Salmon alphavirus (SAV)

Review Article





Professors comments




A review of . . .? need review in title











not pancreatic?
strong start--just increase clarity as
indicated below



into subtypes move


due to what?



This paper will review what ?























good intro!





























Which? Whose?






by whom? cite




Which?
How do
your
models
clarify this if
they're not
naming
names?
Maybe just
cite [4]
again.








Soooo clear!! :)
























Which?




by whom?



















use descriptor before noun


















cite


Vaccines


Since the association between SAV and PO was made, efforts have increased in order to

produce viable vaccinations to combat SAV transmittance. Inactivated whole virus (IWV)
vaccines were shown to provide better protection against SAV than DNA and subunit vaccines
(12). S. salar vaccinated with IWV experienced complete protection against mortality, while
virus replication and pathological changes were inhibited in the pancreas and heart (12).
Similarly, IWVs were used to demonstrate effective protection against SAV infection and
resulting PO [7]. This study was the first to explore the efticacy of vaccinations both in
laboratory and field conditions. The consensus is that vaccinations based on inactivated SAV
strains provide the most superior protection against infection, which prevents the development of
PO
bn plications


Interferon, Mx protein, and changes in protein abundance possess the qualities of acting coherence is

as biomarkers to detect SAV infection (1,6]. The methods in these studies provide the basis for weal<er in
these first two
developing reliable SAV detection. The examination of early immune responses may also be sentences.

developed to utilize an artificial selection regime. The regime would consist of selecting
individuals that possess the highest interferon and Mx protein production levels (6). Those
individuals could then be bred to pass on genetic advantages and so forth. Prior research would
be necessary to develop safe and ethical methods for carrying out artificial selection of S. salar.
SAV has been described in detail and research communities continue to seek out solutions to

deter its spread and its effects on S. salar populations. Safe and effective vaccinations based on
inactive SAV strains provide the best, most available option for inhibiting viral replication and
protection from mortality caused by PD.
looks good, but typical
reference pages often
indenct the second and
later lines in each entry.
You didn't include your
journal's instructions, so I
can't tell if this is the case
for you.


7. Karlsen, M., Tingb0, T., Solbakk, I. T., Evensen, 0., Furevik, A., & Aas-Eng, A. (2012).

Efficacy and safety of an inactivated vacci ne against Salmonid alphavims (family

Togaviridae). Vaccine, 30(38), 5688-5694.

8. MeVicar, A. H. (1987). Pancreas disease of fanned Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, in

Scotland: Epidemiology and early pathology. Aquaculture, 67( I), 71-78.McVicar

9. Stormoen, M., Kristoffersen, A. B., & Jansen, P. A. (2013). Mo1tality related to pancreas
disease in Norwegian fanned salmonid fish, Salmo salar L. and Oncorhynchus mykiss
(Walbaum). Journal offish diseases, 36(7), 639-645.
10. Tavornpanich, S., Paul, M., Viljugrein, H., Abrial, D., Jimenez, D., & Brun, E. (2012). Risk
map and spatial determinants of pancreas disease in the marine phase of Norwegian Atlantic
salmon fanning sites. BMC veterinary research, 8( I), 172.
II. Weston, J. H., Graham, D. A., Branson, E., Rowley, H. M., Walker, I. W., Jewhurst, V. A., &

Todd, D. (2005). Nucleotide sequence va iation in salmonid alphaviruses from outbreaks of
salmon pancreas disease and sleeping disease. Diseases of aquatic organisms, 66(2), I OS-
IlL
12. Xu, C., Mutoloki, S., & Evensen, 0. (2012). Superior protection conferred by inactivated

whole virus vaccine over subunit and DNA vaccines against salmonid alphavirus infection in

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Vaccine, 30(26), 3918-3928.
Robinson, Bua, Cabrera_Review Article

GRADEMARK REPORT


FINAL GRADE

90/100

GENERAL COMMENTS


Instructor

PAGE 1

Text Comment. A review of . . .? need review in title


Text Comment. s trong s tart--jus t increas e clarity as indicated below


Text Comment. not pancreatic?


