Affect of Prolonged Fasting on Hematopoietic Stem Cells

My writing should serve you no other purpose than a brief knowledge about the article. I have summarized the whole article, didn’t go into details, and didn’t mention nearly all of the experiments they have done. I have only written the results that are the most important. If you want to learn more about this subject, you should read this article. I can guarantee you that this article is a very good and interesting article.

Another thing is I didn’t give any references, because I didn’t use any articles other than this one. When I am going to give summary of new articles, I will gather more information about the subject of the article.


Prolonged fasting (PF) lasting 48–120 hr reduces progrowth signaling and activates pathways that enhance cellular resistance to toxins in mice and humans. Only after more than 24 hours of fasting, the stored glycogen in the body is depleted and the body fully switches to a fat- and ketone bodies catabolism.

Previous studies in mice have shown that PF can reduce the circulating insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which protects cells against chemotoxicity. There are also some studies, which show that PF can cure several side effects of chemotherapy. Part of this study focuses on myelosuppression, which is reduction in production of blood cells. This side effect often cause dose limiting in chemotherapy treatment.

Hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) include long-term (LT-HSC) and short-term hematopoietic stem cells (ST-HSC) and the multipotent progenitors (MPP). These cells reside in the adult bone marrow (BM) and responsible for hematopoietic regeneration.


Chemotherapy drugs cause DNA damage and cell death of cancer cells. However, this process is not limited to cancer cells. Along with them, chemotherapy drugs also affect somatic cells, which include LT-HSC, ST-HSC, and MPP cells. This treatment, eventually causes impairment of hematopoiesis.

In the experiments, they have used multiple cycles of cyclophosphamide (CP), which is a chemotherapy drug, on fasted or fed mice. 48 hr PF decreased the DNA damage caused by CP and had an effect of protection in leukocytes and BM cells. Then they have checked whether CP causes apoptosis in PF treated cells and shown that PF actually protects HSPCs against CP-induced apoptosis, especially for two subtypes of HSPCs.

They have also shown that PF doesn’t protect HSPCs against chemotherapy at first, however it improves hematopoietic recovery in later cycles. After 4th cycle of CP treatment (39th day), the beneficial effect of PF was observed by the scientists. After 5th cycle of CP treatment (56th day), lymphocyte levels returned to the normal levels. At the end of 6th cycle of CP treatment (70th day), lymphoid cell levels and ratio of lymphoid and myeloid cells (L/M) returned to normal levels.

In humans, they have tried PF for cancer patients from a phase I clinical trial. For 72 hr of PF, the lymphocyte counts were returned back to normal. Now, they need to make the same experiments with patients from phase II clinical trial.

Furthermore, they have taken CP-treated and PF + CP-treated mice BM cells and transplanted them to mice with impaired immune system. As a result, they have observed that PF + CP-treated mice BM cells had higher regeneration capacity.

Then, they wanted to find if PF can induce HSC self-renewal without chemotherapy. They have seen 6-fold increase in newly generated HSPCs compared to the control group. They have checked cell numbers of each subtype and found that LT-HSC and ST-HSC levels are increased and the number of total BM cells was not increased by PF.

Furthermore, number of common myeloid progenitor number was slightly decreased as a result of PF. Then, they have observed that PF induced a major increase of S/G2/M phase of LT-HSCs and ST-HSCs. Another interesting result was that PF reduced apoptosis significantly.

8 cycles of PF can also reverse age-dependent myeloid bias in HSC subtypes and reverse effect of aging on WBC number.

In a previous study, they have shown that PF reduces circulating IGF-1 levels, which protect mice against chemotherapy toxicity. In the low amounts of IGF-1, the cells are protected against apoptosis, too. They also have increased self-renewal of HSC, similar to PF. PKA catalytic subunit alpha expression level was reduced in all tissues of starved mice and humans. They have also confirmed a link between IGF-1 and PKA/CREB and PF can reduce PKA signaling via low IGF-1 levels.


Prolong fasting reduces circulating IGF-1 in blood, thus, downregulates PKA levels, which in turn promotes hematopoietic stem cell self-renewal. PF can also be used along with chemotherapy. It showed promising results in humans and recovered white blood cell levels to their normal levels after 6 cycle of PF and CP (chemotherapy drug) treatment.



