Integrating information | Bioinformatics Module Final Evaluation
📅 Date: 20/21 October 2025
📖 Synopsis: Presentation and discussion of the final video report.
Presentation and discussion of the video report prepared by each group, followed by a class discussion, to serve as final evaluation of the bioinformatics module.
Format and Deadlines
- Video submission: A video of 2–5 minutes must be uploaded to Tutoria by 17 October 2025.
- In-class presentation: Each group will present for 3 minutes, followed by a 5-minute discussion, on 20 and 21 October 2025.
Group Work
- The project must be completed in groups of two students.
- Each drug can only be selected by one group (first come, first served).
Content Requirements
The work must integrate information from at least five databases, including:
For drugs that have multiple targets, choose one that you find interesting and that also has a PDB entry. If you are unsure which to select, use the first protein target (as listed in the Targets section of DrugBank) that also appears in the RCSB PDB database. This will be the protein you explore further in your study.
Please note that some drug targets are not human proteins.
List of Drugs
- Choose your drug for the project from the list provided below.
- Use this shared file linked here to make your selection.
Evaluation Criteria | Final Project
To keep a fair and balanced evaluation scheme, we will include instructor and peer evaluation, rewarding clarity, teamwork, and scientific rigor.
The final project is graded out of 20 points, combining instructor evaluation (15 points) and peer evaluation (5 points).
All group members receive the same grade unless there is clear evidence of unequal contribution.
1. Instructor Evaluation (15 points total)
| Category | Description | Points |
|---|---|---|
| A. Scientific Content (6 pts) | Accuracy and depth of information. Correct use of database resources (DrugBank, UniProt, PDB, +2 chosen). Demonstrates understanding of molecular mechanisms, targets, and therapeutic context. | 0–6 |
| B. Integration of Databases (3 pts) | Effective combination of data from multiple sources. Proper referencing and data interpretation rather than simple copying. | 0–3 |
| C. Communication & Clarity (3 pts) | Clear, well-organized narrative in both video and oral presentation. Proper scientific terminology, logical flow, and engaging visuals. | 0–3 |
| D. Team Collaboration & Professionalism (3 pts) | Evidence of balanced contribution, time management, and adherence to submission deadlines. | 0–3 |
2. Peer Evaluation (5 points total)
Each student will anonymously evaluate two other groups after the presentations, using the following criteria. Average peer scores will contribute up to 5 points to the group’s final mark.
| Category | Description | Points |
|---|---|---|
| A. Clarity of Presentation (2 pts) | Was the presentation easy to follow and visually clear? | |
| B. Scientific Interest (2 pts) | Did the presentation make you learn or think about something new or interesting? | |
| C. Engagement (1 pt) | Did the presenters engage with the audience or respond well to questions? |
Peer evaluations will be normalized so that all groups are fairly assessed.
Final Grade Calculation
| Source | Weight | Maximum Points |
|---|---|---|
| Instructor evaluation | 75% | 15 |
| Peer evaluation | 25% | 5 |
| Total | 100% | 20 |