Science Buddies: "Ask an Expert"

I tried plotting the error bars and did get them, but they all look like the same distance. When plotting the error bars, excel asks me for a positive and negative value. Do I insert the s.e.m of the 3 different groups individually and do I do like the 0 and 2 hour s.e.m and the same time for an example. May you please help guide me through error bars, Thanks

For my application, I have said this "Lettuce is a commercial crop that we consume practically everyday. My project has proven that as the ozone layer depletes, our plants won’t be at risked at receiving negative effects from the uvb radiation emitted. This is because of a genetic mutation that they all have developed called Photomorphogenesis. My project also raises alertness on the protein uvr8, a certain protein that reacts towards uvb. This protein is extremely helpful in stimulating plant growth and repairing damage when exposed to a low dose of uvb. Knowing this knowledge, genetic engineerers can now incorporate this protein into plants that lack uvr8, thus allowing them to survive as the ozone layer depletes. Plants are all sessile so they are unable to avoid uvb exposure as much as we can. By allowing them to have a strong defense mechanism, we are protecting our environment and increasing the amount of plant life throughout time." The only thing is, I couldn't find an area to incorporate the fact that phytoplankton undergo photomorphogenesis as well. What would the significance of knowing that be? Sorry I am asking question after question to you, I am trying to finish my project as soon as possible. Also, I am aware that it doesn't seem like I changed much about the genetic engineering part but was your point that if all plants already have the protein uvr8, then it is pointless in saying that? When looking for plants that don't have it, did you want me to have specifics to mention. For example, if phytoplankton didn't have the protein uvr8, I could say that "phytoplankton, one of our major sources of oxygen, are in danger from the harmful uvb effects. But, by giving them the protein uvr8 that may protect them, they won't be as in risk"

You have asked a lot of questions, so let me answer them one by one.

“Would lower numbers mean that it is closer or farther to the mean?” Closer

“If so, what do I say when presenting the error bars and s.e.m?” All you have to say in the caption to the graph is that the values are the means plus-or-minus S.E.M. In your Results section you will say that you compared the 2 hr and 10 hr leaf density values to the control value using a t-test and the results showed no statistical difference. However, there is a trend towards greater density with longer light exposure and if more plants had been tested per group, the statistical results might have proven the trend.

“Also, what you say arbitrary units are?” What you measured with the ImageJ program is a relative density or darkness of the photo of the leaf. There is no ‘unit’ of image darkness. A value of 0 would be totally black. The value for totally white is set by the program and I don’t know what it is. It does not matter. What matters is the DIFFERENCE in values between the control and the irradiated leaves.

“My project has proven that as the ozone layer depletes, our plants won’t be at risk of receiving negative effects from the uvb radiation emitted.” You cannot say “our plants” because that means ALL. You have to say SOME plants won’t be at risk.

“This is because of a genetic mutation that they all have developed called photomorphogenesis.” I told you this before! You cannot say ALL plants have the Uvr8 gene without proof. And, it is NOT a mutation. It is a normal gene that some plants have. The judges will probably ask you which plants the Uvr8 gene has been put into, so do a search and find out if the Uvr8 gene has been inserted into a plant.

“The only thing is, I couldn't find an area to incorporate the fact that phytoplankton undergo photomorphogenesis.” How do you KNOW that phytoplankton undergo photomorphogenesis? Can you prove this statement by citing other people’s research? You need to find out if phytoplankton have Uvr8 or a similar gene. If they do not have the UV-response gene, then they would be good candidates for genetic engineering. Even if they did have Uvr8, they might be made MORE resistant to UV by adding extra copies of the gene.

I keep telling you this and you need to understand and follow it—you cannot make a statement in science without proof, either your own data or someone else’s. You cannot say ALL plants have Uvr8 unless this has been proven by research and it has not because no one has examined EVERY plant.

The judges will look at your statements and question you about them, so make sure that you don’t say anything that you cannot back up with evidence.

Let me know when you find out how much more UV will reach the earth’s surface if a certain percentage of the ozone layer is depleted. This is an important point to your project and you need to know this.

Good luck,

Sybee

Oh ok thank you. By saying all, it is just an assumption. But my project has just proved that lettuce undergoes photomorphogenesis and I've done research and found out that phytoplankton undergo it as well. If I did research and found that phytoplankton don't have uvr8, is it ok to say that genetic engineerers can add it. After reading some articles, it seems like the protein uvr8 has always been in some plants but scientist have discovered it until recently.

Don't use the word ALL unless that IS what you mean. Your audience will misunderstand you.