Cheng, Chia-Wei, et al. “Prolonged Fasting Reduces IGF-1/PKA to Promote Hematopoietic-Stem-Cell-Based Regeneration and Reverse Immunosuppression.” Cell Stem Cell 18.2 (2016): 291-292.

Affect of Prolonged Fasting on Hematopoietic Stem Cells

An Essay About Trump, Fanaticism, and In-group Hegemony

Last week, I have watched John Oliver’s video on YouTube. I highly recommend you to watch it. In short, he explains where Trump is getting his “facts”, how Trump and supporters of Trump affect each other, and why people should be cynical when it comes to news and facts. The last point is very important for every people, not only for American people. But, there is another important problem about Trump and other countries.

John Oliver’s video, titled Trump vs. Truth

I would like to begin with a really interesting theory for why we haven’t contacted extraterrestrial life, yet. We have so many stars in the universe and those stars have multiple planets; so can we say aliens exist in at least one of those planets? If they do, why they haven’t contacted us? The theory is that everyone is listening and nobody is transmitting. Just like us, the aliens might try to find clues or messages about extraterrestrial life. But, just like us, they might not have technology or some ways to transmit a signal or anything to outer space. That is one of the theories, I think the most interesting, theory of all theories about extraterrestrial life.

Now, back to our story. We have the reverse type of this thing in masses of people: Everyone is talking and nobody is listening. People who have the same ideas come together and try to discriminate the others. Once the sides are decided, nobody listens to the other side, nobody changes their minds no matter what happens. Once the sides are decided, people become fanatics about their choice. CGP Grey has a really good video about this “evolution of ideas” and how these ideas actually help each other’s spreading.

CGP Grey’s video that is related to evolution of ideas

Now, this “getting a wrong fact” actually doesn’t explain many things. One of which is the true fact about Trump’s talk regarding women, which should have had huge effect on people’s ideas about Trump, including his voters, of course. But, that was not the case. People who were supporting Trump kept supporting him, even women whom Trump thinks “he can grab by the p****”. This is not a “wrong fact” and the tape was not even denied by Trump. So, why did people still wanted to vote for him?

One of the answer is “fanaticism”. As I said before, once the sides are taken people tend to keep supporting the people or ideas they have been supporting. Just because your favorite football team lost to another team, you do not begin to support the other team, right? This is the same mentality, whose results can actually hurt, unlike being a fan of a football team. People were supporting Trump, because of his “honesty”, having his own money -not being bought by lobbies-, and his showmanship. They kept supporting him after he said that disgusting sentence, because they didn’t want their favorite candidate to lose. This is not only true for political parties, but also true for ideas and facts. Veritasium has a really good and interesting video about this issue. You can find it below.

Veritasium’s video, titled Why Anecdotes Trump Data. The point about how difficult changing an opinion is starts at 2:50, but I recommend you to watch it from the beginning.

Another thing is what I will refer to as “In-group hegemony”. Let’s say a person is involved in a group, which can also be a political party, because the group’s ideologies are similar to this person. After some time, even if the group decides to do something that opposes its -and the person’s- ideology; the person would think as if he/she believes that, too. Let’s give an example to this complicated thing. People, who had the similar ideology or agreeing the same issue, supported Trump for presidency. When he revealed he is going to ban Muslims from entering America, people kept supporting him. Some of them thought he was using it to just to gain more votes, but some of them actually supported the idea of Muslim ban. Part of the people supported it, because they were already supporting Trump’s ideology and their ideology had similarities with Trump’s ideology; so they psychologically and unconsciously supported Trump’s idea of Muslim ban. These people would normally oppose the idea of Muslim ban, actually supported it because of Trump’s passive hegemony in Republican voters. If you are curious about rest of the supporters, they are racists.

Nevertheless, I believe things are not going well, not because people are getting “wrong facts” from news, but they choose rather to have or learn “facts” that support their own beliefs, ideas, and ideology. Even if they watch news of other ideology, they would not accept those “facts” and would claim the channel fabricates some facts. Furthermore, I believe, if a newsreader from those people’s favorite channel would say something that opposes those people’s beliefs or ideas, people will claim the newsreader is lying or hiding the truth.

