Peer Review by DWzJ823

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 41

									        This is a the first of a two part on-line tutorial for new
       student reviewers for IMPULSE. IMPULSE is an on-line
Understanding the Basics of Peer
      Journal for Undergraduate Neuroscience Research. Both
       undergraduate-authored neuroscience research articles
  Review: Part 1 – Receiving a
         and neuroscience review articles are accepted from
      undergraduates around the globe. Articles then are sent

          Manuscript
       out to undergraduate, peer reviewers around the globe
     for peer review. These student reviewer teams have been
           set up at numerous undergraduate colleges and
        universities using a variety of models. Following peer
     review the manuscript Undergraduate revision,
 IMPULSE Journal for is accepted as is, requiresNeuroscience
        or found unacceptable. This first tutorial will walk you
                   through the process of peer review.




                                         Developed by: Matthew Fisher, 2011
                                           Advisor: Sarah M. Sweitzer, PhD
                        IMPULSE is a peer
                   reviewed scientific journal.
                   Peer Review
                    Below are the definitions
                    of peer review and peer-
IMPULSE                 reviewed journal.          IMPULSE

  • Definition
     – Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or
       performance by other people in the same field in
       order to maintain or enhance the quality of the
       work or performance in that field


  • Peer Review Journal
     – A peer review journal comprises literature of
       similar type that has been through the peer
       review process.
                     The Executive Editor
                  receives and determines if
             Peer-Review Hierarchy
                   the manuscript should be
                  sent to associate editors to
IMPULSE               send out for review.              IMPULSE
                          Executive
                            Editor

                    Associate Editors answer
      Associate            Associate
                    to the Executive and are     Associate
       Editor         placed Editor
                             in charge of a       Editor
                          review team.


      Reviewer               Reviewer            Reviewer
                          Reviewers are
                         asked to review
                           the scientific
      Reviewer               Reviewer
                          content of the         Reviewer
                           manuscript.

      Reviewer              Reviewer             Reviewer
                                                                                  STEP 5: The
                                                                                Associate Editor
                          STEP 1: A                                                sends the
    Manuscript                                                 Associate         manuscript to
                        manuscript is
    Submitted                                                     Editor           reviewers.
                          received.
                                STEP 4: If the paper                                  IMPULSE
                                     is deemed
                                  appropriate, it is
                                sent to an Associate
                                        Editor.
                        STEP 2:The Executivesent STEP 7: Based on the
                        STEP 6: Reviews are Reviewer             Reviewer       Reviewer
                         back must decide if
                        Editorto Associate Editor reviews the Executive
       Executive
         Editor          the compiles them
                        whooverall paper is and Editor and Editor-in-
                            sends to for the
                         appropriateExecutive         Chief decide if the
                               journal.
                                  Editor.             paper is accepted,
                                                    requires revisions, or is
                                                           rejected.

                              STEP 3:If the paper is not
                               STEP 8: Manuscript is
                             appropriate for the journal
  Paper                           or if there authors
                                 returned toare major
              Paper
 accepted                     indicating accepted for
                             problems with the format,
            sent back
    for                         publication, requires
                               the paper is returned to
            to author
Publication                     revision, or rejected.
                                author without review.
             Manuscript Format
IMPULSE
            for Original Research                 IMPULSE

 •   Abstract
 •   Introduction             Listed to the left are
 •   Materials and Methods   the common sections
                                   of an original
 •   Results                 research manuscript.
                             In the next few slides
 •   Discussions                  some common
                             guidelines for each of
 •   Acknowledgments             the sections are
                                     provided.
 •   Works Cited
                         Abstract
IMPULSE                                                         IMPULSE

 • The abstract is a concise summary of the
   manuscript.       Generally <250 words
 • The abstract should include a brief part of each
   section
    –   Introduction   Why do we care? Why is this important?
    –   Hypothesis           What was being tested?
    –   Methods              How was it being tested?
    –   Results                 What was found?
    –   Conclusions            What does it mean?

 • The abstract should “grab” the potential reader’s
   attention with as few words as possible.
                           Introduction
IMPULSE                    Usually 500-750 words          IMPULSE

 • The introduction relates background information
   related to the manuscript.
 • The introduction should include:
    – Significance of work        Why is this important?

    – Background science Citation of the scientific literature
    – Hypothesis What does the author expect?
  Begin an introduction
   with broad concepts       Funnel Approach
  and then “funneling”
     to more specific      Broad       Narrow
 information relevant to
    the paper at-hand.
          Materials and Methods
IMPULSE                Unlimited words                IMPULSE


 • The materials and methods section describes
   the methodology used when gathering data.
 • This section should include:
    – Materials used    Narrative format. NO LISTS!

