Trial and Error

First off I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving break!
If you read Andrew’s previous posts regarding the project, you would know that we have decided to scrap all of the samples we have extracted DNA from and start from the beginning. This is so we will have water chemistry data collected at the same time as DNA is collected thus providing the most consistent and accurate data.

On Tuesday, we received a portion of our water chemistry kit, which tests Hardness, Sulfites, Alkalinity, Iron, pH, and Chloride. We decided to do a practice run on a couple of the tanks so we can familiarize ourselves with the reagents as well as fine tune our sampling procedure. The results are listed below:

Freshwater Tank A
Hardness Test: 93 ppm CaCO3
Sulfite Test: 2 ppm Na2SO3
Alkalinity Test: 90 ppm CaCO3
Iron Test: No detectable amount
pH: 7.3
Chloride Test: 20 ppm Cl-

Saltwater 1088
Iron Test: No detectable amount

We learned a couple of important points through this test run that will speed up our water chemistry sampling process in the future. For every single test we did, we started using the high concentration detection procedure, but found all of the concentrations in the tanks were extremely low, and had to redo it using the low concentration detection procedure. For our real samples that we will hopefully will be taking in the next week, we can save reagents and time and just jump right to the low detection procedures. We also noticed that the Hardness and Alkalinity tests detected the same molecule (CaCO3) and also had similar concentrations and have thus decided to use only one of the tests. (I will get back to you with the chemistry behind this reasoning, which I didn’t really understand). For both the Freshwater and Saltwater Test, we were not able to get a detectable amount of Iron and will likely scrap that water chemistry test. Lastly our pH meter results were a little different from Russell’s highly sensitive pH meter (pH=8.3) that takes continuous measurements and Tweets them. (Eisen is probably going to like the idea of that!) We will either scrap our pH meter and just use his or will have to verify if our pH meter is giving is accurate readings, by putting it in solutions of known low acidity. This is just an idea of mine, not sure if it’s a good way to check for its accuracy.

That’s where we are in the project as of Tuesday. I will get back to you about the differences between Hardness and Alkalinity and also update when we start taking samples again!

A scientific study of gender bias in scientific conferences: new #PLoS One paper from #UCDavis

Well, this is certainly very interesting especially given my recent obsession with gender biases in scientific conferences (e.g., see The Tree of Life: Q-Bio conference in Hawaii, bring your surfboard and your Y chromosome because they don’t take a XX) ….  A press release from UC Davis (see here: Science, still a man’s world? (VIDEO) :: UC Davis News & Information) describes a newly published study on gender bias in science conferences.  The study was published in PLoS One a few days ago:

Isbell LA, Young TP, Harcourt AH (2012) Stag Parties Linger: Continued Gender Bias in a Female-Rich Scientific Discipline. PLoS ONE 7(11): e49682. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049682

The most disturbing piece of data is shows in Figure 2

Figure 2. Proportion of women as first authors of posters, talks, and symposia at AAPA meetings. The average proportion for all presentations with women as first authors over a 21-year period of annual meetings of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists is indicated by the solid black line. F-Org. Symp.: symposia organized by women only; F/M Org. Symp.: symposia organized jointly by women and men; M-Org. Symp.: symposia organized by men only.

So this seems to suggest that when men organize conferences women are much more underrepresented than they could / should be based on #s in the field. Similar to my observations in certain areas.

Some other things I have written on this topic:

Water chemistry is hard

Well the theme of this week so far is summed up in the title here.  Because we know these coral ponds were going to be set up next week we ordered all of our kits and probes with expedited shipping… and they’ve been trickling in over a long period since.  We’ve been doing some initial experimentation with the measurements, but I’ll leave that story for the students.
Today we received colometric scanners that measure nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, phosphorus, and dissolved oxygen.  Only it turns out that it’s really only the scanners… they don’t actually come with the reagents required to use them.  Sort of like how the pH meter came on Monday with with instructions for activating and calibrating the electrode but none of those solutions either.

Any of course the day before Thanksgiving is clearly the best time to be putting in rush orders of reagents.  Not to mention the various things that still haven’t arrived and are about to get eaten by the holiday.

So… assuming everything gets here by early next week, and that we can get it all to work properly, and that we even have the right equipment to measure the levels we’ll encounter in the first place, we should be all set.

Another note on sampling

After discussions on sampling methods, we have decided on new samplings methods. Since we are getting rid of all 18 current samples, our new sampling methods will hopefully be consistent through out the whole project.

 

For the water samples, we will take 3 x 1.5 Liters of water in one Coral pond.

 

For the sediment samples, we want to take less than we have in the past. We plan to use 2 mL centrifuge tubes and fill them to the 1 mL mark. We will make sure to get a mix of oxic and anoxic layers of sediment.

 

For the wall scrapings, we will use a Kim wipe to vertically scrape up and down in one location on the inside of the container. We will put a piece of tape on the top of the container where we sampled, so we don’t sample there again (because there won’t be anything there after we scrape it off). This is important because we will be doing a substantial amount of sampling for our study on succession of the Coral ponds.

 

On a side note, we are also discussing whether we should sample from both coral ponds or just one. (They are identical in terms of maintenance and what is put into them) We haven’t come to a decision yet.

