"Understanding the LGIS" is a perfect example of a paper on neurology. There is a decided lack of any kind of introduction into the topic it is addressing, although it is very concise in describing the characteristics of a Ligand-gated ion channel and how it functions through the use of statements such as "It is activated via binding of 2 equivalents of neurotransmitter to its surface, one at the edge of each a subunit. " This information is very helpful in understanding the LGIS but does not provide any illumination into how this structure or function applies to NMDA in either similarities or differences. Discussion in this paper includes a brief description of ways in which the various subtypes of LGIS receptors can be blocked and how that reaction is similar to G-protein linked receptors, yet it fails to mention how this is relevant to the topic at hand.
With specific discussion on the structure and function of glutamate, an agonist associated with the NMDA receptor, the paper begins to demonstrate how these responses are more in line with G-protein linked receptors than to the typical LGIC.
This is further emphasized with the statement "… but it contains one less subunit, and also includes several membrane-spanning proteins as its effector, resembling a G-protein coupled receptor. " The description of how these response works are also more closely related to the G-protein receptor, mentioning typical LGIS receptor responses consist of "an influx of sodium or calcium ions into the cell, rather than activating an effector protein. " Therefore, this essay only seems to be arguing against the validity of the question statement. Technically, this essay contains only one blatant proofreading error in the repetition of the word "extends" in the third paragraph.
It fails to demonstrate the NMDA receptor could be considered a typical LGIC, providing only an introductory a statement that it "does come under the category of Ligand-gated ion channel, " and the final statement, "An agonist at NMDA receptors is EDRF… " does not have any obvious relation to the rest of the essay at all. It opens with a description of a typical ligand-gated ion channel, including its structure, binding region, and functionality. Further description of the NMDA receptor illustrates both how this receptor is similar to and different from the typical LGIS in terms of structure, binding region, and functionality.
Statements such as "Unlike other ligand-gated channels it needs the co-agonist, glycine to produce anything but a negligible response" and "NMDA receptors like other LGICs has a locking mechanism, but it does not work in the same way" serve to bring attention to this comparison. Although specific information regarding how typical LGICs is not provided to be compared with the specific information on the same regarding NMDA receptors, there is the statement "LGICs other than NMDA DO NOT [sic] work in this manner" Other points over which NMDA receptors differ from typical LGICs are discussed, followed by a quick list recounting various ways in which they are similar. This paper presents an easy to follow comparison/contrast format that provides a lot of specific information beneficial to a complete understanding of the relevant material.
It does not have a very smooth start, identifying the topic to be addressed, but it avoids straying far from the initial point, making the topic possible to deduce.
In presenting this comparison, the writer indicates their position on the original statement: "There are points that cement NMDA receptors place as an LGIC. Perhaps not a 'typical' LIGC, but one nevertheless, " after having enumerated the various ways in which they are different. This provides the turning point in the essay, enabling the writer to strengthen the position that NMDAs are LGICs and tying the essay back to the founding statement. Technically, this essay has a weak opening in that it doesn't introduce the idea to be addressed and a particularly difficult run-on sentence within the second paragraph.
Typographical errors include "the" instead of "they" in the 8th paragraph, the repetition of the word "the" 14th paragraph, and the omission of the final's' in "its" in the final paragraph. The final statement regarding the susceptibility to therapeutic intervention has the ring of an afterthought but is tied into the discussion of similarities. It begins with an unclear direction as to the topic at hand, mentioning ligand-gated ion channels, NMDA receptors, nACh receptors, and the identification of receptors.
It provides pertinent material, such as "LIGC are usually made up of 4 or 5 peptide subunits with four transmembrane subunits, " but fails to relate how this information relates to the NMDA specifically, instead of concentrating on the specific details of the next. It isn't until halfway through the essay that the term NMDA is first encountered. When they are introduced, the introduction provides a succinct and clear outline of what is to follow. Although a lot of specific information is included regarding the functioning of these receptors as well as how this functioning differs from the typical LGIC, it is presented haphazardly in a run on, disorganized sentences such as "Therefore, NMDA also required two ligands to bind, however, in contrast, glucine is also required as a co-agonist. " Also, while there is plenty of information, whether these pieces of information are demonstrating a similarity or dissimilarity to the typical LGIC remains unclear. There are also several typographical and grammatical errors throughout this essay.
The first sentence is a good example: "A ligand-gated ion channel [sic] also known as an ionotropic channel, a receptor is coupled to an ion channel which permits the trafficking of either cation or anions such as Na+ for nAch receptors, CI- for glycine GABA receptors or Ca2+ for NMDA receptors, etc. " The addition of the word "In" at the beginning of the sentence would give it greater meaning, and less awkwardness and even cursory proofreading would catch the missing 'n' from the word "channel. " Other similar spelling and awkward sentence structuring can be found throughout the essay, too numerous to mention in this context. Evaluation The information included in essay 2 seemed to have a large amount of the necessary detail to adequately respond to the originating statement, although it lacked in the initial direction.
The writer's position, although stated in the essay, should have been included somewhere closer to the beginning. Where it failed to receive the 100% seems to be more in proofreading and grammar than the actual content. To ensure I accurately reflect my ability and understanding, I intend to study all of the relevant material to be tested to such a degree that I can formulate my thoughts in an organized structure, presenting an introduction to each answer that reflects the topic to be addressed as well as my position regarding that topic.
Also, I intend to proofread all answers before submission to reduce the number of repeated words and typographical errors and to rephrase any run-on or disorganized sentences.