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!
Pages to are hidden for
"Peer Review"Please download to view full document