    – Methodology       Step-by-step procedures*



 *Another investigator should be able to read
   this section and re-create the work
                               Results
IMPULSE                        Unlimited words                         IMPULSE

 • The results section presents all data collected
   throughout the project.
 • The results section should include:
    – numerical data          In narrative format
    – associated graphs, charts, tables, etc. Clearly labeled
    – Statistical significance should be indicated
                                  P<0.05 is significant
                                P>0.05 is not significant
    If it is close to significance then perhaps a larger sample size is needed.
          *Only data should be presented here.
                  The discussion is later!
                       Discussion
IMPULSE                  Usually <1500 words              IMPULSE

 • The discussion draws conclusions from the
   project as it relates to other research in the
   field and potential future direction of the
   field.
 • The discussion section should include: being tested?
                                      What was
    – Restatement of hypothesis/thesis           What was found?
    – Hypothesis refuted or accepted? it mean?
                                   What does
                            How does it relate to the literature?
    – Interpretation of dataWhy do we care? Why is this important?
    – Big picture relevance questions do these results raise?
                         What
    – Future directions
             Acknowledgements
IMPULSE                                        IMPULSE


 • The acknowledgements sections allows the
   author to thank anyone or anything he/she
   deems appropriate. All financial support must
   be listed.

 • Often included in this section:     MUST HAVE
                                     PERMISSION TO
    – research mentors               ACKNOWLEDGE
    – fellow student investigators     SOMEONE!
    – grant organizations
                    References
IMPULSE                                           IMPULSE



 The references section allows the author to
   provide a detailed description of all sources
   used in the manuscript.

    – These sources are arranged in a particular format
      specified by the journal.
IMPULSE                                                 IMPULSE



         This is the second the two part of
    Understanding half of aBasicson- Peer
         line tutorial for new student reviewers
         for IMPULSE. 2 second tutorial Review
    Review: Part This – How towill
         walk you through the peer review of an
                 the Manuscript
           original research manuscript. While
          some of the generalities of peer review
         also are true for a review article, some of
                      for Undergraduate Neuroscience
    IMPULSE Journalin this module are specific for
         the details
               original research manuscripts.


                                  Developed by: Matthew Fisher, 2011
     Once You Receive A Manuscript…
1)    Be sure to understand the correct journal format for the submitted
      manuscript.
                         http://impulse.appstate.edu/submissions.php

2)    Read any necessary background information to become familiar with
      subject area.  Yes, you may have to do a little research. Are you the
                         appropriate person for reviewing this manuscript?
3)    Identify the main points and thesis of the manuscript.
       What was their question? Why is their question important?
4)    Assess methods and findings.
       Do you understand what they did? Could you repeat the experiment?
5)    Associate related graphs, charts, tables, etc. to the results.
      Are the figures/tables/charts effective in presenting the main findings?
      Reviewer Training Article
We are using a particularly good paper published by
 IMPULSE as a teaching tool. With the authors’
 permission we have introduced errors to show how
 to recognize and correct such problems; the
 modifications to the article to represent the original,
 first and second revisions are purely fictional and for
 educational purposes only.

   Title: Oral Self-Administration Of Ethanol In
   Transgenic Mice Lacking β-Endorphin
   Authors: Sidney B. Williams, Ashley Holloway,
   Kevin Karwan, Stephani Allen, Judith E. Grisel
      How to use this tutorial
 The best way to use this tutorial is to read the
  sections as typed and try to identify problems
  based on what you learned in the first tutorial.

 Then click through the slide and suggested
  revisions will be highlighted and identified.