You said you did 'research' on phytoplankton. Do you mean to say that you found some published articles proving that phytoplankton can do photomorphogenesis in response to UV? Can you send me the articles? I am interested in this area too.

Engineering UV protection into plants and phytoplankton might be necessary if the ozone layer becomes severely depleted. Even if a plant or phytoplankton has a gene for protecting itself against UV, it might not be enough if the UV becomes higher than a certain level. In that case, it might be necessary to insert other genes into them to provide additional protection.

Let me know what you find out from calling NOAA.

Oh ok. I thought I sent you research proving that phytoplankton undergo photomorphogenesis a few post ago. May you try looking for the link I sent you. If the information is useless, please let me know. For the error bars, I was able to add them on (the s.e.m of each group) but they all look the same. I'm pretty sure word has just set it like this. May you please help guide me on how to do error bars, I tried looking for a video but it led me to the problem of having similar looking bars.

There is nothing wrong with similar sized error bars! The important thing is how LARGE the number is relative to the mean. The smaller the number the more closely the two readings that you averaged agree. If you had done 5 measurements per plant, the S.E.M. would probably have been smaller.

You are using Excel to plot the graph, right? If you select the correct field for the error bars, then they will show up correctly on the graph. Can you send me the Excel file so i can see it? Then I can make suggestions better.

I tried sending it to you through the upload attachment option but the website said "Sorry, the board attachment quota has been reached." Is there another way to send it?

You could try opening a new Scibuddies thread and attaching it to a new post. See if that works.

If that doesn't work, you could use Dropbox or Google Docs. You can upload to one of those sites as a shared file and post the link for me and I will take a look at it.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4C8qc ... sp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4C8qc ... sp=sharing

I am not hundred percent sure they sent the link I was hoping it'll send but I am pretty sure these are the two files. The reason I have two graphs is because one graph has each plant as an individual bar while the other just has 3 bars for each group (the other has 6). I wanted your opinion of which was better (one's mean is merged for each group while the other, each plant has its own mean.

OK. I clicked on the links and it said i need your permission to open them so i just sent you a request. I'll check them again later.

Ok. sorry about that. I changed the settings so that anyone with the link can view it. Hopefully, they are right.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4C8qc ... sp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4C8qc ... sp=sharing

The graphs look good, but there are a few things I would change so the judges will understand you better.

If you haven’t done so, be sure to write a caption [legend] for each figure briefly explaining the experimental procedure [10 hr of sunlight for all plants plus 2 hr or 12 hr additional light from a UVB lamp (Zilla Desert50 reptile lamp)], what the plant groups mean [Control, no extra light; 2 hr additional light, 12 hr additional light], what was measured [LEAF density, not ‘plant’ density, in arbitrary units], how it was measured [ImageJ analysis of photos] and what the values represent [mean plus-or-minus S.E.M.].

FIGURE 1
• The title for the figure should be: Increased daily light with UVB stimulates photomorphogenesis in lettuce. Be careful not to say UVB only, because that is not true. The lamp emits light over the whole spectrum and not just UVB. The judges are going to ask you why you think that the increased chlorophyll content [increased leaf image density] is a result of increased UVB. You cannot prove this with your data because you did not irradiate the lettuce with ONLY UVB. You have to explain that other researchers have shown that PMG can be caused by stimulation of UVR8 by UVB and that this is the most likely explanation.
• Change y-axis label to: Leaf Photo Density (arbitrary units) When you present your results orally before the judges, you will explain that you believe the increased density in the photographic images of the leaves results from increased chlorophyll content. In your write-up of the project, you will explain this in the DISCUSSION.
• Delete the ‘Group’ key from the right side of the figure. Just say in the legend that the two bars in each group represent the mean of 4 density readings from one leaf of each of two plants [n = 2].
• Change the error bars so that they have ‘caps’.
• Change x-axis label to Exposure to Light with UVB (hours)

FIGURE 2
• Change y-axis label to: Leaf Photo Density (arbitrary units)
• Delete the label from the right side of the graph [‘Lettuce Densities’]
• Change the error bars so that they have ‘caps’.
• Change x-axis label to Exposure to Light with UVB (hours)
• Make a figure legend similar to the one for Fig. 1, except say that the values shown are the means of the average density readings of leaves from two plants [n = 2].

I would make one figure with these two graphs as A and B. This makes it easier to explain and you only have to write one legend.

Have you made the figure showing the average plant weights plus-or-minus S.E.M. for each group?

