SciFeye
  • Home
  • Reviews
  • About
  • Index
  • Our Team
  • Contact
  • Home
  • Reviews
  • About
  • Index
  • Our Team
  • Contact
Search

Exciting discovery of the exercise protein Sestrin explained by ScienceDaily

6/29/2020

0 Comments

 

Reviewed by: Sean Luke and Julia Schmid

Average score: 5 / 5

In Summary: ScienceDaily highlights a study investigating the effects of Sestrin, a protein that mimics the benefits of a workout in muscles. With complex terminology and concepts explained, Kelly Malcom makes this discovery in exercise physiology an interesting read for a variety of audiences. Multiple perspectives are not employed in order to limit bias and support claims, decreasing the news story’s credibility. Overall, the article is concise, fascinating, and a recommended read.
Original News Story
Research Article
Picture
Image by: Jermiah Joseph

Sean Luke

Picture
             Kelly Malcom, a writer for ScienceDaily, reported on exciting research from Michigan on a protein that can mimic many of the positive effects of exercise, called Sestrin. This effort, spearheaded by professor Jun Hee Lee, examined both Drosophila flies and mice and their response to exercise with varying levels of Sestrin. In the Drosophila study, the running and flying ability of flies without the ability to make Sestrin was compared to wild type flies. The results of this study showed that while normal files’ ability to run and fly improved, flies without the ability to synthesize Sestrin did not improve. Additionally, flies with overexpressed levels of Sestrin but lacked exercise had the ability that surpasses wild-type flies that exercised. In the mice study, Lee demonstrated that Sestrin can help prevent atrophy in specific muscles that are immobilized over long periods of time. The researchers note that while Sestrin will not be commercially available in the short-term, additional research is needed to further understand this protein for the benefit of individuals that are not able to exercise.
 
            Kelly Malcom provides a concise article of the novel research surrounding Sestrin. Malcom states what is known, what is not known and explains complicated concepts in a digestible manner. Malcom uses a neutral tone to present all aspects of professor Lee’s research on Sestrin, including what research still needs to be conducted. Although the provided studies make a compelling narrative, Malcom fails to include multiple perspectives on Sestrin. This news story only including research from Lee and his colleagues and may have benefitted from adding non-affiliated research on Sestrin. Providing multiples perspectives can limit bias and give the reader a greater understanding of the current scientific literature. Overall, this article is well-written and provides the audience with an exciting discovery in exercise physiology.

Julia Schmid

Picture
           ScienceDaily presents an article by Kelly Malcom, originally written for the University of Michigan, discussing the recent findings of a research team at Michigan Medicine. Researchers in the University of Michigan Department of Molecular & Integrative Physiology found evidence that a protein called Sestrin could be responsible for muscle health and receiving the benefits of a workout. Malcom presents the information from the original research article in a condensed and accurate manner for the scientific reader.
 
           Malcom reports on the research design, process, and findings effectively. She briefly summarizes the research, focusing on important information and supporting claims with commentary from the researchers involved. Additionally, the diction of the text is appropriate; the terminology used is well-suited to the scientific audience. For this reason, the article is clear to read, and the information presented within it is easily understood.
 
            Malcom’s account of the research is highly accurate, and the reader is not misled. She appropriately describes the scientific process as well as the research findings without making any unjustified causal claims. The article contains several references to unknowns and potential areas of further research. Where Malcom falls short is in the lack of diverse sources. The references used in the article, Dr. Kim and Dr. Lee, are reputable as they are two of the authors of the scientific paper. However, they are the only opinions cited; the article would benefit from a more well-balanced account of the research via additional commentary from other experts in the field.
Index for Review
The views expressed by the reviewers for this article are not endorsed or shared by SciFeye. The interpretation of the review of the news story using the SciFeye Index was done independently by two SciFeye reviewers. We encourage you to conduct your own evaluation of the accuracy and quality of the news story using the Index.
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Reviews

    Our analyses and summaries are each carried out by two of our reviewing team according to the publicly available index.

    Archives

    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019

Home
SciFeye Index
Our Reviews
Our Team
About
Contact
© SciFeye 2019
  • Home
  • Reviews
  • About
  • Index
  • Our Team
  • Contact