 These suggestions are not exhaustive and in fact
  you may find some additional changes to suggest.
                         Abstract-Original
                           Submission
EtOH modifies the production and/or release of endogenous opioid peptides, including -
endorphin (Gianoulakis, 2004; Przewlocka et al., 1994; Schulz et al., 1980). Opioids
subsequently influence the reinforcing properties of EtOH and the development of
alcoholism (Terenius, 1996; Van Ree, 1996). In this study, beta-endorphin deficient
mutant mice were used to examine the effects of a specific opioid peptide on EtOH
consumption. Mice were obtained from The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME, USA.
Male and female, adult naïve mice were single housed in Plexiglas cages with corn cob
bedding and ad lib access to food (mouse chow) and water. A two-bottle free choice
EtOH oral self-administration paradigm was administered to homozygous mutant mice
(void of all beta-endorphin), heterozygous mice (50% beta-endorphin expression), and
sibling wildtype mice (C57BL/6J). Subjects received increasing concentrations of EtOH
(0%, 3%, 6%, 12%, and 15%) each given over an eight day span, and were evaluated for
preference and consumption each day. Bottles were switched every other day to avoid
the development of a side preference. Overall, females drank more than males.
Homozygous mutant mice (KO) showed decreased preference for EtOH at all
concentrations, and self-administered significantly less than heterozygous mice (HT) and
wildtype mice (C57). The HTs had a tendency to drink the most followed by the C57s,
and the KOs drank the least. These data support the hypothesis that beta-endorphin
influences the reinforcing effects of EtOH.
                          Abstract – Edits
                               References belong in
                                should this mean? Make
                             What does and Methods
                                    knock-out
                          This Materialappear in Discussion
                               Inaccurate Information
                                         introduction
                             sure to identify abbreviations.
EtOH modifies the production and/or release of endogenous opioid peptides, including -
endorphin (Gianoulakis, 2004; Przewlocka et al., 1994; Schulz et al., 1980). Opioids
subsequently influence the reinforcing properties of EtOH and the development of
alcoholism (Terenius, 1996; Van Ree, 1996). In this study, beta-endorphin deficient
mutant mice were used to examine the effects of a specific opioid peptide on EtOH
consumption. Mice were obtained from The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME, USA.
Male and female, adult naïve mice were single housed in Plexiglas cages with corn cob
bedding and ad lib access to food (mouse chow) and water. A two-bottle free choice
EtOH oral self-administration paradigm was administered to homozygous mutant mice
(void of all beta-endorphin), heterozygous mice (50% beta-endorphin expression), and
sibling wildtype mice (C57BL/6J). Subjects received increasing concentrations of EtOH
(0%, 3%, 6%, 12%, and 15%) each given over an eight day span, and were evaluated for
preference and consumption each day. Bottles were switched every other day to avoid
the development of a side preference. Overall, females drank more than males.
Homozygous mutant mice (KO) showed decreased preference for EtOH at all
concentrations, and self-administered significantly less than heterozygous mice (HT) and
wildtype mice (C57). The HTs had a tendency to drink the most followed by the C57s,
and the KOs drank the least. These data support the hypothesis that beta-endorphin
influences the reinforcing effects of EtOH.
                                 Abstract –
                                  Revised
Ethanol (EtOH) modifies the production and/or release of endogenous opioid peptides,
including β-endorphin. Opioids subsequently influence the reinforcing properties of
EtOH and the development of alcoholism. In this study, β-endorphin deficient mice were
used to examine the effects of a specific opioid peptide on EtOH consumption. A two-
bottle free choice EtOH oral self-administration paradigm was administered to
homozygous β-endorphin knock out, heterozygous, and wildtype mice. Subjects received
increasing concentrations of EtOH (0%, 3%, 6%, 12%, and 15%) given over an eight day
span, and were evaluated for preference and consumption each day. Overall, females
drank more than males. Homozygous knock out mice showed decreased preference for
EtOH at all concentrations, and self-administered significantly less than heterozygous and
wildtype mice. These data support the hypothesis that β-endorphin influences the
reinforcing effects of EtOH.
                                Introduction-Original
                                                 Part 1
                     Add the information from the human study here to
                   EtOH hasa already been discussed and should
                                         sentence is confusing. no
                 The meaning alreadyisbeen explained. There is Splitbe
                     This has of of example of an Intro sentence.
                   The structurethisthisunclear. A referenceshould be
                     This is good
                      enhance the background information. This would
                                need up in this statement.
                              moved to do this twice.
                                  to two sentences.
                            addedintoclarify the Introduction.
                               give human clinical relevance.
Biological contributions to excessive ethanol           shown that administration of an opiate antagonist
(EtOH) drinking that can lead to alcoholism have        can decrease EtOH consumption. TheEtOH-
been investigated for decades (Nestler and              mediated release of dopamine in the nucleus
Aghajanian, 1997; Cowen et al., 2004). Animal           accumbens can also be blocked by opiate
models evaluating the chemical and genetic              antagonists (Gonzalez and Weiss, 1998). Thus, β-
substrates for self-administration of alcohol           endorphin is thought to play an important role in
(EtOH) have been used in an attempt to identify         the reinforcing effects of EtOH, mediating
mechanisms that promote the development of              consumption (Grisel etal., 1999; Roberts et al.,
alcoholism in humans. The relationship between          2000), craving (VanRee, 1996; Marinelli et al.,
EtOH and endogenous opioid peptides is of               2000), and relapse (Terenius, 1996). Some
particular interest (For instance, EtOH modifies        genotypes of rodents that prefer EtOH have lower
the synthesis and release of β-endorphin , and          endogenous β-endorphin when compared to non-
these changes in turn affect dopamine release in        preferring lines (Aguirre et al., 1995; del Arbol et
the mesolimbic pathway, a critical neural               al., 1995). Moreover, humans with a positive
substrate for reward (Widdowson and Holman,             family history for alcoholism also tend to have
1992). Numerous studies in animals (Altshuler et        lower basal levels of β-endorphin, as
al., 1980; Froehlich et al., 1990) and in humans
(O’Malley et al., 1992; Volpicelli et al., 1992) have
                                  Introduction-Original
                                                  Part 2
                     It is unclear if this statement deals with a previous
                   study. Be sure that background information is relevant
                                       This sure to in Discussion.
                                      Make belongs look for a thesis.
                                      to any previous study.
well as an exaggerated EtOH-mediated release of        varied with respect to β-endorphin levels. In the
this peptide, than those without a genetic liability   present experiment we expanded the range of
for alcoholism (Gianoulakis et al., 1989). From data   concentrations tested and also included sufficient
such as these it has been argued that those prone      numbers of male and female subjects to test for
to alcoholism are “self-medicating” an opioid          sex-dependent effects. Furthermore, we evaluated
deficiency and/or especially benefiting from an        sucrose preference to test for differences in sweet
opioid surge, following administration of EtOH         responsivity. We predicted that mice lacking all β-
(Oswald and Wand, 2004; Reid et al., 1991).            endorphin (knockout; KO) would consume the
                                                       least, because they would not be able to benefit
     In an earlier study, Grisel et al. (1999) found from any β-endorphin release. Mice with half the
evidence to support the hypothesis that EtOH-          normal amounts of β-endorphin (heterozygotes;
mediated reward depends upon β-endorphin. We HT) were predicted to drink the most EtOH and
investigated EtOH consumption in a two-bottle,         wildtype mice (B6) were expected to drink
freechoice paradigm in transgenic mice with            intermediate levels. Our data support our
varying levels of endogenous β-endorphin.              hypothesis that β-endorphin does influence the
Although strain differences were small, there was a reinforcing properties of EtOH. HT mice with 50%
tendency for mice with low levels of β-endorphin β-endorphin expression prefer and consume the
to consume the most EtOH, supporting the idea          most EtOH, KO the least, and B6 in between. With
that consumption would be especially reinforcing this data we can further examine the neurological
for subjects deficient in this peptide. Unfortunately, substrates that modulate EtOH consumption and
in this study, we only evaluated two concentrations addiction.
of EtOH: 7 and 10%, and so were unable to fully
elucidate the dose response relationship as it
                            Introduction-Revision 1
                                              Part 1
                       This statement needed. “Rodents with be
                This sentence can be Thissentencemeet limits, lower…”
                     What changes? related to a isis confusing.
                     The structure notstarted at To more liability.
                      statement is is can be made very concise.
                 ThisThis concept of this sectiongenetic vague. sure
                          to only include relevant information.
Biological contributions to excessive ethanol        especially benefiting from an EtOH-induced
(EtOH) drinking that can lead to alcoholism have opioid surge (Oswald and Wand, 2004; Reid et al.,
been investigated for decades (Nestler and           1991).
Aghajanian, 1997; Cowen et al., 2004). Animal            It has been shown that EtOH modifies the
models evaluating the chemical and genetic           synthesis and release of β-endorphin (Scanlon et
substrates for self-administration of EtOH have al., 1992 and Froehlich, 1995). These changes in
been used in an attempt to identify mechanisms turn affect dopamine release in the mesolimbic
that promote the development of alcoholism in pathway, a critical neural substrate for reward
humans. The relationship between EtOH and            (Widdowson and Holman, 1992). Numerous
endogenous opioid peptides is of particular          animal (Altshuler et al., 1980; Froehlich et al.,
interest. Some genotypes of rodents with lower 1990) and human (O’Malley et al., 1992; Volpicelli
endogenous β-endorphin levels exhibit an             et al., 1992) studies have shown that
increased preference for EtOH (Aguirre et al.,       administration of an opiate antagonist can
1995; del Arbol et al., 1995). Moreover, humans decrease EtOH consumption. EtOH-mediated
with a positive family history for alcoholism also release of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens
tend to have lower basal levels of β-endorphin, as can also be blocked by opiate antagonists
well as an exaggerated EtOH-mediated release of (Gonzalez and Weiss, 1998).
this peptide (Gianoulakis et al., 1989). It has been
suggested that those prone to alcoholism
are “self-medicating” an opioid deficiency and/or
                             Introduction- Revision 1
                                                Part 2
                  This citation appears can beIt Insteadbe saying that it is
                   It This entire is this was actually the priorremoved the
                      is unclear section twice. should of Grisel study.
                 This statement is not needed.simplified. Only statefrom
                 “unfortunate,”the beginning thethe citation.is researching.
                                          pertinent new study
                                   just tell what of points.
Thus, β-endorphin is thought to play an important test for sex-dependent effects. Furthermore, we
role in the reinforcing effects of EtOH, mediating evaluated sucrose preference to test for differences
consumption (Grisel etal., 1999; Roberts et al.,     in sweet responsivity. We predicted that mice
2000), craving (VanRee, 1996; Marinelli et al.,      lacking all β-endorphin (knockout; KO) would
2000), and relapse (Terenius, 1996).                 consume the least, because they would not be able
   In an earlier study, Grisel et al. (1999) found   to benefit from any β-endorphin release. Mice with
evidence to support the hypothesis that EtOH-        half the normal amounts of β-endorphin
mediated reward depends upon β-endorphin.            (heterozygotes; HT) were predicted to drink the
Using a two-bottle, freechoice paradigm in           most EtOH and wildtype mice were expected to
transgenic mice with varying levels of endogenous drink intermediate levels.
β-endorphin, reported that mice with low levels of
β-endorphin consumed the most EtOH, supporting
the idea that consumption would be especially
reinforcing for subjects deficient in this peptide
(Grisel et al., 1999). Unfortunately, in this study,
only two concentrations of EtOH (7 and 10%) were
examined. Thus, this study was unable to fully
elucidate the dose response relationship as it
varied with respect to β-endorphin levels.