You also need to show the spectrum of the lamp in comparison to the spectrum of sunlight.

Also need to show a table with the results of the UV test strips.

Print photos of your plants with the lamp to show how the experiments were done.

Good luck. You are almost done!

Sybee

Ok, yes I have a table for the weights of the plants. So did you want both types of bar graphs ( one with each group as a bar and one with each plant as am individual bar or did you want merged? For the table with the intensity, should I say on the left column the hours of exposure and on the right column, the intensity? I can send those to you when I am done as well. Just to be sure in case people question me when I explain it, the error bars represent how close or far the numbers of the set are compared to the mean and the closer the number, the more accurate the values are. For the second graph with each plant as an individual bar, did the error bars seem to high?

Yes, I would put both density graphs into one figure separated as part A and part B. The data are all from the same measurement, just showing different parts. If you want, you could make a table that shows the actual density readings for each leaf, but this is not necessary. The mean+/-SEM is what people go by.

For the plant weights, you can plot the mean+/-SEM for each group on the y-axis against the group on the x-axis.

For the table showing UV intensity in mJ/sq cm, I would have one column for each group and one row for sunlight and one row for the UVB lamp. You could put another row with the percent increase in UV. Did you do the UV measurements more than once? If so, then your value will be the mean+/-SEM.

The size of the SEM relative to the mean shows how close multiple readings [the 4 density measurements per leaf or the two plants from each group] are to one another. In science the correct term for what the SEM shows is the PRECISION. When your SEM is small relative to the mean, it means that your skill in measuring and the measuring tools you used were very good. ACCURACY is the term we use to mean how close the mean value is to the TRUE value: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision

You need to report the results of the t-test because these show the probability that the difference between the control and the UV groups is real with some degree of confidence. The cut-off for accepting statistical significance is commonly 95% or 0.05. I remember the t-test for your 12 hr plants gave a value of 0.07 which means there’s a 93% probability that the difference is real—not considered significant if published in a scientific journal, but definitely suggesting a trend. If you had done 5 plants per group, your statistics would have been better and maybe you would have seen a probability [p-value] of <0.05.

There’s a lot for you to learn, but you are making progress! The more you read and study, the easier [and more FUN] it becomes to do experiments.

Sybee

Ok thanks. Do you know if it is possible to merge two graphs into one on word? I am not sure if you saw it but i also had a table listing the exact s.e.m. Based on your numbers, would I say that the 12 hour had the most accurate results (mean) and the 2 hour had the least results. If someone asked what the point of this was, would I say to find the accuracy of the results I got and to see which means are truly accurate. What if it wasn't accurate or it was a high number? Would I need to say I should get more test subjects next time based on this knowledge? While in the topic of test subjects, I wished I knew sooner that I needed at least three or more plants but I had a reason for only 2. I highly doubt this would be necessary to state and that it even might draw negative attention and comments but I chose to plants per group because that was the maximum number that fit in the terrarium. Yes, I could have gotten a second terrarium but then the plants within the group wouldn't truly get the same amount of uv (even though it would only differ by seconds when turning on and off the lamp.) This may have an impact on my project. So, since you are a judge, would you think it is necessary to admit this? Also, when talking about the t-test and means, should I mention that if I had more test subjects, the results may have varied and the t-test would probably have proved each group is statistically different? Is it good to admit my mistakes to the judges so they know I am aware of my mistakes now and know what to fix since most science projects are supposed to teach you something, even lessons on how to do it after mistakes. Would you think it is necessary to mention in my procedure though that you should use at least 3 plants per group (even though i didn't) Thanks

Here are my answers to your several questions:

1. Merging two graphs into one.
Let’s be clear on what you and I mean by the term ‘merge’ and the term ‘figure’. What I have been saying is to put the first graph, the one that shows the means of your leaf image density measurements, as part A, then right BELOW it to place the second graph as part B. Is this what you were thinking of? A FIGURE can contain multiple graphs and photos, but it is still referred to as ONE figure.

What program did you use to create the graph? From Excel you can just do copy—paste into a word doc. I would do each graph as a Powerpoint slide because that program has more options for adding and changing things. For your poster, just print each graph on a single sheet of 8 ½ x 11” paper and place them one above the other [or side by side if that fits better on your poster]. Create ONE caption for the figure, parts A and B, and make the font large enough that it can be read by a person standing a meter from the poster. The width of the caption [usually called a ‘legend’] should be about the same as that of the figure it goes with.