In conclusion, I believe the main problem is not having or learning wrong facts. The problem is fanaticism and in-group hegemony. I’ll write what I think about the solutions to these problems, maybe not the next week, about later weeks.

An Essay About Trump, Fanaticism, and In-group Hegemony

Café Society

In the future, my reviews -hopefully- will not be this long. This is mainly because how much I didn’t like the film and how much people liked the film or said the film was “okay”. In the beginning you can read my main points about why I didn’t like this movie, then I’ll explain them in more detail. In the end, I will compare this film to another film, La La Land. Actually at first I thought about giving two reviews at the same time but firstly, I didn’t want to make this 10 pages long, secondly, I have realized that there are some things I have missed about La La Land, such as colors of the scenes. So, I have to watch it one more time and the next week, I will write my review about La La Land. The comparison I will make in the end -hopefully- may serve you a teaser to watch it until the next week’s review. I hope you’ll enjoy this one.

Without further ado, let’s begin with “abstract”:

The writing was okay. Why it is not good? Because there are scenes, which are present only to make the film longer than it’s supposed to be. In the “writing” part, I will explain a little bit more and give you numbers about how long the film would have been without those scenes. Another thing is the narration. Its sole purpose is to explain what is going on, but either you have already seen what was going on or it is so obvious that you don’t need a narration. You don’t need a narration to imagine how devastated a mother is after death of her son, right? I should also mention that sub-plot has nothing to do with the plot, it is not funny or interesting and just there to make the film longer than it is supposed to be. Another thing about the length of the film is, interruption of some scenes (e.g. phone calls in Phil and Bobby’s scene) and addition of some scenes (e.g. three seconds of the black and white films Bobby and Vonnie are watching) not only there to increase the length, but also disrupt the pacing of the film. Last but not the least, the weird scenes between characters, which is there to make you laugh; but the scene is so weird, cliché or somehow the scene doesn’t work. I couldn’t laugh for 5 minutes in total for a film, which is in “comedy” genre, takes 1 hour and 20 minutes.

Editing is the worst. If I were to scale it in 10 points, I would have given 2 or 3. There are no smooth transitions between the scenes, but just an abrupt cut, which serves no purpose other than “homage”. I don’t think it is an aesthetic decision. It looks like homeworks I have been giving to the professors, when I have no time left, so I wasn’t being able to check my spellings or I had to finish a paragraph the way it shouldn’t have finished. It is awful and it doesn’t only make the film boring but actually tire you. There are also some scenes, which would have been better if the characters didn’t have to talk but just act, show how they are sad or happy or shocked instead of speaking. Furthermore, some scenes needed to be shortened but because of the script another character talks and the whole emotion goes away. I will give you an example with two videos in the “editing” part.

Lastly, the acting part. It is actually fine, probably because I wasn’t expecting more from these actors. Jesse Eisenberg’s acting is weird as always. It actually works for the beginning of the film, however later when he is supposed to be more serious, his acting becomes problematic. Not that it is bad but it doesn’t fit with your expectations. For example, it works when he is talking with his uncle, Phil, because he is just a “boy” who has gone away from home and he is supposed to be nervous. But after he was married and became a father, his “nervous” act becomes weird, because you do not expect an adult to be nervous all the time, no matter what. I wasn’t expecting anything from Kristen Stewart… Steve Carell’s acting is actually good, but you cannot get that fact because of the problems with the writing.

Let’s begin to dig deeper, shall we?




In the beginning of the film, about 9 minutes after the film begins, we encounter our first problem. The scene is about Bonnie and a hooker, who introduces herself as “Candy”. Then we begin our “comedy” part. She says it was her first time, Bonnie says it was his first time to do it with a hooker. She reveals her first name and her last name. Bonnie decides not to do it, because she has given too much information about her real self. Then she asks Bonnie if it was because she was ugly… She wants to do it; Bonnie doesn’t want to do it. She cries, Bonnie decides to do it and she reveals more information about herself, so his decision changes again. He also says things like “it’s not you, it’s me” and “I have a headache”, cliché sentences you should expect from a woman not a man so the scene is funny, right?? The scene is not funny!!! If you didn’t laugh what I have written -I certainly didn’t laugh- you wouldn’t laugh while watching the film, too. There is no character development, the situation is weird and it was probably thought that “because the situation is weird, the scene would be funny”, but that’s not the case. This is the scene in which I have decided to count the minutes for every waste-of-time scene in the movie. It takes about 3 minutes.

