When reading scientific articles, it is tempting to scan over the abstract, synthesize the results, and extract relevant information to you; however, more is necessary. Working in the Exercise Immunology Lab at Creighton University revealed that the nuances of research matter and demand attention. My lab's goal was to study the effects of exercise on HIV patients and to understand how T-cell expression changes depending on people's body composition. While preparing for these studies, I found major inconsistencies in other exercise immunology results. Assessing the ambiguity of methods behind these differences became the foundation for my Honors Research Project. Where some groups of researchers used cell samples comprised of only one type of cell (homogenous) others used a full blood sample (heterogenous). The problem with this difference is that our T-cells and other cells do not live in isolation. Rather, the interconnected and communicative nature of cells (clearly shown in physiology and immunology) is what drives physiological changes, differentiation, proliferation, and signaling. In the lab, my comparison of methods that mimicked the ambiguity of the literature showed just this. Depending on the concentration of cells and the type of cell sample, proliferation vastly changed. The fact that T-cells (relevant to the newer field of exercise immunology) and other cells respond differently depending on their surrounding culture has a few implications worth mentioning. The first is that without a centralized methodology, much of the research done in exercise immunology is difficult to use for comparison and may even need to be re-researched in a consistent manner. As the field expands, something like methods quickly alters the credibility of our current immunocompetence knowledge. In application, the theories of T-cell activation such as the Danger Theorem or Quorum Activation Hypothesis greatly differ based on methodology and leave us with less than clear understanding. Next, while this situation is just as applicable to other research fields. As students and aspiring professionals, paying attention to methodology and how well it mimics physiological conditions may change the validity of results. While we often consider ethics and validity of the experiment, we need to also consider methodology. Finally, new understandings--such as the fact that T-cells do need friends for proper proliferation--is not foreign to careers in science. Giving greater level of attention to research gives us a better critical eye for legit results and hopefully will also translate to appropriate patient care.
Siedlik JA, Benedict SH, Landes EJ, Weir JP, Vardiman JP, and Gallagher PM. Acute bouts of exercise induce a suppressive effect on lymphocyte proliferation in human subjects: A meta-analysis. Brain, behavior, and immunity 56: 343-351, 2016.
Al-Yassin, Ghassan A. and Bretscher, Peter A.. Does T Cell Activation Require a Quorum of Lymphocytes? The Journal of Immunology. 201 (10) 2855-2861, 2018. 3.
As I’ve reviewed research results and written research papers I’ve definitely gone down the rabbit hole of over thinking and wondering if we speak in too general of terms for research to be documented in an honest way. I’ve also overthought while writing papers after reviewing data to make sure I’m interpreting the data in an honest way. After rewriting sentences multiple times I have caught myself wondering if there is a way to repot lab results in a more transparent way.
ReplyDeleteI like how you found that one study used homogeneous cells and another study used heterogenous cells, and realized there was a difference in the methods used for each study. I agree that research done on any given topic would be much more useful for making comparisons if there was more consistency. I can see how paying more attention to methodology can lead to the more applicable results.