2. Difference between accuracy and precision
Ok. Let me explain this again. The SEM is calculated from how close the data measurements are to the mean. The better your measurement, the smaller the SEM. It has NOTHING to do with accuracy. The accuracy of a mean is how close it is to the TRUE value and you don’t know what the true value is. So, don’t use the word accuracy when talking about the SEM. The judges know [or should know] the difference between precision and accuracy and expect that you do too.

Two hours of extra light treatment MAY not have been long enough to trigger the synthesis of extra chlorophyll. Notice that I said MAY!! Don’t change the statement to say that 2 hr WAS NOT LONG ENOUGH because you do not know that. All you can say about the 12 hr treatment is that it suggests a trend towards increased chlorophyll [leaf image density] but that the small sample number makes it impossible statistically to prove it.

3. Importance of number of subjects per group
I understand now why you used two plants per group. Did no one warn you that this was probably not going to allow you to prove or disprove your hypothesis? You must perform experiments with at least 3 and preferably 5 subjects per group in order to apply statistical tests. You should have had two terraria and two lamps so that you could irradiate 4 subjects per group all at the same time. Be sure to consider this when you do your next science fair project.

4. “…the t-test would probably have proved each group is statistically different?”
You CANNOT say that that increasing the number of subjects per group WOULD prove anything. An increased number would give you better statistical analysis and that MIGHT allow you to prove the difference. There is a huge difference between the words ‘MIGHT’ and ‘WOULD’!

5. What to say when and where.
Yes, when you explain your results to the judges and you point out that the 12 hr irradiation appears to show increased density and plant weight, you will say that your statistics were too weak to prove this because there were only two subjects per group. Then explain that it was a technical problem that limited your subject numbers and that you know now that you should have used two terraria, each with the same lamp, to do the experiment.
In your write up, the explanation of the statistical weakness should be in the DISCUSSION. You can say that in future experiments you will be sure to use at least 3 subjects per group and more if possible.

A judge may ask you what other experiments you could do to demonstrate the UVRB affect. One you already know and that is to use a light source that emits ONLY UVRB. Others could be to test the effects of UVRB on different plants or single-celled algae. Try to think of some more things that could be done to continue this study. This is a favorite judge’s question at the end of your presentation—what do you do next?

You’re almost done…good luck!

Sybee

Thanks for answering my questions. I am in the midst of writing my written report, but for the procedure, now knowing that I need at least three plants or more, should I state in both the material and procedure get at least 9 pots and add in, if necessary get a second terrarium? Or do I have to say what I did, not what I could have done?

The Methods section is only for what you did. The Discussion is where you talk about the problems and the plans for future studies. In addition to having more subjects per group, the other major thing to do would be to have a light source that emits primarily UVB that is large enough to give the same dose to 8-10 plants at a time. I'm really curious about what will happen to the ocean phytoplankton if the UV flux increases due to ozone depletion. If you could devise a way to grow phytoplankton and expose it to specific doses of UVB then measure its growth or metabolic rate some way you could study this.

Oh ok. Then I will put only 2 plants per group for my material and procedure but say later that I should have done three (in the discussion). I am not sure if you remember, but I sent you a link about photomorphogenesis from jenkins. I am doing the research of my written report and I am trying to explain about the different photomorphogenic responses that the protein UVR8 produce for plants. I am at the biosynthesis of flavonoids. So, my question is, if you can, may you please take a look at the link i sent you a while back and help me interpret what the expression of genes has to do with the biosynthesis. Also, may you explain (if there is) the other processes listed and the action spectra.
Thanks

Regarding the bar graph, I have just reweighed the lettuce and they are heavier now ( more growth). Would you recommend me use this data or the weights I got before? Also, I think you answered this before, but when the judges ask why it's the case that increased radiation stimulates lettuce growth, can I say that photomorphogenesis and photomorphogenic responses MAY have been the cause of this. Scientist have conducted experiments about this and found that a low dose of uv radiation may promote photomorphogenic response such as the biosynthesis of flavonoids. These responses help the plants, for example going it more protection. I should may emphasize the fact about scientific research and just say photomorphogeneis MAY have been the cause?

I’m not sure exactly what question you are asking here: “…what the expression of genes has to do with the biosynthesis.” The term ‘expression’ as used with genes means the generation by biosynthesis of a functional gene product—either a nucleic acid like messenger RNA or ribosomal RNA or a protein like UVR8. Most genes in plants and animals are NOT being expressed most of the time. They are ‘turned on’ [‘expressed’] when needed such as when the plants are exposed to more UV, the genes for flavonoid biosynthesis are turned on.

