, IV, DV, results and conclusions accurately identified and described.
Critique of Research
Clear, accurate, relevant and well-organized critique of research, commenting on at least two issues.
Discussion of Relevance
Discussion of the relevance of this research study, both to the world and to you personally, is clear and accurate.
Content/Format/ Grammar/ Spelling
Paper is written in own words. Less than 3 minor format/spelling/ grammatical errors.
• use knowledge of biological principles and the scientific method to ask and answer relevant questions about the human bodyweigh and make health-related decisions based on an understanding of the value and limits of scientific knowledge and the scientific method
Process:• Read the article summary below• Review the assignment questions.• Retrieve the full article using the hyperlink (UMUC permalink) provided right below the title.• Write a report that includes answers to the listed questions, numbered, in order.
Assignment Questions: Answer the following questions, numbered, in order, in your report. Missing question numbers or answers will score a zero. Write your report in your own words with proper grammar and spelling (10 points).• Title of the study you are analyzing:• Identify and describe the steps of the scientific method (50 points).• a. What observations did the scientists make leading up to this research study? • b. State the specific hypothesis that is being tested in this experiment. • c. Describe the experimental design including control and treatment group(s) in this experiment.• d. What are the dependent and independent variables in this experiment?• e. Summarize the results and the conclusions of the experiment.• Analyze the research study. Things to consider: Were the test subjects and treatments relevant and appropriate? Was the sample size large enough? Were the methods used appropriate? Can you think of a potential bias in a research study like this? What are the limitations of the conclusions made in this research study? Address at least two of these questions in your critique of the experiment (20 points).Discuss the relevance of this type of research, both for the world in general and for you personally (20 points).
• Effect of a wild blueberry (Vacciniumangustifolium) drink intervention on markers of oxidative stress, inflammation and endothelial function in humans with cardiovascular risk factors.
Riso, P., Klimis-Zacas, D., Bo’, C., Martini, D., Campolo, J., Vendrame, S., & … Porrini, M. (2013).Effect of a wild blueberry (Vacciniumangustifolium) drink intervention on markers of oxidative stress, inflammation and endothelial function in humans with cardiovascular risk factors. European Journal of Nutrition, 52(3), 949-961 13p. doi:10.1007/s00394-012-0402-9
Abstract: Purpose: Wild blueberries (WB) (Vacciniumangustifolium) are rich sources of polyphenols, such as flavonols, phenolic acids and anthocyanins (ACNs), reported to decrease the risk of cardiovascular and degenerative diseases. This study investigated the effect of regular consumption of a WB or a placebo (PL) drink on markers of oxidative stress, inflammation and endothelial function in subjects with risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Methods: Eighteen male volunteers (ages 47.8 ± 9.7 years; body mass index 24.8 ± 2.6 kg/m) received according to a cross-over design, a WB (25 g freeze-dried powder, providing 375 mg of ACNs) or a PL drink for 6 weeks, spaced by a 6-week wash-out. Endogenous and oxidatively induced DNA damage in blood mononuclear cells, serum interleukin levels, reactive hyperemia index, nitric oxide, soluble vascular adhesion molecule concentration and other variables were analyzed. Results: Wild blueberry drink intake significantly reduced the levels of endogenously oxidized DNA bases (from 12.5 ± 5.6 % to 9.6 ± 3.5 %, p ≤ 0.01) and the levels of HO-induced DNA damage (from 45.8 ± 7.9 % to 37.2 ± 9.1 %, p ≤ 0.01), while no effect was found after the PL drink. No significant differences were detected for markers of endothelial function and the other variables under study. Conclusions: In conclusion, the consumption of the WB drink for 6 weeks significantly reduced the levels of oxidized DNA bases and increased the resistance to oxidatively induced DNA damage. Future studies should address in greater detail the role of WB in endothelial function.