2018.01.15

Presentation Day!

Feedback & Unresolved Questions

One very important thing regarding this project is we essentially got a data-dump. So most of the questions that I got were the things that could have been addressed had we had the sequencing information and the phenotype information since the beginning (see Dec 14). These questions were in the realm of the sequencing platform or whether they are paired-end reads or not, if all the samples were handled by one person, etc.
Overall, the feedback we got for the poster was positive. The layout and colour scheme seemed to be appealing for most people. Some constructive feedback I received was that for the network figure, we could have highlighted the ones that were actually significant, i.e. removing the uncoloured nodes. Another feedback was the lack of discussion, with which I kind of agree and disagree. On one side, we have tried to incorporate some of our opinions or suggested our interpretation. On the other hand, we also address the lack of wetlab-based experiment to validate our interpretations. Another interesting question is that I was asked why we used the tools that we used (i.e. DESeq2 vs DESeq vs Limma). Had quite a short but interesting discussion about tools for differential expression with a PhD student from another group, I hope my answer was convincing and logically-sound.
I was a bit disappointed that I was not there to explain when the course examiners were around to look at our poster. But I hope and I do believe that the other group members have done very well in setting the scene with the research problem, explaining how we processed the data, discussing our results, interpretation, and the limitations in our study.

Self-reflection

What have I learnt:

• Python and R. Not that I had not known about these languages before, but I'd say that my understanding and skill on these two have improved significantly: pandas dataframe, data manipulation (not the falsification aspect), and plotting graphs.
• Trying to choose what tools to use, which database to refer to and which figures to include in the poster is hard.
• Juggling task distribution between people with (very) varying skill sets. And also the fact that none of the group members have traditional biology background.
• Having participated in poster presentations only as an audience before, I think I now have a better understanding of what the audience expect. Having to think about the entirety of the project on your feet when someone asks a question, is also another thing I found myself getting better in.
• The breadth of information one can gain from all the different -omics methods is just mind-blowing, really. Whilst some tools were more famous (or more commonly used), it was very interesting to discover what tools the other groups have used in their respective -omic studies.
• One final thing, I am glad that this diary was made mandatory. Sure, I kept lab notebooks before, but the way I organised this one made it (at least) easier for me to keep track of what I had been doing. The electronic version makes it simpler as well to link between what has been done/some random ideas on one day and another.

But alas, like everything, this also comes to and end.
It has been nice working with my fellow groupmates and I wish all of you success in your future endeavours.

With that, this repository is now archived.
Dimitri, signing out.
2018.01.15.