The action spectrum shows the region of the spectrum that is most important in causing a specific effect. For PMG, the most active wavelengths are in the spectral region of 295-300 nm. For DNA damage the main action wavelength is 260 nm.

I’m not sure what you mean by “the other processes”. It would help me a lot if you would be more SPECIFIC so I don’t have to guess. Jenkins talks about the genes involved in flavonoid biosynthesis then goes on to mention other responses to UVB. Is it these additional responses that you are asking about? They have to do with leaf and stem extension and I don’t know what that would have to do with protecting a plant from excess UV. Just be aware that UVB has several effects on plant growth and not just one.

There is one point that you haven’t talked about and that is the effect of UVB on chlorophyll production. The darkening of the leaves that you measured using Image J is most likely the result of the biosynthesis of more chlorophyll. But what causes it? I did not see any mention of chlorophyll in the Jenkins paper. You need to do some research and find out what regulates chlorophyll biosynthesis under various light conditions and whether UVB is one of those triggers. It MAY turn out that the ACTION SPECTRUM for chlorophyll biosynthesis does not include the UVB wavelengths. In this case, the increase in color density of the leaves might just be due to them receiving 12 hours more light.

When you are speaking of research from other scientists you do not have to qualify your statements by saying MIGHT be PMG. Only when you are talking about your own data.

In regards to your question about which weights to use, I would use those that you obtained right at the end of your experiment—not afterwards.

I can't find the answer I am looking for regarding the fact that increased uv exposure stimulates chlorophyll biosynthesis. I only see that a low dose has no effect on it and that a high dose has a negative effect on it. Also, on Jenkins' article, she talked about morphogenesis where it stimulated the growth/expansion of leaves. A while ago, I talked about how the radiated leaves were bigger compared to the control. Can this fact support that (The leaves of the radiated groups are still bigger compared to the control) and I can also use my leaves to demonstrate that morphogenesis may have occurred and explain what it is. May you help me, though, on the chlorophyll content?

Regarding my research, I am not sure how useful this is, but I found more facts that may support the cause of uv protection stimulated by a low dose of uv exposure. May you please take a look at it and tell me what you think. I was mainly looking at the part about DNA photolyases. Unfortunately, I tried calling NOAA but they weren't available, but I can't afford to wait since my project is due tomorrow.

http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/133/4/1420.full.pdf
http://www.gla.ac.uk/researchinstitutes ... sestouv-8/

I looked over the paper and the website and did a pubmed search for ‘chlorophyll + uvb’. I am thinking now that the increased pigmentation of the leaves exposed to the UVB lamp is NOT due to increased chlorophyll production but rather the biosynthesis of colored compounds called anthocyanins. These can be blue, purple or red and are the pigments that make tree leaves look red in the fall of the year.

I know—your lettuce leaves do not appear red or purple but a small increase in red added to the green of the chlorophyll could make the leaves darker, and that is what ImageJ measures. You did not measure anthocyanins so don’t say that this explains your results. All you can say is that research from other groups has shown that UVB does cause increases in anthocyanin production and that this MAY explain the increased pigmentation you measured in the leaves. This is actually more in line with the other research I have read about the UVB receptor, UVR8, stimulating the biosynthesis of protective compounds. Anthocyanins can absorb UV.

DNA photolyases are enzymes that repair radiation damage to DNA. UVB can cause some damage, but I would keep your focus on the things that YOU measured—leaf pigmentation and plant mass. Talking about DNA repair may confuse the judges. Keep it simple, clear and direct.

Here are some links that show the spectra of two UVB lamps made by Philips for administering UVB treatments to psoriasis patients: http://www.vitamindwiki.com/Vitamin+D+f ... +UVB+lamps
http://www.lighting.philips.com/main/su ... owband.wpd

One has a very narrow emission around 315 nm and the other is broader but still only emits between 280 and 350 nm. That is what you should have used for your experiments.