In the present experiment we expanded the range
of concentrations tested and also included
sufficient numbers of male and female subjects to
                            Introduction-Revision 2
                                              Part 1
    Biological contributions underlying alcoholism      It has been shown that EtOH modifies the
have been investigated for decades (Nestler and synthesis and release of β-endorphin (Scanlon et
Aghajanian, 1997; Cowen et al., 2004). The         al., 1992 and Froehlich, 1995). These changes in
relationship between ethanol (EtOH) and            release of β-endorphin alter dopamine release in
endogenous opioid peptides is of particular        the mesolimbic pathway, a critical neural
interest. Rodents with lower endogenous β-         substrate for reward (Widdowson and Holman,
endorphin levels exhibit an increased preference 1992). Numerous animal (Altshuler et al., 1980;
for EtOH (Aguirre et al., 1995; del Arbol et al.,  Froehlich et al., 1990) and human (O’Malley et al.,
1995). Moreover, humans with a positive family 1992; Volpicelli et al., 1992) studies have shown
history for alcoholism have lower basal levels of that administration of opiate antagonists can
β-endorphin, as well as an exaggerated EtOH-       decrease EtOH consumption and EtOH-mediated
mediated release of this peptide, compared to      release of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens
humans without a family history of alcoholism      (Gonzalez and Weiss, 1998). Thus, β-endorphin is
(Gianoulakis et al., 1989). It has been suggested thought to play an important role in the
that those prone to alcoholism are “self-          reinforcing effects of EtOH, mediating
medicating” an opioid deficiency and may be        consumption (Grisel etal., 1999; Roberts et al.,
especially benefiting from an EtOH-induced         2000), craving (VanRee, 1996; Marinelli et al.,
opioid surge (Oswald and Wand, 2004; Reid et al., 2000), and relapse (Terenius, 1996).
1991).
                             Introduction- Revision 2
                                                Part 2

