Submission Deadline Marks and Feedback

Before 10am on: 20 working days after deadline (L4, 5 and 7)

15 working days after deadline (L6)
29/10/2021
10 working days after deadline (block delivery)

Click or tap to enter a date. To be confirmed

Unit title & code BHS002-2 Medical Microbiology and Immunology

Assignment number and title
Assignment type
Weighting of assignment
Size or length of assessment
Unit learning outcomes
002 – Investigation of Complement Function (CH50 assay) Oct REFERRAL
Electronic submission, Lab Report
25%
1800 words (excluding tables, figure legends and reference list)
1) Demonstrate understanding of the molecular and cellular components of the immune
response in health and disease
2) Demonstrate the ability to analyse the role of inappropriately functioning immune responses
in disease

What am I required to do in this assignment?

• You will submit a report that summarises your analysis of results from CH50 assays to determine the complement activity of one
reference serum and one ‘unknown’ serum sample. You will analyse experimental data provided on BREO – NOTE this is different
data to previous assessment submissions
• You are expected to outline the reasons for the experimental tests performed, describe the results and discuss the immunology
behind the data. Your report should include references from the scientific literature
• Your report should be structured like a scientific journal article and should be submitted via BREO.
• You must ensure that your report is written in your own words AND that all information is cited/referenced appropriately. Do not
copy from fellow students, students in other year groups, friends, lecturers, websites, books, journal articles etc. Plagiarism of any
kind will not be tolerated. Perform your analysis alone please, do not collude with others submitting this same assessment.
• If you are completing this referral because you scored lower than 42% in your first attempt, you are strongly advised to read your
feedback carefully and seek guidance on this if it is not clear to you. If you received feedback warning you about plagiarism you are
strongly advised to ensure that you write your report fully in your own words.

What do I need to do to pass? (Threshold Expectations from UIF)

 • Produce a scientific report according to expectations described in this assignment brief
• Demonstrate understanding of relevant laboratory immunological techniques in the report
• Show understanding of the role of the immune system in protection against pathogens

How do I produce high quality work that merits a good grade?

Cover all points in this brief, paying attention to the criteria table at the end.

Students are provided with data from a Reference Serum and from one ‘Patient’ Serum – data files are clearly labelled on BREO. Failure to
use the correct data file will result in an assessment Fail grade.
Download the relevant data and patient information from the correct SEM2 Referral folder on BREO. Review this brief and the
supporting material, perform your own analysis on the data and write an independent report as below. Do not share your analysis or
written text with other students.

The information below explains the basic structure and requirements of your lab report. Further specific guidance will be provided on BREO.
Your lab report should contain: Front page with title, Unit and Student ID number; Introduction; Aim; Results; Discussion; and a Reference
list. Each section should be clearly labelled. Clarity of English and professional presentation is essential throughout – written communication
skills are particularly important for future employment. Your report should be fully referenced with citations (a) within the text and (b) in
full at the end in a bibliography.

1) Introduction (~500words)
Introduce the immunology of complement and the assay so that your reader will be able to understand the content of your report. Cover the
following:
• Describe the complement cascade, the three ways in which it can be activated and its functions
• Some information on the role of complement in health and disease (you may like to introduce the patient case info here)
• Explain the principle of the CH50 assay and its uses. Explain why serum samples are tested in this way

2) Aim (1-2 sentences)

Briefly state the aim of the experiment. Describe what was tested and why.

3) Results (500- 600 words, excluding tables and figure legends)

See the protocol and tutorial slides on BREO for guidance on data analysis. You must perform this by yourself, do not copy from other
students. Any reports with high similarity scores will be investigated for academic offences including collusion.
• You MUST include a few sentences of text to begin your Results section. Briefly recap what was done and why to aid the reader’s
understanding of the data you will show them in this section
• Calculate and display the results for the Reference Serum and the Patient Serum in clear, labelled table/s. Tables should all have
a short caption/legend immediately above
• All tabulated data should be described in a short paragraph of text (approx. 200 words). This text is not the same as the table
titles
• Using Excel, construct clear, labelled graph/s displaying volume undiluted serum against mean % lysis for the Reference Serum
and the Patient Serum. Each graph in your report should have a title and figure legend underneath. If possible, indicate the
volume of serum triggering 50% lysis (one CH50 unit) by marking it on each graph. You may then choose to expand your
analyses, including additional graphs and calculations
• After the graphs, include a short paragraph of text (approx. 200 words) that describes your observations of each graph and states
the CH50 values obtained (if possible). Remember that paragraphs of text are different to the graph figure legends. Ensure that
you calculate and state the number of CH50 units/ml of the Reference Serum and the Patient Serum (if possible). If one or more

2
 CH50 values cannot be derived, state this in your text – it might tell you something important about the serum!

4) Discussion (minimum 600 words)

Your Discussion section should consider the meaning of the results with reference to your aim, the complement cascade and its function,
and the use of the CH50 test. You may like to consider the following points:
• What does the assay measure? What happened as serum concentration increased? Discuss the data in the context of the
immunology of complement activation for the Reference Serum, which illustrates normal function. As part of this explanation you
MUST include a labelled hand-drawn scientific diagram showing the immunology of the CH50 assay. The diagram/s should show
the antigen:antibody complex and should clearly illustrate the relevant steps in the complement cascade that led to MAC
formation and lysis of the RBC. How you do this is your choice and the way you choose to present this diagram is part of the
assessment of your understanding! Please ensure that any drawings are fully legible, a good size and not shadowed or dark if you
photograph them! Ensure that you reference the source of your info in the legend to your diagram, if appropriate

• Compare the CH50 results for the Patient Serum to the results from the Reference Serum. What do you conclude from your data
about the Patient, and what are the implications for this individual? If the Patient has a malfunctional complement cascade, what
diseases might they suffer from? Does this fit with the patient history? Comment on the role of complement in disease, ensuring
that you reference scientific information.

