This website was created as a project for Genetics 677, an undergraduate course at UW Madison.
Comparison of Journal Article and Popular Press Article
I analyzed two recent articles related to vitamin C treatments in a mouse model of Werner syndrome, a popular press article from ScienceDaily, and the primary source of that article that was published in the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. The two articles attempt to convey the same information, but at a level of detail that is unique to each source’s intended audience. The article from ScienceDaily provides a basic summary of the major conclusions of the study, but neglects to mention the methods, variables examined, or significance of the research as the only known potential treatment for Werner syndrome. Also, the popular press article fails to inform the reader of the differences between WS in mice and in humans, which may prove to be a key factor that limits the ability of vitamin C to combat WS in humans.
On the other hand, the primary literature article compiles a comprehensive summary of the research, complete with methods, results, and discussion of the study at a level that is at times exhausting to read. Using terms such as “ Defenestration of sinusoidal endothelial liver cells” requires either expert knowledge, or a refined skill set in analyzing the results as well as thumbing through a dictionary. Nonetheless, the authors of the primary article explain specifically what aspects of Wrn knockout mice can be improved by a vitamin C treatment, and that vitamin C reduces the number of mitochondrial DNA mutations in liver tissues of Wrn knockout mice.
Ultimately, the popular press article does an adequate job of presenting the basic findings of the study in a means that is accessible to the reader. ScienceDaily could have done better to include a basic methods section and list of the numerous aspects experimentally determined to be ameliorated by vitamin C treatments in the Wrn knockout mice. If done correctly, this would have provided a better understanding and appreciation of the research, although providing too much detail would be counter-effective for the casual reader.
On the other hand, the primary literature article compiles a comprehensive summary of the research, complete with methods, results, and discussion of the study at a level that is at times exhausting to read. Using terms such as “ Defenestration of sinusoidal endothelial liver cells” requires either expert knowledge, or a refined skill set in analyzing the results as well as thumbing through a dictionary. Nonetheless, the authors of the primary article explain specifically what aspects of Wrn knockout mice can be improved by a vitamin C treatment, and that vitamin C reduces the number of mitochondrial DNA mutations in liver tissues of Wrn knockout mice.
Ultimately, the popular press article does an adequate job of presenting the basic findings of the study in a means that is accessible to the reader. ScienceDaily could have done better to include a basic methods section and list of the numerous aspects experimentally determined to be ameliorated by vitamin C treatments in the Wrn knockout mice. If done correctly, this would have provided a better understanding and appreciation of the research, although providing too much detail would be counter-effective for the casual reader.
References
1. ScienceDaily (4 January 2010). Vitamin C 'Cures' Mice With Accelerated Aging Disease. Retrieved February 16, 2010.
2. Massip L, Garand C, Paquet E, Cogger V et al. (2010). Vitamin C restores healthy aging in a mouse model for Werner syndrome. The FASEB journal 24, 158-174. doi:10.1096/fj.09-137133.
2. Massip L, Garand C, Paquet E, Cogger V et al. (2010). Vitamin C restores healthy aging in a mouse model for Werner syndrome. The FASEB journal 24, 158-174. doi:10.1096/fj.09-137133.
