Erica Suchman

Colorado State University

Author Statistics

Papers

Citation

H-Index

i-10 index

Research Trends

Author Order

Document Type

Co-Authors

Jonathan O. Carlson

Colorado State University

Thomas Walton

University of Arkansas at Fayetteville

Carol D. Blair

Colorado State University

William C. Black

Colorado State University

Gary E. Kaiser

Community College of Baltimore County

William C. Black

Colorado State University

Karla Saavedra-Rodríguez

Colorado State University

Guadalupe Reyes-Solís

Autonomous University of Yucatán

Andrey Ptitsyn

Gloucester Marine Genomics Institute

Jonathan Betz

Colorado State University

Cooperative Institutions

Colorado State University

University of California, Irvine

Autonomous University of Yucatán

Agricultural Research Service

North Carolina State University

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Texas A&M University

Washington State University

United States Department of Agriculture

University of Florida

Author Statistics

Papers

Citation

H-Index

i-10 index

Research Field

Video Lecture Capture Technology Helps Students Study without Affecting Attendance in Large Microbiology Lecture Courses

Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education (2016)

Jennifer McLean Erica Suchman

Recording lectures using video lecture capture software and making them available for students to watch anytime, from anywhere, has become a common practice in many universities across many disciplines. The software has become increasingly easy to use and is commonly provided and maintained by higher education institutions. Several studies have reported that students use lecture capture to enhance their learning and study for assessments, as well as to catch up on material they miss when they cannot attend class due to extenuating circumstances. Furthermore, students with disabilities and students from non-English Speaking Backgrounds (NESB) may benefit from being able to watch the video lecture captures at their own pace. Yet, the effect of this technology on class attendance remains a controversial topic and largely unexplored in undergraduate microbiology education. Here, we show that when video lecture captures were available in our large enrollment general microbiology courses, attendance did not decrease. In fact, the majority of students reported that having the videos available did not encourage them to skip class, but rather they used them as a study tool. When we surveyed NESB students and nontraditional students about their attitudes toward this technology, they found it helpful for their learning and for keeping up with the material.

Attendance

Pace

10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1123

Cite

Citations (8)

Evaluating the Impact of a Classroom Response System in a Microbiology Course

Microbiology Education (2006)

Erica Suchman Kay Uchiyama Ralph A. Smith Kim Bender

The use of a Classroom Response System (CRS) was evaluated in two sections, A and B, of a large lecture microbiology course. In Section B the instructor used the CRS technology at the beginning of the class period posing a question on content from the previous class. Students could earn extra credit if they answered the question correctly. In Section A, the class also began with an extra credit CRS question. However, CRS questions were integrated into the lecture during the entire class period. We compared the two classes to see if augmenting lectures with this technology increased student learning, confidence, attendance, and the instructor’s ability to respond to student’s misconceptions, over simply using the CRS as a quizzing tool. Student performance was compared using shared examination questions. The questions were categorized by how the content had been presented in class. All questions came from instructors’ common lecture content, some without CRS use, and some questions where Instructor A used both lecture and CRS questions. Although Section A students scored significantly better on both types of examination questions, there was no demonstrable difference in learning based on CRS question participation. However, student survey data showed that students in Section A expressed higher confidence levels in their learning and knowledge and indicated that they interacted more with other students than did the students in Section B. In addition, Instructor A recorded more modifications to lecture content and recorded more student interaction in the course than did Instructor B.

Attendance

Section (typography)

Course (navigation)

10.1128/me.7.1.3-11.2006

Cite

Citations (24)

Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis (VEE) Virus

Thomas Walton Erica Suchman

Venezuelan equine encephalitis is caused by a virus in the family Togaviridae, genus Alphavirus (Fig. 1 and 2). It is an enveloped virus with an icosahedral capsid 60 to 70 nm in diameter with a linear, single-stranded positive-sense RNA nonsegmented genome of approximately 11.4 kilobases (1). These images are electron micrographs of virus growing in Aedes albopictus C6/36 cells 8 days postinfection and negatively stained with 2% phosphotungstate from an outbreak in Gualaca, Panama, in 1971. Venezuelan equine encephalitis viruses occur in South and Central America and in the Florida Everglades of the United States (2). Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus exists in two settings: (i) a continuous cycle maintained between Culex mosquito vectors and rodents (enzootic) and (ii) epidemics that involve several mosquito species that feed on mammals (epizootic). See also: Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis (VEE) Infection in Horses References. 1. Griffin, D. E. 2001. Alphaviruses. p. 917–962. In D. M. Knipe and P. M. Howley (ed.), Fields virology. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pa. 2. Roberts, W. A., and G. A. Carter. 1976. Essentials of veterinary virology, p. 107. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Mich.

