| Section | Word Limit | Marks | Research Time | Writing Time | Description |
| Clarity | N/A | 5 | 10 mins | 1 hr | sentence structure; typographical errors; scientific style |
| Reference | N/A | 5 | 20 mins | 40 mins | correct use of referencing style and in text citations; typically 5-10 references depending on the topic/experimental platform and drugs used (for some of the options in the mythbusting antibiotic experiment you may not have exact matches from the literature because experiments may not have been conducted on these – find something similar in that case! |
| Intro | 500 | 10 | 6 hrs | 5 hrs | Introduce topic with supporting literature; treatment or experimental background; drugs used or tested and their expected effects within the context of the experiment (receptors and mechanism); aims/hypothesis of the experiment |
| Topic Intro | 100 | – | 2 hrs | 1 hrs | Introduce the idea of a lack of antibiotics being discovered due to resistance/poor science/alternative medicine/evidenced-based testing (ampicillin compared to the others) |
| Background | 150 | – | 1 hr | 1.5 hrs | Details about the experimental setup background/design – that we used E.coli as a base strain (what it is, where it is found, why it was a good choice for our testing idea) |
| Expected MOA | 200 | – | 3 hrs | 2 hr | Ampicillin Colloidal Silver Oregano Oil Echinacea |
| Hypothesis & Aims | 50 | – | 20 min | Aims of the experiment – to test/determine/evaluate/compare……. | |
| Results & Discussion | 1000 | 30 | 9.5 hrs | 11.5 | Combined marking but separate results and discussion sections; use data and/or graphs provided; within the written results, describe some further analysis showing % growth inhibition (as an example) or EC50 responses; written results component of 3-4 paragraphs describing our findings and comparisons; discussion of results (3 paragraphs) within known current experimental findings for the drugs used; limitations of the study; future ideas |
| Results | 50 | – | 2 hrs | 1hr | Include graphs of absorbance curves – combined; statistics and comparisons. Comment on the before and after cell count plates for the doses completed. |
| Discussion | 150 | – | 2 hrs | 2 hrs | 3-4 paragraphs of written results focused on comparisons of the different treatments – good to compare to the known antibiotic ampicillin; suggestion to work out % absorbance readings for the E. coli growth curves for each treatment at the final time absorbance; statistics and comparisons |
| 150 | – | 2 hrs | 2 hrs | ||
| 150 | – | 2 hrs | 2 hrs | ||
| Conclusion | 300 | – | 1 hr | 3 hrs | did we see antibiotic effects in which ones and why? Did that match literature? Should we use a different bacterial strain next time? Which of our treatments worked the best (make a judgement on dose required as well and compare to ampicillin)? Do you think some of these are clinically relevant doses? |
| Limitations/ Improvements | 200 | – | 30 min | 1.5 hrs | broth temps/control for each treatment and the start of each treatment variation/sterile samples/great data collection due to reproducibility over the days/improvised doses; only used one bacteria/not an antibiotic resistant variant/more replicates for each treatment or dose |
| Intro – 11 hrs Discussion – 21 hrs Proof read – 2 hrs Total – 34 hrs 6-7 hours/day |
Previous Assignment Materials
Since the discovery of penicillin in 1928 by Alexander Flemming, antibiotics have become a key component of managing microbial infections in western medicine. Unfortunately, the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains has threatened this practice [1] and, as a result, focus on finding alternative methods of controlling microbial infections have increased [3]. An attractive alternative are therapeutics derived from natural substances as they are perceived to be less risky and more accessible [4].
As Australia is an isolated islandic continent, it is unsurprising that we experience a diversity of climatic conditions that have allowed the evolution of many organisms that are unique to Australia [2]. Many of these native plants have played a key part in medicinal practices of Australian Indigenous communities [4] including the Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Tuckeroo),
Pittosporum angustifolium (Gumby Gumby), Pleiogynium timorense (Burdekin Plum), Podocarpus elatus (Illawarra Plumb), and Terminalia ferdinandiana (Kakadu Plum). This experiment aims to act as a pilot study into antimicrobial properties of different parts of these plants.
Currently, there have not been many experiments that investigate the efficacy of antimicrobial properties of the aforementioned organisms. Therefore, their mechanisms of action are also largely unknown. However, the use of plants for therapeutic methods is not in any way a new or unfamiliar concepts. In the past, the non-essential byproducts of metabolic pathways, known as secondary metabolites, have been known to assist plants with external biological interactions. In terms of microbial inhibition specifically, three broad categories of secondary metabolites have been effective in the past: alkaloids, phenolics, and terpenoids [5].
| ### | Link | Name |
| [1] | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4378521/ | |
| [2] | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2019.103547 | |
| [3] | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2095496419300317 | |
| [4] | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378874120334681?via%3Dihub | |
| [5] | https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2020.586548 |
Method Overview & Reasoning
- Controls
- Pennicillin – true antimicrobial
- Colloidal Silver – bacteriocide+
- E. coli
- Grame negative
- Facultative
- Can cause gastrointestinal problems
- Very common and easily found
- E. coli will be grown in media
- Some with and some without treatment
- Will be tested using UV-VIS spectrophotometer
- Tested every 15 minutes
- Graphed
Get expert help for BMSC Pharmacology Breakdown and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!