An earlier study, (Grisel et al.,1999) using a two-
bottle, freechoice paradigm in transgenic mice with
varying levels of endogenous β-endorphin,
reported that mice with low levels of β-endorphin
consumed more EtOH, supporting that                       Notice that the revision
consumption would be especially reinforcing for           has a much shorter and
subjects deficient in this peptide (Grisel et al.,       focused Introduction. The
1999). The present study expands on this previous          accepted Introduction
study by exploring EtOH preference across a larger
range of EtOH concentrations in male and female          contains only the relevant
mice and compare this to sucrose preference. We                information to
hypothesize that that mice lacking all β-endorphin        understanding the study
(knockout; KO) would consume the least EtOH               and is void of unwanted
while mice with half the normal amounts of β-
endorphin (heterozygotes; HT) would consume the                 information.
most EtOH with wildtype mice consuming an
intermediate level.
The materials
 and methods
section should
 let someone
 replicate the
study without
the need for a
   “miracle.”
                    Materials & Methods - Original
                                Part 1
                         Where did the Were both sexes used
                    What sex all of used?mice originate from?
                       Was was this approved by an approval and in
                                        what = ETHICS
                                 committee? ratio?
Homozygous (B6, KO) or heterozygous           sentinel cage was added to each side of the
mating pairs were group housed by             rack in order to obtain control volumes of
sex and genotype following weaning at 20-     leakage/evaporation. Approximately 24 h
21 days, and maintained on a reverse 12:12    later, tube volumes were recorded again, and
light: dark cycle at 21° C ± 2° with ad
                                                           Much of the missing
                                              refilled as necessary. For the following 48
libetum access to food and water.                       information from this part
                                              days, tube readings occurred every day, and
On Day 1, adult subjects were taken                        of the Materials and
                                              after every 48 h tube positions were
from the colony room to a procedural room                   control for is crucial to
                                              switched toMethods development of side
where they were weighed and single housed                understanding the water
                                              preferences. Following 8 days of study.
in corn-cob bedding lined Plexiglas cages              Remember to be as specific
                                              drinking, one of the tubes (counterbalanced
with wire lids. Two 25 mL graduated                  as possible so that another
cylinders containing tap water were placed            researcher could recreate
on each cage, food hoppers were filled with                  the study!
rodent block chow, and the tube volumes
were recorded. Cage locations were
counterbalanced so that genotype and sex
were equally distributed on the rack. A
                    Materials & Methods – Original
                                Part 2

