BIOT8011 Biosciences Literature Review Project Assessment Brief 2026 | MTU

BIOT8011 Assessment Brief

Assessment Type : Project
Project: Biofilm Formation in Staphylococcus

1. Purpose of this document

This is a practical brief for anyone helping me with my Bioscience Literature Review. It brings together the module requirements, the mind-map guidance, the review-paper exemplar, and the direction confirmed by my supervisor. The aim is to make clear exactly what I need to do, what the final submission must contain, and what work is required each week.

2. Confirmed project scope

• Working title: Biofilm Formation in Staphylococcus.
• Species: Cover BOTH Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis.
• Historical starting point: Christensen et al. (1985) is an acceptable starting point for the older/pioneering literature.
• Main scientific focus: Biofilm formation, including the development of understanding of adhesion, accumulation and molecular mechanisms.
• Antimicrobial susceptibility: Include antimicrobial susceptibility ONLY in the context of biofilms. Do not turn the review into a general review of antimicrobial resistance or susceptibility in Staphylococcus.
• Paper emphasis: Mainly use PRIMARY/ORIGINAL peer-reviewed research papers. Review papers may be used to understand the field and locate primary studies, but should not be copied or followed too closely because of plagiarism risk.

3. What the literature review must demonstrate

• An understanding of what a scientific literature review is.
• Evidence of a systematic literature search using carefully chosen keywords, filters and accredited databases.
• Knowledge and understanding of the research area.
• Selection of appropriate peer-reviewed primary research papers.
• Ability to summarise papers accurately and critically analyse them.
• Ability to compare research, identify developments in the field and eventually identify research gaps.
• Professional scientific writing and Harvard citation/referencing.
• Ability to discuss the literature and defend paper choices during weekly meetings and the final oral interview.

4. Literature-search work required

The helper should assist me in developing and documenting a search strategy, not simply provide a finished essay.

• Databases: use accredited scientific databases/search systems available through MTU (for example PubMed and other appropriate scholarly databases).
• Core terms should combine the organism and topic, e.g. Staphylococcus / Staphylococcus aureus / Staphylococcus epidermidis + biofilm / biofilm formation / adhesion / intercellular adhesion / biofilm accumulation.
• Mechanism terms can include ica, icaADBC, PIA/polysaccharide intercellular adhesin, extracellular matrix, surface proteins and other mechanisms that emerge from the primary literature.
• For the susceptibility section, combine Staphylococcus + biofilm + antimicrobial susceptibility / antibiotic susceptibility / tolerance / treatment, while keeping the focus on organisms growing as biofilms.
• Use filters deliberately (publication date, article type, peer-reviewed/primary research, species/relevance) and keep evidence of the search terms and filters used.
• Start with older/foundational papers and then follow the field forward. Use reference lists and cited-by trails to find primary papers.
• For every paper, verify whether it is PRIMARY RESEARCH or a REVIEW before deciding how to use it.

5. Foundational research trail already identified

These are starting points already identified for investigation. They are not automatically the final reference list; each paper must be read and checked for relevance.

6. How each primary paper should be worked through

For each selected paper, make my own notes under the following headings:

• Full Harvard reference.
• Primary research or review? (The core final evidence should mainly be primary research.)
• Research question/aim.
• Staphylococcus species/strain(s) studied.
• Biofilm aspect investigated.
• Experimental methods/model used.
• Main results and what evidence supports them.
• What the paper contributed to understanding of staphylococcal biofilms.
• Strengths of the study.
• Limitations of the study.
• How it agrees, disagrees with, or advances earlier papers.
• How it connects to later research.
• Whether it contributes to biofilm-associated antimicrobial susceptibility.
• Any research gap or unanswered question identified from reading it.

7. Mind map requirements and process

The mind-map lecture says to move from the agreed title to a visual brainstorm, then a structured mind map, and finally use the research to develop a Table of Contents. The mind map should become more detailed and comprehensive over time.

• Place the agreed project title in the centre.
• Pick out the important keywords from the title and make sure I understand them using trusted sources; take detailed notes.
• Ask questions about the topic and keep these questions for future research.
• Group the questions into logical categories to create the main branches.
• Use peer-reviewed literature to extend each branch with subtopics and evidence.
• Continue expanding the map logically; a simple map is only a starting point. The lecture explicitly shows that a more detailed/comprehensive map earns more marks.
• Link relevant citations to branches where possible.
• Use the developed mind map to construct the draft Table of Contents.

