Drug Analysis Narrated Powerpoint Presentation
Drug Analysis Narrated Powerpoint Presentation
You will prepare a narrated powerpoint presentation about a drug or medication of your choice and upload it to Blackboard. You must cite at least three sources. Pick a drug or medication of interest to you (if you need help finding a drug, a list of sources and possible options is included, but you are not limited to those suggestions) and obtain the structure of the drug (links to a few sites that provide drug structure and function information are also listed below). Once you have chosen a drug, please post your choice on the discussion board on the Blackboard site so I don’t see duplicates. In your presentation, you will discuss the structural and chemical properties of the drug, the disease/condition it is intended to treat, and how the drug functions. You are limited to 10-15 minutes, so you need to spend time figuring out what is most important and how to present that concisely. A general rule is to assume you will spend one minute per slide, so shoot for 10-15 slides and adjust from there. I will upload instructions on how to add narration to your powerpoint slides, if you don’t know.
Your presentation should minimally include information on the following:
1) Chemistry of the drug
· where and when the drug was first discovered and/or synthesized
· the structure of the drug and identification of the functional group(s) present
· a discussion of the functional groups present and how they affect the drug’s chemical properties (such as polarity, solubility, hydrogen bonding, etc.) and its function
· any other chemical information you find interesting.
2) Biochemistry of the drug
· basic biochemistry of the disease/condition the drug is intended to treat
· how the drug functions to treat the disease/condition
· details of the direct target (often a protein) of the drug (and/or the enzymes and/or pathways involved)
· any other biochemical information you find interesting
Drug structure and function links:
http://www.3dchem.com/
Chemistry and structure of medicines: a visual and interactive website showcasing the beautiful world of chemistry
https://go.drugbank.com/
Also provides structures and mechanism of action of drugs, among lots of other useful info
https://go.drugbank.com/biotech_drugs
(same as above, different entry point)
http://www.biopsychiatry.com/structures/index.html
Possible drug choices (you are not limited by the lists below):
General: cold/allergy/asthma, painkillers (over the counter or prescription), prevention of cardiovascular and coronary events (statins etc), ADHD, Diabetes (Avandia…), heartburn/reflux (Prevacid…), vitamins, stimulants, illicit drugs, supplements…
Antibiotics (introductory list below):
Kanamycin, Penicillins (penicillin, amoxicillin, methicillin), Cepahlosporins, methicillin, Tetracycline, Chloramphenicol,
macrolide
antibiotics
, Beta-lactams, Azithromycin, Vancomycin
Anti-virals:
Influenza:
Neuramindase inhibitors,
Tamiflu (Oseltamivir)
,
Zanamivir
(Relenza),
Laninamivir
(Inavir),
Peramivir
HIV/AIDS:
http://www.aidsmeds.com/list.shtml
Too many to list; may include the following classes of drug:
Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors, Protease Inhibitors, Entry Inhibitors, Integrase inhibitors, Multi-class combination drugs
Others: Interferons (hepatitis), Acyclovir (herpes),
Cancer drugs
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/alphalist
(kinase inhibitors, Avastin, Tarceva(erlotinib), Gleevec, tamoxifen, Herceptin, many others. Most are cancer specific, so you can also search for drugs against a specific type of cancer.
High blood pressure medication: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, Angiotensin II receptor blockers, Beta blockers, Calcium channel blockers, Renin inhibitors (ex: Zestril, Cozaar, Levatol, diltiazem, Tekturna)
Presentation Rubric
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Introduction |
Does not give information about what to expect or why this is an important issue. |
Some information was given, but significance of the issue/topic wasn’t clear. |
Gives too much or too little information making the topic unclear. |
Presents a concise lead-in to the presentation. |
Scientific quality (x2) |
Arguments were made with little or no scientific data. |
The scientific data presented lacked details and supporting evidence. |
Scientific data was thorough, but presenter lacked a clear understanding of the topic. |
Scientific data was thorough and presented with clarity and a depth of understanding. |
Accuracy |
There are more than 4 pieces of information that are inaccurate and/or false. |
There are 3-4 pieces of information that are inaccurate and/or false. |
There are 1-2 pieces of information that are inaccurate and/or false. |
There are no factual errors. |
Content |
Presentation provides a discussion of some of the required components. They are not linked. |
Presentation provides a discussion of some of the required components. They are somewhat linked |
Presentation provides a discussion of all the required components. They are somewhat linked. |
Presentation provides a thorough but concise discussion of all the required components. They are presented in a way that illustrates how they are linked. |
Presentation |
Showed little evidence of thoughtful research. Presentation does not effectively communicate research findings. Presentation is completely ineffective and confusing. |
Showed evidence of thoughtful research, but presentation was not clear; too broad a topic/issue of debate for the time frame. Content is confusing and slides are unorganized. Graphics are absent or difficult to read/interpret. |
Effectively communicated the results of research to the audience, but presentation lacked overall quality. Slides are somewhat disorganized or too busy; Graphics/fonts used are difficult to read/interpret. |
Effectively communicated the results of research to the audience; Slides are well-organized; transitions are logical; information is clear and understandable; graphics contribute to the understanding of the content; displayed creativity and originality. |
Preparedness |
Simply reads each word off of slide; content did not appear to be thoughtfully developed. |
Shows little knowledge of subject; presentation was clearly unrehearsed; |
Shows some knowledge of subject; presentation was “choppy” at times; appeared uncertain about what was next |
Shows general knowledge of subject; presentation generally flowed well; content is thoughtfully developed |
Quality of Supporting Resources |
There were fewer than 3 resources for each side of the topic and none of them were scholarly. |
There were fewer than 3 resources for one side of the topic and some of them were scholarly. |
There were 3 or more resources for each side, and some from a scholarly source. |
There were 3 or more resources for each side and were from scholarly sources. |
Spelling and Grammar |
Grammatical and spelling errors distract from the presentation. |
Presentation has more than 5-6 grammatical or spelling errors. |
Presentation has 3-4 spelling or grammatical errors. |
Presentation has 1-2 spelling or grammatical errors. |