for side across cages) was filled with 3%
EtOH for 8 days. Remaining concentrations
of EtOH and a test for sweet preference
                                                   There is no mention of
(6%, 12%, 15% EtOH, and 8% sucrose)
                                               statistical analysis. Although
were also tested for 8 days each. EtOH
                                                 the author does mention
consumption was expressed as g/kg/day, and
                                               some ratio information, the
preference ratios were calculated. The
                                                reader also needs to know
experiment was conducted in three separate
                                                 any statistical programs,
runs, which were procedurally identical, but
separated by 12 days.
                                                  software programs, etc.
                                                            used.
                      Materials & Methods – Revised
                                                   1 was detailed
                                           Partjob of giving approved by
                        The section does a good
                    The statement explains that the study
                         This explains that both sexes of mice were used.
                                   an animal care committee.
                      information about the mice and where they originated.
Progenitor mice used to obtain                  National Institutes of Health guidelines.
subjects for this study were derived from       On Day 1, adult male and female subjects were taken
those made by Rubinstein et al. (1996) and      from the colony room to a procedural room
obtained from The Jackson Laboratories,         where they were weighed and single housed
Bar Harbor, ME. The original lines were         in corn-cob bedding lined Plexiglas cages
constructed by inserting a point mutation in    with wire lids. Two 25 mL graduated
exon 3 of the POMC gene, causing a              cylinders containing tap water were placed
shortened proopiomelanocortin (POMC)            on each cage, food hoppers were filled with
prohormone. The gene has since been fully       rodent block chow, and the tube volumes
backcrossed onto the C57BL/6J inbred line.      were recorded. Cage locations were
All experimental animals were born              counterbalanced so that genotype and sex
and reared at Furman University in the          were equally distributed on the rack. A
animal care facilities. Mating pairs were       sentinel cage was added to each side of the
arranged and offspring produced by either       rack in order to obtain control volumes of
homozygous (B6, KO) or heterozygous             leakage/evaporation. Approximately 24 h
mating pairs. Mice were group housed by         later, tube volumes were recorded again, and
sex and genotype following weaning at 20-       refilled as necessary. For the following 48
21 days, and maintained on a reverse 12:12      days, tube readings occurred every day, and
light: dark cycle at 21° C ± 2° with ad         after every 48 h tube positions were
libetum access to food and water. All           switched to control for development of side
experimental procedures were in accordance      preferences. Following 8 days of water
with the Furman University Institutional        drinking, one of the tubes (counterbalanced
Animal Care and Use Committee and the
principles of laboratory animal care from the
                     Materials & Methods – Revised
                                         Part 2details of the mice in
                     This statement explains more
                  This explains the statistical analysis techniques used.
                                          the study.