• Evaluate the method and your data analysis. How could the assay be improved? How is complement function analysed in scientific
research or in Biomedical labs? Compare your analysis examples of complement testing that have been published in scientific
journals.

6) References / Bibliography (list is not included in the word count)

You MUST include a list of references, in the correct format: as used in University of Bedfordshire Harvard Referencing (see:
https://lrweb.beds.ac.uk/a-guide-to-referencing/ - you can also complete AIR on BREO). Ensure that all your references are also cited in
your text at the appropriate point, in the correct format.

Aim to include at least five primary journal articles in your reference list. Please do not reference generic secondary/tertiary web sources
such as Wikipedia, NHS or hospital websites, eMedicine, webMD etc – these are not always reliable or peer-reviewed sources.

You MUST NOT copy/paste any text from any sources, even if you cite the source. This includes other students, past and present, material
online, on BREO etc. You must write about what you have read in your own words – this is very important. Copying from any sources, with
or without references is plagiarism, or collusion. Paraphrasing other people’s words without adequate referencing is plagiarism. Failing to
reference the correct author/s is also a form of plagiarism. Do not risk an academic offence penalty for plagiarism. If you are at all unsure,
complete the AIR ‘Get Referencing Right’ interactive resource, which you can access from the BREO homepage. Alternatively contact Study
Hub for individual guidance.

How does this assignment relate to what we are doing in scheduled sessions?

• This during this assessment will study the function of one of the major effectors of immunity
• You will have received material relevant to this on BREO and in prior teaching sessions
• This assessment will allow you to demonstrate your understanding of relevant laboratory immunological techniques and the role of
the molecular and cellular components of the immune response in health and disease
• Your report should demonstrate your capability to appropriately present and analyse scientific data, by using scientific language and
IT resources to effectively communicate your findings

• Your discussion should provide evidence of your ability to analyse the role of inappropriately functioning immune responses in
disease and illness and to place this in context, showing your understanding of the immunology

3
How will my assignment be marked?

Your assignment will be marked according to the threshold expectations and the criteria on the following page.

You can use them to evaluate your own work and consider your grade before you submit.

3rd Class – 40-49% Lower 2nd – 50-59% Upper 2nd – 60-69% 1st Class – 70%+
Understanding of Acceptable level of Literature is used well to A comprehensive
Quality of immunology and the understanding/analysis of introduce the topic of the understanding of the relevant
understanding technique used is the relevant immunology report showing immunology and technique is
and analysis limited. Satisfactory use and technique. Some understanding of the shown in the detailed and
of scientific of relevant literature. relevant literature is used relevant science. Broader focused use of literature.
principles and Superficial attempt to to provide an introduction context of work is Broader context of work
knowledge explain experimental aim and broader context to described but could be clearly described.
base (~25%) and approach, or put the explain the aim and clearer. Experimental aim Experimental aim and
work in context. approach. and rationale are defined. rationale well defined.
Data is incompletely Data analysis is mostly Data analysis is accurate, Data analysis is accurate,
analysed. Presentation of correct with few errors or and complete. Clear thorough and complete. Von
data is in places unclear. omissions. Presentation is understanding of data Krogh’s equation is used
There is a lack of generally clear and analysis is shown in the appropriately. Clear
Data handling
explanation of what is appropriate. Some attempt text description of data. understanding of data
and
being presented because is given to explain what is Presentation is analysis is shown in the text
presentation
the results section lacks being presented in the appropriate: figures are description of data.
(~25%)
useful descriptive text. form of text that describes legible, labelled and have Presentation is clear and
the data shown. independent legends. appropriate: figures are
legible, well labelled and have
independent legends.
The summary diagram A largely correct summary A correct summary A clear and correct summary
shows some diagram shows diagram shows diagram shows
Discussion
understanding of the understanding of the understanding of the understanding of the
and critical
immunology of the assay immunology of the assay immunology of the immunology & results of the
evaluation
and/or the meaning of and/or the meaning of the assay and the meaning assay. Data are discussed in a
(~30%)
the results. Limited results. There is some of the results. Data are wider context, demonstrating
evidence of evaluation of attempt to discuss the discussed in a wider a well-
the method or data. A data and to reflect on the context, demonstrating an developed ability to evaluate
limited range of data and/or method. ability to evaluate data data and reflect upon the

4
 literature is used to There is some evaluation and reflect upon the work work performed. Methods
discuss the data and it is of the method/data, but performed. Methods and data are critically
therefore not put into a this is at times superficial and/or data are critically evaluated, supported by
wider context. evaluated. well chosen references.
Written expression Written expression is clear The report is written in The report is written in clear
makes the work difficult and the work can be clear language with and concise language with
to follow. The structure followed without difficulty. correct spelling and correct spelling and
Written
is fragmented and The structure of the report grammar. The structure of grammar. The structure of
expression
material could be is satisfactory but planning the report is well-planned, the report is well-planned,
and structure
presented more could have been more and logical. The report is well-thought out and logical,
(~10%)
efficiently. Evidence of thorough in parts. not significantly over or enhancing its readability. The
lack of care in planning under 2000 words. report is not over 2000
and presentation. words.
A limited range of A reasonable range of A good range of primary A broad range of primary
literature is cited. UoB literature is accessed, sources is used. Correct sources is used. Correct UoB
Use of
Harvard referencing including some primary UoB Harvard formatting of Harvard formatting of
literature and
format is not used sources. In-text citations citations in-text is citations in-text is used
referencing
consistently. are used appropriately and generally used throughout throughout and final
(~10%)
UoB Harvard format is and final reference list. reference list.
generally correctly used.