Week 2 - Tyler McNeill

It's shocking that we've already completed two full weeks of our Immersion Term! During this week, I was still held up with a few administrative and logistic issues that prevented me from engaging hands-on in lab. Luckily, though, I was able to attend a few different conferences and shadow some of the researchers in the Bostrom lab.

On Thursday, I listened to some presentations from the fellows at the Hospital for Special Surgery. The subjects that they discussed covered a wide array of different orthopedic and rheumatological disorders. Out of all of the different topics that were covered, one that discussed the benefits of minimally-invasive and open techniques in lumbar surgery. From what I’ve read about in recent times, it seems that patients undergoing surgery generally prefer minimally-invasive techniques, because of the lessened scarring and shorter lengths of stay in the hospital. I found it pretty interesting to hear a clinical perspective on this matter and further understand some of the benefits and drawbacks that are associated with both of these different surgical styles. Some of the other topics that the fellows discussed during this presentation included spinopelvic alignment following hip replacement surgeries, MRI analysis used to detect and measure osteoporosis, lymphatic responses in mouse models, hemoglobin and hematocrit monitoring in total joint arthroplasty patients, and solutions for hallux rigidus.

Generally speaking, I found it interesting to see the juxtaposition between a clinically-based presentation as compared to the research-based presentations that I’ve been able to frequent more often thus far during my time as a PhD student. One point that I noted is the amount of variability in clinical data compared to the data collected in controlled laboratory environments. Being that clinical research uses human samples, there is a wide range of stochasticity that cannot be controlled throughout the experimental procedures. In laboratory settings, we often attempt to control the experiment in such a way that it prevents major sources of variability (such as using animals of the same species strain and age); however, in clinical settings, it’s nearly impossible to control these factors. When presenting, most of the fellows discussed ways in which they attempt to account for this variability in their data analysis processes. Seeing the comparison between the laboratory-based and clinical-based experimental and analysis procedures was eye-opening—I never expected there to be so many differences between the two!

In lab, I was able to talk with some of the different members of the Bostrom group to understand more of the work that they regularly work on. One of the lab members (who worked in the van der Meulen lab during undergrad!), talked to me about some of the work that she does performing RNA-sequencing in the Bostrom group. I found it pretty interesting to hear her perspective, discussing some of the challenges that she faced as she transitioned from working in the van der Meulen lab to the Bostrom lab. One thing that she mentioned that surprised me was the discrepancies in results based on the different equipment in the two labs.  It was interesting to get a first-hand perspective on some of the difficulties that can arise in lab because of external factors, such as equipment variability.

Outside of lab, I had a lot of fun exploring different areas of New York City! Emily, Garrett, Mariela and I got a chance to explore Chelsea Market and try some of the different food offerings. Daniela, Emily, Mariela and I checked out some of the small shops scattered throughout SoHo last weekend as well. Hopefully, we’ll get a chance to explore more of the NYC boroughs throughout our time during Immersion!