Text Comment. move


Text Comment. into s ubtypes


Text Comment. due to what?


Text Comment. This paper will review what ?


PAGE 2

Text Comment. good intro!


Text Comment. Which? Whos e?


PAGE 3

Text Comment. by whom? cite
QM Run-on
Run-on s entence:
The s entence contains two or more independent claus es . Separate the claus es with a period or
s emicolon.


Text Comment. Which? How do your models clarify this if they're not naming names ? Maybe
jus t cite [4] again.


Text Comment. Soooo clear!! :)


Text Comment. Which?


Text Comment. by whom?


PAGE 4

QM ||
Problem in Parallel Form:
Coordinate ideas s hould be expres s ed in parallel form. All expres s ions that are s imilar in content and
function s hould be expres s ed s imilarly.


Text Comment. us e des criptor before noun


Text Comment. cite


PAGE 5

Text Comment. coherence is weaker in thes e firs t two s entences .


PAGE 6

Text Comment. looks good, but typical reference pages often indenct the s econd and later lines
in each entry. You didn't include your journal's ins tructions , s o I can't tell if this is the cas e for you.


PAGE 7
RUBRIC: REVIEW ARTICLE RUBRIC

AUD. & PURP.

SLO #1: Write formally and informally, in-clas s and out-of-clas s , for a variety of audiences and purpos es .
Advanced

ABSENT/BELO W
BASIC




DEVELO PING






PRO FICIENT




ADVANCED






SOURCES
Audience's needs are often not recognized: terms and ideas either need explanation or are
over explained and language needs adjus tment for the journal's audience. Purpos e (to
familiarize readers with res earch regarding a contemporary s ubject of interes t) is n't clear or
achieved.

Shows s ome attention to audience's needs , s ometimes defining neces s ary terms and ideas
and us ing audience-appropriate language. Purpos e (to familiarize readers with res earch
regarding a contemporary s ubject of interes t) may be unclear at times , and it may not be
achieved convincingly.

Us ually s hows attention to audience's needs , defining neces s ary terms and ideas and us ing
audience-appropriate language. Purpos e (to familiarize readers with res earch regarding a
contemporary s ubject of interes t) may be implied, but it's clear and achieved.

Shows s ophis ticated attention to audience's needs , defining neces s ary terms and ideas and
us ing audience-appropriate language. Purpos e (to familiarize readers with res earch
regarding a contemporary s ubject of interes t) is clear and achieved with s tyle.


Developing
SLO #2: Find, evaluate, s elect, s ynthes ize, organize, ethically cite, and pres ent information from a variety of
s ources appropriate to their dis ciplines .

ABSENT/BELO W
BASIC

DEVELO PING
PRO FICIENT
ADVANCED

BALANCED ARG.
Fails to us e MLA- or APA-s tyle parenthetical citations , quotation marks , and works cited lis t
as s pecified by journal. Frequently us es irrelevant or unpers uas ive s ources .

A few errors in MLA- or APA-s tyle parenthetical citations , quotation marks , and works cited
lis t. Sometimes us es irrelevant or unpers uas ive s ources .

Almos t always us es MLA- or APA-s tyle parenthetical citations , quotation marks , and works
cited lis t as s pecified by journal. Us e of s ources is us ually relevant and pers uas ive.

Correctly us es MLA- or APA-s tyle parenthetical citations , quotation marks , and works cited
lis t as s pecified by journal. Us e of s ources is always relevant and pers uas ive.


Proficient
SLO #3: Compare, contras t, and s ynthes ize carefully and objectively the relative merits of alternative or oppos ing
arguments , as s umptions , and cultural values .

ABSENT/BELO W
BASIC

DEVELO PING
Fails to demons trate s imilarities and differences between res earch of different s cholars . May
be bias ed in pres entation of res earch. Des criptions of res earch may be unclear.