Possible branches for THIS project to explore (these are planning ideas, not final required headings):

• Introduction/background to Staphylococcus and biofilms.
• Early/pioneering research and historical development.
• epidermidis biofilm formation.
• aureus biofilm formation.
• Stages/mechanisms of biofilm development: initial attachment, accumulation/maturation, matrix/intercellular adhesion and dispersal where supported by selected literature.
• PIA and the ica locus / genetic mechanisms.
• Protein-mediated or other biofilm mechanisms identified in the primary literature.
• Clinical/medical-device relevance where supported by the chosen papers.
• Antimicrobial susceptibility specifically of staphylococci in biofilms.
• Comparison of findings, limitations and research gaps.

8. Table of Contents (TOC)

A draft TOC must grow from the mind map. It should organise the review into a logical scientific story rather than treating each paper as a separate essay. The final report must contain a professionally formatted TOC. The exact headings should be refined with the supervisor as the literature search develops.

9. Final written report requirements

10. Weekly work plan and assessed milestones

11. Assessment breakdown

• Preparation for the Literature Review: 40% overall. This includes the mind map/TOC, evidence of literature searching, knowledge/understanding, critical analysis and a properly referenced writing sample.
• Final written report: 40%. This includes the professionally prepared LR, TOC, original figures/tables and proposed research methodology.
• Oral interview: 20%. I must demonstrate knowledge, understanding and the ability to critique the literature.
• Formal submissions within the preparation component include 10% for the mind map/draft TOC and 10% continuous oral assessment; Week 10 includes 10% for the initial written draft and 10% oral assessment as described in the guidance.

12. Weekly supervisor evidence sheet

The module instructions say to PRINT TWO COPIES of the weekly sheet and have both completed by the supervisor each week. The sheet records attendance/engagement/effort, whether evidence was provided, whether feedback was acted on, overall progress, and notes/signatures.

13. Role of the supplied biosensors review paper

The supplied Vigneshvar et al. (2016) biosensors paper is a REVIEW article and is an exemplar/mini-review resource, not a source about my Staphylococcus topic. Its organisation demonstrates review-style features such as an introduction, themed subsections, comparative tables, discussion of current trends/challenges/limitations, a conclusion and a reference list. It should not be treated as evidence for staphylococcal biofilm biology.

14. Academic integrity / AI rules – very important

The assignment is AI Assessment Scale Level 2. AI is allowed for brainstorming, structural frameworks, research-direction guidance and idea refinement. However, the final submission must NOT contain AI-generated text, AI-generated literature synthesis, AI-generated critical analysis, or direct AI-authored citations/quotations.

Therefore, anyone helping me should support searching, organisation, explanation and feedback, but I must read the papers, make my own notes, perform my own critical analysis and write the submitted text myself.

15. What I need from the person helping me

• Help me locate appropriate PRIMARY peer-reviewed papers, especially older/foundational work first, then later developments.
• Keep both S. aureus and S. epidermidis in scope.
• Keep antimicrobial susceptibility strictly connected to biofilms.
• Help me distinguish primary research from review articles.
• Help me record search terms, databases and filters so I can demonstrate my search process.
• Help me understand difficult methods/results, but do not invent findings or write assessed critical analysis for me.
• Help me build and refine a detailed mind map and logical TOC based on what I actually find in the literature.
• Help me prepare my own paper-note/critical-analysis sheets for at least 6 papers by Week 7 and ultimately 10–20 primary papers for the final review.
• Help me identify genuine research gaps from the papers I read, then later consider a proposed methodology/experimental plan addressing a gap.
• Check my own writing for structure, clarity, Harvard referencing and whether claims are supported by the primary papers.
• Prepare me to explain my paper choices, methods, results, limitations and research gaps to my supervisor and during the oral interview.

16. Immediate priority

Right now, the priority is Week 4–5 work: document the literature search, select strong primary papers, understand the foundational research, begin a detailed mind map and draft TOC, and be ready to explain progress to the supervisor. Do not jump straight to producing the final 3,000–3,500-word review.

Important: This brief is a planning/support document. The final assessed Literature Review must comply with MTU’s Level 2 AI rules and must be written and critically analysed by the student.