Enzootic

Togaviridae

Epizootic

Aedes albopictus

Alphavirus infection

Encephalitis Viruses

Veterinary virology

Source

Cite

Citations (0)

Animal Cells in Culture

Erica Suchman Carol D. Blair

REVIEWERS This resource was peer-reviewed at the ASM Conference for Undergraduate Educators 2007. Participating reviewers: Christine BezotteElmira College, Elmira, NY Jean CardinaleAlfred University, Alfred, NY Sagarika DashGlendale Community College, Glendale, AZ Sam Fan Bradley University, Peoria, IL Judy Gnarpe University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Carol HurlburtLansing Community College, Lansing, MI Marise HusseyMatthews, NC Karen JacksonJacksonville University, Jacksonville, FL D. Sue KatzRodgers State University, Claremore, OK Samantha Kerry St. Mary's College of Maryland, St Mary's City, MD Maria MacWilliamsUniversity of Wisconsin-Parkside, Parkside, WI Garry MarleyOklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK Katharine MayneWilliam Woods University, Fulton, MO Tamara McNealyClemson University, Clemson, SC Marie PanecMoorpark College, Moorpark, CA Michelle ParentUniversity of Delaware, Newark, DE Melanie Popa University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA Kelli PriorFinger Lakes Community College, Canandaigua, NY Ben Whitlock University of St Francis, Joliet, IL

Community College

Matriculation

Performance studies

Source

Cite

Citations (0)

Evaluating the Impact of a Classroom Response System in a Microbiology Course

Microbiology Education (2006)

Erica Suchman Kay Uchiyama Ralph C. Smith Kim Bender

The use of a Classroom Response System (CRS) was evaluated in two sections, A and B, of a large lecture microbiology course.In Section B the instructor used the CRS technology at the beginning of the class period posing a question on content from the previous class.Students could earn extra credit if they answered the question correctly.In Section A, the class also began with an extra credit CRS question.However, CRS questions were integrated into the lecture during the entire class period.We compared the two classes to see if augmenting lectures with this technology increased student learning, confidence, attendance, and the instructor's ability to respond to student's misconceptions, over simply using the CRS as a quizzing tool.Student performance was compared using shared examination questions.The questions were categorized by how the content had been presented in class.All questions came from instructors' common lecture content, some without CRS use, and some questions where Instructor A used both lecture and CRS questions.Although Section A students scored significantly better on both types of examination questions, there was no demonstrable difference in learning based on CRS question participation.However, student survey data showed that students in Section A expressed higher confidence levels in their learning and knowledge and indicated that they interacted more with other students than did the students in Section B. In addition, Instructor A recorded more modifications to lecture content and recorded more student interaction in the course than did Instructor B.

Course (navigation)

Clinical Microbiology

10.1128/jmbe.v7.82

Cite

Citations (6)

Infection and Pathogenicity of the Mosquito Densoviruses AeDNV, HeDNV, and APeDNV in <I>Aedes aegypti</I> Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae)

Journal of Economic Entomology (2004)

Jeremy P. Ledermann Erica Suchman William C. Black Jonathan O. Carlson

10.1603/0022-0493-97.6.1828

Cite

Citations (15)