Sometimes demons trates s imilarities and differences between res earch of different s cholars
. Attempts to s ynthes ize this res earch carefully and objectively. Some des criptions may be
unclear.
PRO FICIENT




ADVANCED






ORGANIZATION
Us ually demons trates s imilarities and differences between res earch of different s cholars
with clarity. Synthes izes this res earch carefully and objectively. Des cribes the res earch,
us ually noting objectively merits of various procedures .

Demons trates s imilarities and differences between res earch of different s cholars with clarity
and s ophis tication. Synthes izes this res earch carefully and objectively. Des cribes the res
earch, noting objectively merits of various procedures .


Advanced

SLO #4: Organize ones thoughts and communicate them clearly to addres s a rhetorical s ituation. Employs IMRAD
s tructure where appropriate.

ABSENT/BELO W
BASIC

DEVELO PING
PRO FICIENT
ADVANCED
Organizational devices (headings , topic s entences , trans itions ) may be abs ent, unrelated to
the prompt, or illogically connected. Ps are us ually not unified or organized.

Organizational devices (headings , topic s entences , trans itions ) fit the prompt, but may be
vague, too broad, or incons is tenly or illogically linked. Ps may not be unified.

Clear, s pecific organizational devices (headings , topic s entences , trans itions ) fit the prompt
and tie ideas together adequately.

Clear, s pecific organizational devices (headings , topic s entences , trans itions ) fit the prompt
and tie ideas together logically and s eamles s ly.


PERSUASION

SLO #4: Communicate clearly and pers uas ively to addres s a rhetorical s ituation.
Advanced

ABSENT/BELO W
BASIC

DEVELO PING
PRO FICIENT
ADVANCED

DESIGN
Inadequate, inappropriate, or irrelevant reas oning and evidence.



Over us es or under-analyzes evidence. May omit reas oning and include s ome irrelevant or
unpers uas ive evidence.

Us ually s upports paragraph claims with pers uas ive reas oning and credible, relevant,
analyzed evidence.

Supports paragraph claims with relevant, thorough, and ins ightful reas oning and analyzed
evidence.


Advanced
SLO #5: Recognize, evaluate, and employ the features and contexts of des ign that expres s and influence meaning
and that demons trate s ens itivity to gender and cultural differences .

ABSENT/BELO W
BASIC

DEVELO PING
PRO FICIENT
Tone and/or des ign us ually s ugges t/s an abs ence of awarenes s of audience and/or generic
conventions .

Tone and/or des ign are/is s ometimes inappropriate or unconventional.
Appropriate tone and des ign conform to as s igned audience and genre.
ADVANCED



LANGUAGE
Sophis ticated tone and des ign engage reader and conform to as s igned audience and genre.



Proficient
SLO #5: Recognize, evaluate, and employ the features and contexts of language that expres s and influence
meaning and that demons trate s ens itivity to gender and cultural differences .

ABSENT/BELO W
BASIC

DEVELO PING



PRO FICIENT
ADVANCED

COLLABORATION
Spelling, s yntax, diction, or punctuation errors impede readability.



Spelling, s yntax, diction, or punctuation errors impede readability or otherwis e dis tract from
meaning.

Spelling, s yntax, diction, or punctuation errors are few and do not dis tract from meaning.
Outs tanding control of language, including effective diction and s entence variety.

Advanced

SLO #6: Improve ones own and others writing s kills through the as s es s ment and critique of written works .

ABSENT/BELO W
BASIC



DEVELO PING




PRO FICIENT
ADVANCED
Team's work s eems to have been cobbled together: there may be rough trans itions or
repetition among s ections . Language often s hifts from paragraph to paragraph. No evidence
of collaboration at the revis ion s tage.

Team's work s eems to have been cobbled together without a s moothing of trans itions .
Language often s hifts from paragraph to paragraph. Collaboration may have been minimal at
the revis ion s tage.

Team's work is us ually effectively mes hed. Language is us ually s imilar throughout
document. Collaboration has occurred at the revis ion s tage.

Team's work is clearly and effectively mes hed. Language is s imilar throughout document.
Collaboration is obvious and effective.