Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Components
1. State and interpret your key findings. Provide the answer to the research question.
2. Summarize and generalize.
3. Keep in mind who your potential readers will be.
Format
4. Organize the Discussion in a pyramid structure.
Unexpected findings
Hypotheses or models
Last Paragraph: Summary
Significance/Implication
A. First Paragraph
B. Middle Paragraphs
6. Organize the topic according to the science or from most to least important
7. Compare and contrast your findings with those of other published results
7.1 Comparing and contrasting findings in the Discussion:
We observed virtually no size classes of mtDNA molecules. Since the undegraded
circular mtDNA molecules were entirely of heterogeneous size, this observed size
heterogeneity probably reflects the real situation within plant mitochondria…In contrast
to our observations, size classes of linear or circular molecules and species specific
differences have been previously reported (24, 25). However, these studies were
performed only with a fraction of supercoiled DNA (26), which most likely does not
represent the complete set of molecules existing in organelle. Supercoiled DNA isolated
from a C. album suspension culture, for example, consisted exclusively of small circular
plasmid mp1 DNA. Its oligomers were found in the open circular form, thus appearing
indeed as a few size classes.
7.2
We have shown that annual canine vaccination campaigns achieving 67% coverage in
Ngorongoro and 42% coverage in Serengeti should be sufficient to control rabies
outbreaks with 95% confidence. These coverage levels are lower than the WHO-
recommended annual target of 70% (26). We focused on annual coverage targets, since
rabies vaccination in Tanzania is conducted through annual campaigns and since the
WHO target is specified as such. However, we also calculated that 39% and 25%
coverage consistently maintained in Ngorongoro and Serengeti, respectively, will control
rabies outbreaks with 95% confidence. These estimates of required coverage are much
lower than previous recommendations of 70% coverage on a consistent basis (1). The
difference is possibly due to the fact that the parameters of the previous study were drawn
from Asia and the Americas, whereas our model considers rabies dynamics in sub-
Saharan Africa (19).
8.1 Limitations:
Explaining limitations in the Discussion
In our modeling of A assembly, we assumed that A monomers are not present in
drusen. However, it is possible that A monomers, once polymerized into amyloid fibrils,
may accumulate in drusen (40). Such accumulations would result in a lower number of
monomers used for calculations in our model than are actually present, and thus a higher
risk for the disease than determined based on our assumption.
10. Conclude the Discussion with an analysis of the most important results and the
significance of the work.