for side across cages) was filled with 3%      (genotype and sex) repeated measure
EtOH for 8 days. Remaining concentrations      ANOVA on average g/kg of EtOH
of EtOH and a test for sweet preference        administered and preference at each dose.
(6%, 12%, 15% EtOH, and 8% sucrose)            Because of significant effects of sex, males
were also tested for 8 days each. EtOH         and females were subsequently evaluated
consumption was expressed as g/kg/day, and     separately by single factor ANOVAs at each
preference ratios were calculated. The         concentration. Post-hoc analysis of
experiment was conducted in three separate     significant differences was evaluated using
runs, which were procedurally identical, but   the Scheffe test. Criterion for significance
separated by 12 days. A total of 77 test                at p important to note that,
                                               was set It is≤ .05.
subjects were used in the study. Twenty four            unlike other sections of a
of these subjects were wildtype (B6),                   manuscript, the Materials
28 heterozygous (HT), and 25 knockout
                                                       and Methods section often
(KO). There were 37 females and 40 males,
                                                       needs more information to
approximately equally divided across
                                                         be added by the writer.
genotype and test run.
Data were analyzed by two-way
                                                     Results
                              These are good key words to should
                                            This is unclear.
                              This is a descriptive word and look for.be
                                               avoided.

There was no difference in any
measure of EtOH consumption across                        interaction (F(2,69) = 3.496, p < .05). In
runs, so data from all three runs were                    addition, although there was no overall
combined following two-way analysis                       effect of EtOH concentration (F(3,207) =
with run and genotype. No differences                     1.898, p > .05), there was a significant
in water or sucrose intake were observed                  Interaction between EtOH concentration and
among the runs or between strains (data                   strain (F(6,207) = 6.306, p < .01), but not
not shown), nor were there any                            significant interactions with sex (F(3,207) =
significant interactions with sucrose                     .693, p > .05).
consumption.                                              Post hoc analysis of EtOH
Preference                                                preference was evaluated in males and
β-endorphin levels influenced the                         females separately at each concentration.
preference for EtOH as evidenced by a                     KO males drank significantly less than
significant effect of genotype in the two way             either B6 or HT males at 3 or 6 % EtOH,
repeated measures ANOVA on preference                     and less than B6 males at 12 or 15 % EtOH,
across the dose range: (F(2,69) = 8.361, p <              and there was a strong tendency for them to
.01). The KOs tended to drink                             drink less than HTs at these concentrations
the least, the HTs drank the most,                        (p = .056 and .091, respectively). In
and the B6s were intermediate                             addition, there was a tendency for HT males
drinkers, with this pattern becoming more                 to prefer 6% EtOH more than B6 males (p =
evident at higher concentrations of available             .056). There were only genotypic
EtOH (Figure 1). Although there was no main effect        differences in females at 6% EtOH, as KO’s
of (F(1,69) = .103, p > .05),                             consumed relatively less EtOH than either
there was a significant sex x genotype                    other line.
                                             Discussion
                         This citation leads the to repeat information
                          A citation should reference andthe Introduction.
                          whole section seemstested into question the
                                This WAS NOT reader
                     This Thiscitation is inappropriatethisthe study. here.
                                                             unclear
                                     reasoning for this study.
Current theories of addiction                      paradigm. Overall, females drank more
emphasize the rewarding effects                    EtOH than the males, which is a well known
produced by the drug (Wise, 1988). One             result in rodents (Jones and
mediator of these rewarding effects is β-          Whitfield, 1995). Notably, the effect of
endorphin (Herz, 1997). Many studies               β-endorphin on drinking was also sex-specific.
show that EtOH drinking in mice is                 This peptide did not influence
correlated with the animal’s genetic               EtOH self-administration in females, but
ability to release β-endorphin                     did effect drinking in males. The male
(Gianoulakis et al., 1989)                         KOs, entirely lacking β-endorphin,
It has also been shown that people with a family   appeared to be insensitive to the rewarding effects of
history of alcoholism have an increase in          EtOH as they self administered at chance
β-endorphin release after EtOH                     levels (50% of the fluid they consumed
administration compared to controls with           was from the EtOH-spiked tube). On the
no family history of alcoholism                    other hand, male HTs showed a pattern
(Gianoulakis et al., 1989)                         of drinking consistent with enhanced
  The purpose of this study was to                 EtOH reward, and tended to drink more
see how β-endorphin influenced EtOH                than control mice. Both of these findings
drinking in an animal model. The results           are consistent with a theory implicating
support our hypothesis that β-endorphin            β-endorphin release in EtOH reinforcement though
modulates the rewarding properties of              why this effect should be sex-specific is unclear at
EtOH. Mice completely lacking β-endorphin (KO)     present.
self-administered less EtOH in a freechoice
                                            Discussion
                   This is not a scientific very and explain these ideas.
                   The new a great expand of a closing thought. may
                     This is sentence is term. Although the explaining.
                      A is unclear. Never speculate without writer
                                   This about poorly worded.
                   This writer shouldexamplefuture directions would be
                                       appropriate all readers will.
                         understand the term, not here.