Thoughts on water chemistry kits and our current samples

Now that we have some of our new water chemistry equipment, we have discussed flaws in our first 18 samples. We collected all 18 samples with no tools to collect metadata (water chemistry). We have decided to take all the samples again and get rid of the 18 we already have. We still don’t have all the water chemistry equipment we need, but it should all be here tomorrow. It is crucial to determine the water chemistry at the time of every sampling. (During our study of succession on the coral ponds, this will be a lot of water chemistry testing!)

The evil germy pacifier story is getting out of hand – w/ Dr. Glass misleading the charge

From Wikipedia

Oh for crying out loud.  This is getting out of control.  Two weeks ago I wrote about an over the top story in US News and World Report about pacifiers and microbes: The Tree of Life: Germophobia 101: there are microbes on pacifiers ….  The culprit in this story was a Dr. – Dr. Tom Glass – who was the lead presenter of some study at a meeting.  His study involved counting the number of colony forming units on used vs. new pacifiers.  And low and behold used ones were covered in germs.  Amazingly, this led Glass to say ridiculous things like

In the long run, it may be that what you do now [using a pacifier] may have a lot to do with whether a child ends up developing atherosclerosis or type 2 diabetes.

Completely misleading and deceptive and dangerous I would say.  And alas, the story has been crawling it’s way around the web picking up speed.  Now it is at Time.Com with another story about Glass’ work: Bacteria on Binkies: A Recipe for Crankiness | TIME.com.  Glass apparently is now blaming biofilms of pacifiers for all the problems.  And again Dr. Glass is (mis)leading the charge against pacifiers.

A lot of times when a child is cranky, the first thing a parent does is reach for a pacifier,” says Dr. R. Tom Glass, the study’s principal investigator and a professor of forensic sciences, pathology and dental medicine at Oklahoma State University. “But what are you using to treat the crankiness? It’s a vicious cycle.

and

“biofilms can potentially increase the likelihood of colic or ear infections and could possibly heighten the risk of allergies or asthma, says Glass.”

The reporter does present some skepticism from parents and from the literature.  But come one – why even report this crap from Glass.  I mean – I am all for keeping babies from getting sick and pacifiers very well may be a source of some nasties.  But let’s think about the big picture here.  Parents buy pacifier.  Parents open package.  Parents give to baby.  Baby puts in mouth.  Baby drops pacifier and it gets dirt on it as well as some germs.  Baby puts back in mouth.  Pacifier gets left on counter.  Things from babies mouth grow on pacifier.  Baby puts pacifier back in mouth.  And so on.  Tell me again where the pacifier introduces bad germs to this system?

UPDATE: some reading material

Schedule for the new Coral ponds!

We have received a tentative schedule for the new ponds that we will be studying succession on.

Right now they (the people who set up and monitor the tanks) are rinsing the containers with freshwater as well as rinsing the sand with freshwater. The sand is going into the containers as they are getting rinsed. We will take a few samples here before anything else gets added.

Then they will fill the containers with new saltwater and run pumps for a few days with just the new seawater and sand. (too make sure everything is working well) This should be done by mid December. We will also take a few samples here.

Still in mid December (hopefully) they will  add old sand, rocks and animals from old reef tank.  This is where we will start extensively taking samples because we really want to see how the microbial communities become established. We will sample lots for the first couple days and slowly decrease the amount of sampling for the following few weeks. This is because we know most of the changes will happen within the first couple of days.
Then they are going to add live rock that have been curing. Curing basically gets rid of the dead stuff so the live and healthy organisms can thrive! We will again sample more extensively immediately after the rocks are added to catch the rapid changes happening to the microbial communities. We also might sample the rocks before they are put into the ponds.
After a short adjustment period due to all the new organisms, they will begin to populate the ponds with corals and other inverts. Once again we plan to sample a lot for the first few days but continue to sample, but less often after the first few days.

The next change that we predict will occur when students begin to reach into the ponds in the Spring. We will sample during this time too, to see how human interaction affects the microbial communities.

 

That’s the plan for now! 🙂

My new microbe art corner w/ three works by @artologica

New Parameters to Test!

We’ve ordered and are recieving a series of equipment to measure Nitrate, Nitrite, Ammonia, dissolved Oxygen, pH, salinity, temperature, Phosphate, alkalinity, Chloride, hardness, Iron, and Sulfite in the tanks’ waters. Now we can gather more information about the environment these microbes are thriving in.

Microbes, art and a bit of satire all in one place – Design Interactions at the RCA

Got pointed to an interesting site recently – “Design Interactions at the RCA”  This is a program (or as they call it – a programme) at the Royal College of Art in London.  One of the current students – Lana Porter – contacted me about a possible project she was working on involving microbes.  She also pointed me to some past projects connected to microbes from the program.  The two she pointed to are:

  • Viruses, close enemies or distant cousins? | Design Interactions at the RCA. From Mikael Metthey.  It appears to be from a few years ago but I am not sure.  Regardless, it is pretty humorous.  It is basically a description of an attempt to create “more intimate ways to approach the process of vaccination” by having poxteddy bears and cowpox rides and vaccination playgrounds.
  • The Race.  From Michael Burton.  Also from a few years ago. This one is about antibiotics and microbial evolution and the hygiene hypothesis.  

And then browsing around the site led to some other interesting concepts:

Seems like a fun programme (or program) …