31 For students from group A taking biochemistry for a science degree those assigned to the computer-assisted learning subgroup performed better in both the pre-test and the post-test. Students from group A who used the problem sheet increased their scores in the post-test but not to the level achieved by the group who had used the computer-assisted instruction. The students who did not choose to take advantage of either type of additional work gained a statistically lower m a r k for the post-test compared with the computer-assisted group. More encouragement needs to be given to these students to use either the computer-assisted learning program or the problem sheet. Students in the pharmacy class who used the computer program showed an i m p r o v e m e n t compared with those who did not. Students too, from the third group who chose to use the program performed better in the post-test than those students who did not use the computer program. Some attempts have been made by biochemists to assess the usefulness of computer-assisted learning. Apostolides' investigation 4 showed that there was no difference between computer-assisted revision and traditional revision in the classroom. Escanero and Alda 5 who trained a group using traditional methods and another group using computeraided instruction found that the group using the computer program had a greater retention of knowledge over a period of three weeks. This study shows that students who used the computer program on laboratory techniques and calculations achieved higher scores on the post-test although the differences did not achieve significance. Academically weaker students who gained the lowest scores for the preliminary test showed the greatest improvement. Not all students who were given the opportunity used the computer-aided instruction. Two reasons were given; time or computers were not available. For computeraided instruction to be an effective teaching method time needs to be available during laboratory classes for students to use the programs and/or adequate computing facilities are needed to meet the demand.
Acknowledgements I wish to thank Dr Mary Thompson, Dr Graham Webb and Dr Terry Crooks for critically reading the manuscript. Dr Murray Grigor's help with the statistics was appreciated. I also wish to thank all the teaching staff of the Biochemistry Department who helped with the study and in particular Dr Kevin Farnden, Rob Powell and Lyn Dowsett.
References I Carrington, J and Vlugter, M (1989) Biochem Educ 17, 34-35 2Carrington, J (1990) Biochem Educ 18, 190-193 3Carrington, J M and Thompson, M P (1992) Biochem Educ 20, 32-35 4Apostolides, Z (1987) Biochem Educ 15, 129-133 5Escanero, J F and Alda, J O (1987) Biochem Educ 15, 67-69
Book Review in Brief Receptor-ligand Approach
Interactions
--
A
Practical
Edited by E C Hulme. pp 458. I R L Press at Oxford University Press, Oxford. 1992. £25 ISBN 0 - 1 9 - 9 6 3 0 9 1 - 7 Early receptor research was concerned with the identification of receptors for known effector molecules such as hormones, neurotransmitters and drugs using radiolabelled ligands. With the advent of recombinant DNA technology, however, the scenario has changed. New receptors are being increasingly cloned as a result of low stringency hybridization and polymerase chain reaction technology. The nature of ligands for these receptors is predictable in some cases from the sequence and predicted structures of these cloned receptor molecules. A series of suspected ligands therefore need to be screened in order to identify the natural ligands. This requires radiolabelling of the ligands and use of them to probe receptor-ligand interactions. Receptor-Ligand Interactions -- A Practical Approach is thus a very timely publication, which serves to meet these requirements. The book contains details of each protocol as well as all of the tricks, and trouble-shooting techniques, that never appear in scientific literature. Chapter 1 describes choice of isotopes and methods available for radiolabelling ligands. Chapters 2 and 3 describe respectively the use of anti-idiotypic antibodies and neurotoxins as probes for biochemical identification and characterization of receptors. Chapter 4 by Hulme and Birdsall is particularly useful to beginners. The authors made a systematic survey of the various methods available for investigating receptor-ligand interactions. In addition to giving step-by-step details, the authors explain the pros and cons of each method and provide useful guidelines that help a newcomer to choose an appropriate binding assay for his receptor. Several computer programs have been included in this chapter to analyse the kinetics of binding reactions. A number of useful practical tips for setting up for binding assays, pitfalls involved in the interpretation of the binding data and how to avoid experimental artifacts have been described in considerable detail. Chapters 6 to 9 are merely detailed versions of the various binding assays described in Chapter 4 and could have been avoided by including relevant details in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 is concerned with methods for preparation of membrane-bound and solubilized forms of receptor for binding assays and for autoradiographic and immunochemical localization of receptors. Chapter 10 discusses the use of fluorescent labelled ligands in the study of the fast kinetics of ligand-receptor interactions. Chapter 11 discusses the various numerical and graphical methods and computer programs that allow extraction of quantitative information from binding studies. The chapter, however, has a high dose of complex mathematical equations that may be too hard for a beginner to understand. The three appendices at the end of the books provide a catalogue of various radiolabelled ligands and curve-fitting programs available commercially. In chapter 2, retinol instead of RBP has been described as an immunogen. Apart from this, there are few errors in the book. This book, together with Receptor Biochemistry and ReceptorEffector Coupling, the other two books in this series, would form an invaluable resource for receptor studies. The series surprisingly missed out affinity labelling of receptor, a technique that had provided extremely useful information on the size and structural organisation of a number of cell surface receptors. A Sivaprasadarao
BIOCHEMICAL
EDUCATION
21(1) 1993