Chris Rhodes Week 4: Difference between revisions

From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
==HIV Experiment Outline==
==HIV Experiment Outline==
#Question: Based on some of the conclusions presented in the Discussion section of the [http://bioquest.org/bedrock/problem_spaces/hiv/Markham_1998.pdf Markham Paper] that tried to relate various immune responses to the different progressor types I thought it would be interesting to look at the genetic diversity and divergence of some of the subjects in each of the three progressor groups through the use of phylogenetic trees and see if there were any discernible patterns within or between progressor groups and hypothesize about what these patterns could tell us about the immune response of the subject. By using phylogenetic trees (both rooted and unrooted) as visual indicators of diversity and divergence, our experiment hopes to determine the pattern of immune response employed by each subject and determine whether or not the pattern of immune response used is related to the progressor type of the subject.  
#Question: Based on some of the conclusions presented in the Discussion section of the [http://bioquest.org/bedrock/problem_spaces/hiv/Markham_1998.pdf Markham Paper] that tried to relate various immune responses to the different progressor types I thought it would be interesting to look at the genetic diversity and divergence of some of the subjects in each of the three progressor groups through the use of phylogenetic trees and see if there were any discernible patterns within or between progressor groups and hypothesize about what these patterns could tell us about the immune response of the subject. By using phylogenetic trees (both rooted and unrooted) as visual indicators of diversity and divergence, our experiment hopes to determine the pattern of immune response employed by each subject and determine whether or not the pattern of immune response used is related to the progressor type of the subject.  
#As hypothesized by the paper, non-progressors are thought to use a broadly effective immune response which targets and cuts down any virus that replicates past a certain threshold. Subsequently, there is strong selection against change for any surviving virus strain because mutation could cause increased replication past the immune threshold resulting in eradication of the new mutant. On the other hand, rapid progressors are thought to use a far more specific style of immune response that, instead of targeting all of the viral variants such as non-progressors, targets only the most prevalent viral strain encountered. Due to this, there is strong selection for change in the rapid progressor viruses because the immune system can be easily escaped through mutation which makes the new variant unrecognizable to the rapid progressors hyper-specific immune cells. Based on these findings it is my view that when observing the phylogenetic trees of non-progressors we will see evidence of low diversity and divergence with any radically different variants being quickly snuffed out. For rapid progressors, I expect to see high diversity and divergence with the tree having long horizontal branches stemming from multiple different ancestor strains. For Moderate progressors, due to the consistent lack of significance provided between the moderate and rapid progressor groups throughout the article, I'm expecting to see trees that closely resemble the patterns of rapid progressors but perhaps with less diverse ancestor strains or slightly less branching.   
#As hypothesized by the paper, non-progressors are thought to use a broadly effective immune response which targets and cuts down any virus that replicates past a certain threshold. Subsequently, there is strong selection against change for any surviving virus strain because mutation could cause increased replication past the immune threshold resulting in eradication of the new mutant. On the other hand, rapid progressors are thought to use a far more specific style of immune response that, instead of targeting all of the viral variants such as non-progressors, targets only the most prevalent viral strain encountered. Due to this, there is strong selection for change in the rapid progressor viruses because the immune system can be easily escaped through mutation which makes the new variant unrecognizable to the rapid progressors hyper-specific immune cells. Based on these findings, it is my view that when observing the phylogenetic trees of non-progressors we will see evidence of low diversity and divergence with the trees having short clustered branches with minimal vertical branching due to any radically different variants being quickly snuffed out. For rapid progressors, I expect to see high diversity and divergence with the trees having long horizontal branches stemming from multiple different ancestor strains. For moderate progressors, due to the consistent lack of significance provided between the moderate and rapid progressor groups throughout the article, I'm expecting to see trees that closely resemble the patterns of rapid progressors but perhaps with less diverse ancestor strains or slightly less branching.   
#We will be using two subjects from each progressor group to conduct this experiment:
#We will be using two subjects from each progressor group to conduct this experiment:
#*Rapid Progressors: Subjects
#*Rapid Progressors: Subjects 3 and 11
#*Moderate Progressors: Subjects
#*Moderate Progressors: Subjects 7 and 14
#*Non-progressors: Subjects 12 and 13
#*Non-progressors: Subjects 12 and 13


==Links==
==Links==
{{Chris H. Rhodes}}
{{Chris H. Rhodes}}

Revision as of 14:44, 27 September 2011

HIV Experiment Outline

  1. Question: Based on some of the conclusions presented in the Discussion section of the Markham Paper that tried to relate various immune responses to the different progressor types I thought it would be interesting to look at the genetic diversity and divergence of some of the subjects in each of the three progressor groups through the use of phylogenetic trees and see if there were any discernible patterns within or between progressor groups and hypothesize about what these patterns could tell us about the immune response of the subject. By using phylogenetic trees (both rooted and unrooted) as visual indicators of diversity and divergence, our experiment hopes to determine the pattern of immune response employed by each subject and determine whether or not the pattern of immune response used is related to the progressor type of the subject.
  2. As hypothesized by the paper, non-progressors are thought to use a broadly effective immune response which targets and cuts down any virus that replicates past a certain threshold. Subsequently, there is strong selection against change for any surviving virus strain because mutation could cause increased replication past the immune threshold resulting in eradication of the new mutant. On the other hand, rapid progressors are thought to use a far more specific style of immune response that, instead of targeting all of the viral variants such as non-progressors, targets only the most prevalent viral strain encountered. Due to this, there is strong selection for change in the rapid progressor viruses because the immune system can be easily escaped through mutation which makes the new variant unrecognizable to the rapid progressors hyper-specific immune cells. Based on these findings, it is my view that when observing the phylogenetic trees of non-progressors we will see evidence of low diversity and divergence with the trees having short clustered branches with minimal vertical branching due to any radically different variants being quickly snuffed out. For rapid progressors, I expect to see high diversity and divergence with the trees having long horizontal branches stemming from multiple different ancestor strains. For moderate progressors, due to the consistent lack of significance provided between the moderate and rapid progressor groups throughout the article, I'm expecting to see trees that closely resemble the patterns of rapid progressors but perhaps with less diverse ancestor strains or slightly less branching.
  3. We will be using two subjects from each progressor group to conduct this experiment:
    • Rapid Progressors: Subjects 3 and 11
    • Moderate Progressors: Subjects 7 and 14
    • Non-progressors: Subjects 12 and 13

Links

  1. Chris Rhodes User Page
  2. Week 2 Journal
  3. Week 3 Journal
  4. Week 4 Journal
  5. Week 5 Journal
  6. Week 6 Journal
  7. Week 7 Journal
  8. Week 8 Journal
  9. Week 9 Journal
  10. Week 10 Journal
  11. Week 11 Journal
  12. Week 12 Journal
  13. Week 13 Journal
  14. Week 14 Journal
  15. Home Page
  16. Week 5 Assignment Page
  17. Week 6 Assignment Page
  18. Week 7 Assignment Page
  19. Week 8 Assignment Page
  20. Week 9 Assignment Page
  21. Week 10 Assignment Page
  22. Week 11 Assignment Page
  23. Week 12 Assignment Page
  24. Week 13 Assignment Page
  25. Week 14 Assignment Page
Retrieved from "https://openwetware.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Chris_Rhodes_Week_4&oldid=541828"