Animation Illustrating Genetic Exchange as a Result of Bacterial Transformation

Gary E. Kaiser Erica Suchman

Summary Transformation is a form of genetic recombination in which a DNA fragment from a dead, degraded bacterium enters a competent recipient bacterium and is exchanged for a piece of DNA of the recipient. Introduction Transformation usually involves only homologous recombination, a recombination of homologous DNA regions having nearly the same nucleotide sequences. For many bacteria this involves similar bacterial strains or strains of the same bacterial species, while others will take up any DNA and recombine with any that has significant homology. During transformation, DNA fragments (usually about 10 genes long) are released from a dead degraded bacterium and bind to DNA-binding proteins on the surface of a competent living recipient bacterium. Depending on the bacterium, either both strands of DNA penetrate the recipient, or a nuclease degrades one strand of the fragment and the remaining DNA strand enters the recipient. This DNA fragment from the donor is then exchanged for a piece of the recipient's DNA by means of RecA proteins and other molecules and involves breakage and reunion of the paired DNA segments (1). Transformation is one of the ways that bacteria can exchange genetic material in the environment, and serves as an important mechanism for horizontal gene transfer that results in increased bacterial genetic diversity. Methods Adobe Flash Professional CS5.5 was used in constructing this animation. Illustrations were drawn using Adobe Illustrator CS5.1 and imported into Adobe Flash Professional CS5.5. Discussion Slides 1 and 2: Introduction Transformation is a form of genetic recombination in which a DNA fragment from a dead, degraded bacterium enters a competent recipient bacterium and is exchanged for a piece of DNA of the recipient. Slides 3 and 4 Transformation begins when a donor bacterium dies and is degraded. The chromosome is fragmented and the plasma membrane and cell wall break apart. Slides 5 and 6 DNA fragments (usually about 10 genes long) are released from a dead degraded bacterium and bind to DNA binding proteins on the surface of a competent living recipient bacterium. Slides 7 and 8 A nuclease usually degrades one strand of the donor fragment and the remaining complementary DNA strand enters the recipient. Competence-specific single-stranded DNA-binding proteins bind to the donor DNA strand to prevent it from being degraded in the cytoplasm. Slides 9 and 10 The single strand of donor bacterial DNA pairs up with the region of homologous recipient DNA, a region having nearly the same nucleotide sequence. RecA proteins, as well as other molecules, promote genetic exchange between the donor's DNA and that of the recipient. This involves breakage and reunion of the pared DNA segments Slides 11 and 12 The excised strand of DNA cannot replicate and is eventually degraded. Slide 13 Differences in the nucleotide sequences between the homologous regions of the donor and recipient DNA can activate the DNA repair systems of the bacterium. Either the donor or the recipient DNA can be repaired during this process. Slides 14 and 15 If the repair occurs in the previously inserted donor DNA, then as the donor nucleotides are removed they will be replaced with nucleotides complementary to the recipient's DNA. The bacterium will once again have DNA identical to that of the original recipient bacterium. Therefore the genotype and phenotype of the recipient will remain unchanged. Slides 16 and 17 On the other hand, if the repair occurs in the homologous area of the recipient's DNA, then as the recipient nucleotides are removed, they will be replaced by nucleotides complementary to the donor's DNA and the bacterium will permanently contain genes from the initial donor bacterium, and the recipient's genotype and phenotype will change. Reference 1. deVries J, Wackernagel W. 2002. Integration of foreign DNA during natural transformation of Acinetobacter sp. by homology-facilitated illegitimate recombination. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. US 99: 2094-2099.

In vitro recombination

Source

Cite

Citations (0)

Short‐hairpin RNA expressed from polymerase III promoters mediates RNA interference in mosquito cells

Insect Molecular Biology (2007)

D. S. Konet John R. Anderson Joseph Piper Ramesh Akkina Erica Suchman

Abstract Putative U6snRNA polymerase III ( Pol III) promoters were cloned from the Anopheles gambiae and Aedes aegypti genomes. The Pol III promoters were tested for their ability to express short‐hairpin RNA (shRNA) targeted to firefly luciferase and to mediate RNA interference (RNAi) knockdown of a co‐transfected luciferase reporter gene vector in AG‐55 Anopheles gambiae and ATC‐10 Aedes aegypti cells. Promoters capable of silencing expression of the co‐transfected luciferase plasmid by up to 95% in AG‐55 cells and up to 75% in ATC‐10 cells were identified. RNase protection experiments allowed detection of the 19 nt luciferase short‐interfering RNA (siRNA) in transfected cells. These findings indicate that mosquito U6snRNA gene promoters can be used for production of shRNA to induce the RNAi response in mosquito cells.

RNA Silencing

RNA polymerase III

10.1111/j.1365-2583.2006.00714.x

Cite

Citations (36)

Densonucleosis Viruses as Transducing Vectors for Insects

CRC Press eBooks (2000)

Jonathan M. Carlson Boris N. Afanasiev Erica Suchman

10.1201/9781420039399.ch8

Cite

Citations (8)

Cytopathic Effects of Viruses Protocols

Erica Suchman Carol D. Blair

Picornaviridae

Source

Cite

Citations (13)