One possibility is that sex specific hormones, such     sensitivity more generally . Currently, we are
as progesterone metabolites, make up for the lack       performing place conditioning tests with the β-
of β-endorphin in females (Morrow, 2007; Morrow         endorphin KO and HT mice. This is also a test for
et al., 2006) though further research is needed to      EtOH reinforcement, but β-endorphin may affect
clarify the mechanisms of this sex-dependent            other consequences of EtOH too.
effect.                                                          The main purpose of this study was to
          There is a main concern that should be        evaluate the neurobiological substrates that
acknowledged when interpreting data collected           modulate EtOH consumption in an animal model
from induced mutant mice. It is possible that the       where β-endorphin levels vary. We demonstrated
observable phenotypic behaviors could be the            that β-endorphin, especially in males, influences
cause of a “hitchhiking” gene polymorphism and          the reinforcing properties of EtOH. A more
not purely a consequence of the intentional genetic     complete assessment of a possible vulnerability to
mutation (Gerlai, 1996; Low et al., 1998). A more       alcoholism, giving us a broader understanding of
likely possibility is that some compensatory reaction   the predispositions to addiction and aiding in the
to the genetic mutation could cause the different       development of successful interventions to that
phenotypic behaviors and not the mutation alone         would ameliorate the negative consequences of
(Mogil and Grisel, 1998). The use of inducible          excessive alcohol use.
mutant mice in future studies will lead to a better
understanding of the mechanism by which β-
endorphin induces behavior, including behaviors
related to alcoholism. Further investigation should
be done to evaluate the role of β-endorphin in EtOH
           Writing your review
• A review should include:
  – A brief summary of the main hypothesis and
    findings of the manuscript
  – Overall opinion of the manuscript. Move from
    positive to things requiring revision.
  – Detailed review
     • Major strengths and weaknesses
     • Minor weaknesses
          Writing your review
• How you write it is EVERYTHING!
  • Be courteous.
  • Remove the personal.
  • If you would not like to be on the receiving
    end of your review, or you would not sign
    your name to it, then you likely need to
    change how you phrase comments and
    suggestions.
             Examples of Feedback
What to avoid:
This manuscript sucks. It has numerous problems with the
abstract, introduction, and methods. The students did not do
a very good job designing their experiments. I would not
accept it!
Why this is not acceptable?
 Sucks is negative and not constructive!
 Numerous problems is useless feedback….make lists of
  corrections/additions/deletions that would improve the manuscript.
 “the students….” - This is a personal attack!
 I would not accept it! - You as a reviewer do not get to decide if the
  manuscript is accepted (only the Executive Editor has that job) and
  your opinion does not belong in the review that is being sent out to
  the authors.
           Examples of Feedback
An example of part of a good review:
This manuscript explores the hypothesis that both male and
female mice lacking beta-endorphin will voluntarily consume
less alcohol than wild type mice. Several major and minor
concerns have been identified and are listed below.

Abstract:
Minor concerns:
1. The abstract could be written more concisely.
2. References should not be included in an abstract.
3. All abbreviations need to be defined the first time they
   are used.
4. Details of mice and procedures need to be moved to
   Materials and Methods.
          Examples of Feedback
An example of part of a good review cont’d:
Introduction:
Minor concerns:
1. The introduction could be written more concisely.
2. Several references are missing.
3. Moving the animal and human beta-endorphin behavioral
    studies to the first paragraph may enhance the
    significance of the current study.
4. The paragraph on the previous study as it relates to the
    current study is unclear as to what was done previously
    and what is being currently proposed.
5. The explanation of the current study can be streamlined.
6. The final 3 sentences belong in the discussion.
          Examples of Feedback
An example of part of a good review cont’d:
Materials and Methods:
MAJOR concerns:
1. What is the source of the mice?
2. Were these methods approved by an institutional animal
   care and use committee?
3. What sex animals were used?
4. How many animals were used?
5. How was the data analyzed?

              These are major concerns as opposed to the
            previous minor concerns because these concerns
           impact the experimental design and interpretation
                of results (aka: The meat of the science!)
            Examples of Feedback
What to avoid:              Better ways to phrase:
“This sentence is wrong.”   “As written the meaning of
                               this sentence is unclear.”
“Put a comma here.”
                            “A comma would be
                               appropriate here.”
“Your data is wrong.”
                            “It would appear that the
                                written results do not
                                match what is shown in
                                Figure 1.”
  Congratulations!
You have completed
 the IMPULSE peer
  reviewer on-line
  training module.

 Try to remember the
feelings of the author
   as they read your
  reviews….we don’t
want them to feel like
  the scientist in the
        cartoon!

								
To top