Search

Experimental data about gene functions curated from the primary literature have enormous value for research scientists in understanding biology. Using the Gene Ontology (GO), manual curation by experts has provided an important resource for studying gene function, especially within model organisms. Unprecedented expansion of the scientific literature and validation of the predicted proteins have increased both data value and the challenges of keeping pace. Capturing literature-based functional annotations is limited by the ability of biocurators to handle the massive and rapidly growing scientific literature. Within the community-oriented wiki framework for GO annotation called the Gene Ontology Normal Usage Tracking System (GONUTS), we describe an approach to expand biocuration through crowdsourcing with undergraduates. This multiplies the number of high-quality annotations in international databases, enriches our coverage of the literature on normal gene function, and pushes the field in new directions. From an intercollegiate competition judged by experienced biocurators, Community Assessment of Community Annotation with Ontologies (CACAO), we have contributed nearly 5,000 literature-based annotations. Many of those annotations are to organisms not currently well-represented within GO. Over a 10-year history, our community contributors have spurred changes to the ontology not traditionally covered by professional biocurators. The CACAO principle of relying on community members to participate in and shape the future of biocuration in GO is a powerful and scalable model used to promote the scientific enterprise. It also provides undergraduate students with a unique and enriching introduction to critical reading of primary literature and acquisition of marketable skills.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are laboratory courses that integrate broadly relevant problems, discovery, use of the scientific process, collaboration, and iteration to provide more students with research experiences than is possible in individually mentored faculty laboratories. Members of the national Malate dehydrogenase CUREs Community (MCC) investigated the differences in student impacts between traditional laboratory courses (control), a short module CURE within traditional laboratory courses (mCURE), and CUREs lasting the entire course (cCURE). The sample included approximately 1,500 students taught by 22 faculty at 19 institutions. We investigated course structures for elements of a CURE and student outcomes including student knowledge, student learning, student attitudes, interest in future research, overall experience, future GPA, and retention in STEM. We also disaggregated the data to investigate whether underrepresented minority (URM) outcomes were different from White and Asian students. We found that the less time students spent in the CURE the less the course was reported to contain experiences indicative of a CURE. The cCURE imparted the largest impacts for experimental design, career interests, and plans to conduct future research, while the remaining outcomes were similar between the three conditions. The mCURE student outcomes were similar to control courses for most outcomes measured in this study. However, for experimental design, the mCURE was not significantly different than either the control or cCURE. Comparing URM and White/Asian student outcomes indicated no difference for condition, except for interest in future research. Notably, the URM students in the mCURE condition had significantly higher interest in conducting research in the future than White/Asian students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Integration of research experience into classroom is an important and vital experience for all undergraduates. These course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have grown from independent instructor lead projects to large consortium driven experiences. The impact and importance of CUREs on students at all levels in biochemistry was the focus of a National Science Foundation funded think tank. The state of biochemistry CUREs and suggestions for moving biochemistry forward as well as a practical guide (supplementary material) are reported here. © 2016 by The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 45(1):7-12, 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]