Here’s one of the papers I found that shows UVB promotes anthocyanin biosynthesis:

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Dec 10;110(50):20326-31. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1314336110. Epub 2013 Nov 25.
Constitutively active UVR8 photoreceptor variant in Arabidopsis.
Heijde M, Binkert M, Yin R, Ares-Orpel F, Rizzini L, Van De Slijke E, Persiau G, Nolf J, Gevaert K, De Jaeger G, Ulm R.
http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.hsc ... d/24277841
Abstract
Arabidopsis thaliana UV RESISTANCE LOCUS 8 (UVR8) is a UV-B photoreceptor that initiates photomorphogenic responses underlying acclimation and UV-B tolerance in plants. UVR8 is a homodimer in its ground state, and UV-B exposure results in its instantaneous monomerization followed by interaction with CONSTITUTIVELY PHOTOMORPHOGENIC 1 (COP1), a major factor in UV-B signaling. UV-B photoreception by UVR8 is based on intrinsic tryptophan aromatic amino acid residues, with tryptophan-285 as the main chromophore. We generated transgenic plants expressing UVR8 with a single amino acid change of tryptophan-285 to alanine. UVR8(W285A) appears monomeric and shows UV-B-independent interaction with COP1. Phenotypically, the plants expressing UVR8(W285A) exhibit constitutive photomorphogenesis associated with constitutive activation of target genes, elevated levels of anthocyanins, and enhanced, acclimation-independent UV-B tolerance. Moreover, we have identified COP1, REPRESSOR OF UV-B PHOTOMORPHOGENESIS 1 and 2 (RUP1 and RUP2), and the SUPPRESSOR OF PHYA-105 (SPA) family as proteins copurifying with UVR8(W285A). Whereas COP1, RUP1, and RUP2 are known to directly interact with UVR8, we show that SPA1 interacts with UVR8 indirectly through COP1. We conclude that UVR8(W285A) is a constitutively active UVR8 photoreceptor variant in Arabidopsis, as is consistent with the crucial importance of monomer formation and COP1 binding for UVR8 activity.

UVR8W285A Expression Results in Elevated Constitutive Levels of Chalcone Synthase and Anthocyanins.
UV-B also is known to induce a series of changes in metabolite levels, including the accumulation of UV-protective pigments such as anthocyanins (2). CHALCONE SYNTHASE (CHS) is a key enzyme in the phenylpropanoid biosynthesis pathway leading to anthocyanins that is regulated largely at the transcriptional level in response to UV-B (27, 28).

Oh ok, thank you. So I should briefly mention anthocyanin in both the research and results to explain about the increase of darkness/density. For the weight, should I just say the plants are healthier, so they weigh more. Would morphogenesis have anything to do with it? But regarding my overall project, I think when the judges ask about why a low dose of uv radiation stimulates growth, i am mainly going to talk about the photomorphogenic responses from UVR8 such as the biosynthesis of flavonoid that protects the plant from UV damage.

I am not sure if you can or if you want to, but here is my written report (everything I have learned from you). If you do read it, may you please give me some advice and feedback. Some stuff such as the graph a and b, I didn't add because my teacher only wanted the graph with separate bars for each plant. Also, if you find an area necessary to add the anthocyanin, please let me know (unless you only wanted me to explain it to the judges) Please ignore the graphs. I just looked at the document and they messed up my graphs. I will try sending you those if possible. Thank You Very Much.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4C8qc ... sp=sharing

OK. I will take a look at it. What time do you have to turn it in tomorrow? I won't be able to send my comments till tomorrow about 7 am

I think the anthocyanins should be included and the chlorophyll taken out because there's no evidence that i could find that UVB causes an increase in chlorophyll. In fact, the opposite may be true. So, wherever you mentioned chlorophyll, put anthocyanins instead.

Good luck!

Sybee

Oh ok, so even for the graphs, I replace chlorophyll with anthocyanins and I mention I found anthocyanin content instead? I turn it in around 8 in the morning but I am currently working on it. May you please reply as soon as possible but since you can't read it now, may you please answer this. What else should I add to my research. I first talk about uv radiation then go to say that radiation has negative affects on plants at certain wavelengths. Then i talk about how uv-b isn't just an agent of damage though and mention that it may stimulate processes that repair and protect the plant. This paragraph leads to the next which talks about photomorphogenesis. I talk about what it is and how it helps plants and the fact that it is triggered by photoreceptors. Then I talk about a certain photoreceptor which is UVR8 and how it stimulates photomorphogenic responses such as the biosynthesis of flavonoids and how that helps plants. This is all I have though and other than photmorphogenesis and the biosynthesis of flavonoids, I don't' have anything else. Thank You
Please reply as soon as possible for I need to finish this quickly.

So, I read the paper and can you please tell me if this is right? UVR8 stimulates the biosynthesis of anthocyanins. Anthocyanins are pigments that may appear red, blue or purple and can absorb UV-B. So, they can also act as a sunscreen, protecting the plant and acts as a defense mechanism. Can this also support the case of why the UV radiated plants grew more? Can I talk about morphogenesis as well?