Section Bank BB 93

[deleted647690]

Why would II be necessary here? Does this show that these siRNAs they are using are not knocking out some other protein and thus causing the reduction in cell viability that they are seeing in their results? Therefore, that other proteins that they are not studying are actually causing their results?

And I guess III makes sense since there could naturally be other siRNAs that are not part of the experiment causing the results that they are seeing?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Nugester]

1. Is the siRNA binding only to what you want it to?
2. What if the siRNA binds partially to what you want and to some other things?
3. What if the siRNA only binds to other things?
4. What if it doesn't bind at all?

For any good experiment, a researcher needs to address all the questions above, which II & III address. Is the answer "C"?

 

[deleted647690]

1. Is the siRNA binding only to what you want it to?
2. What if the siRNA binds partially to what you want and to some other things?
3. What if the siRNA only binds to other things?
4. What if it doesn't bind at all?

For any good experiment, a researcher needs to address all the questions above, which II & III address. Is the answer "C"?

The answer was D

Thanks for the answer. So I guess, generally, any experiment should have controls that encompass much of what you'd imagine would introduce variability, so it likely would include more of these rather than less

 

[rlaboss]

Why would II be necessary here? Does this show that these siRNAs they are using are not knocking out some other protein and thus causing the reduction in cell viability that they are seeing in their results? Therefore, that other proteins that they are not studying are actually causing their results?

And I guess III makes sense since there could naturally be other siRNAs that are not part of the experiment causing the results that they are seeing?

Would control II really tell us anything though? If these cells are dying they are in a stressed state and I'm pretty sure the expression of pretty much every protein in the cell would be different from normal levels.

 

[deleted647690]

Would control II really tell us anything though? If these cells are dying they are in a stressed state and I'm pretty sure the expression of pretty much every protein in the cell would be different from normal levels.

I guess based off what was said above, you want to account for other players that could be involved in the change in cell viability that you see?

 

[rlaboss]

I guess based off what was said above, you want to account for other players that could be involved in the change in cell viability that you see?

Thinking about it more, there might also be a bit of a lag between the siRNA down-regulating its target and when the cells activate their stress response. You probably would be able to examine it during that time

 

[aldol16]

Why would II be necessary here? Does this show that these siRNAs they are using are not knocking out some other protein and thus causing the reduction in cell viability that they are seeing in their results? Therefore, that other proteins that they are not studying are actually causing their results?

Yes, exactly. It's always good practice to make sure that you're hitting what you're supposed to be hitting.

And I guess III makes sense since there could naturally be other siRNAs that are not part of the experiment causing the results that they are seeing?

Not necessarily other siRNAs that aren't part of the experiment but rather something like the very act of treatment causes the effect. It's the same reason why people use empty vectors/vehicles, saline, and placebos. Maybe injecting any siRNA will cause any cascade of events downstream that lead to modulation of those protein levels and cause the cells to die.