Later, comes another problematic scene. The scene is between Bonnie and Phil. The scene takes 1.5 minutes, because their talk is interrupted by phone calls Phil is receiving. Is there a character development? No, we do not see Bobby getting angry or reacting in another way than just sitting. Will it somehow appear later? No, if this scene were to appear later in the film, whether Bobby were to do the same thing to Phil or Bobby were to get angry because of all these phone call interruptions; the scene would be more acceptable. Is it funny? No, it annoys me as it should annoy Bobby. All in all, there is no reason to interrupt their talking with these phone calls, it serves no purpose at all.

Another unnecessary talk… It is a phone call between Bonnie and his aunt. Bonnie tells his aunt what has happened, which we have already seen. I mean, trying to change rules, not following the “show, don’t tell” rule is a thing, telling something you have already shown is another thing. There is no purpose for this scene other than wasting more time. This scene takes about 1 minute.

Much later, we see Vonnie arriving to Bonnie’s house. She is so sad and crying. Then she begins to talk about what happened… Why??!! We have just seen what happened to her. Can’t you use fade out effect and cut the scene, instead of repeating the same thing and Bonnie’s feeling about her? Because of these kind of “explainings” we cannot feel the emotions of the film. We need to see how sad Vonnie is, instead of Vonnie telling how sad she is. This scene takes about 2.5 minutes.

Now comes the second problem: The narrative. Having a narrative in the beginning is fine, having a narrative in the end is also fine. But, why do we have narrative in the middle? You can take the good things, the nostalgia of how films were made in 1930s to pay homage; not the bad things. The narrative in this film does nothing but “speaking” us the gaps between some years, months or events. Sometimes, the scene explains itself, we see what’s happening and the narration is not necessary; other times the scene is not necessary. For example, showing us what movie they have been seeing is not necessary if that scene or film will not appear later. If you make Bobby and Vonnie end up the same situation the characters in those films ended up with -even talking about how they would react and not reacting the way they say they would and ending up in the same situation would be much much better-, the scene would have a purpose and worth it. But we only see 3 seconds of a film and that’s it. It is nothing but a distraction. The narrative later talks about pregnancy of Veronica and Bobby and Veronica’s wedding. Although we have a scene, which clearly show us what’s going on. Again, why do we have narrative?

Now, there are lots of scenes and shots with no other purpose than just filling the gap. If I were to write those, it would have taken pages. That’s why I will give you the total minutes of waste-of-time moments and attach a word file here, which would sort of explain you how many minutes are wasted in which scenes. If you sum up all the waste-of-time moments, it is: 40 MINUTES!!

That’s the whole point. It has a sub-plot, which serves no purpose here for the main plot (Sub-plot scenes are not included to 40 minutes), the film is trying to make awkward moments funny and those moments just makes you uncomfortable, also the narrative is not necessary.




The editing is THE WORST!

I have counted 111 scenes in total and between those scenes there are 89 “no transitions”. I am not saying jump cut because it doesn’t happen during a scene. It is also not a smash cut, too. Because there is no “unexpected scene” happening after a scene. It is just an abrupt cut; a cut you wouldn’t even expect to see frequently in 1930s films. There are 16 dissolves. Six of them are happening in 4 minutes, not a complain but just to make you understand how those dissolves are distributed throughout the film. There are 5 wipes and honestly I was expecting larger number of wipes, since this film is kind of homage to 1930s cinema (not that much, tough…). Then, there are 2 J-cuts. I actually really liked those 2 J-cuts. I don’t know if it is because those are standing out from the others or I really liked how they were done.

My point is that there are so many scenes in this film. There is also a sub-plot, which doesn’t work and has nothing to do with the main-plot. If you edit those things, you’ll have a better structured film, but the film would take 45 minutes. That’s probably the reason why those narratives and sub-plot are introduced to the film.

Just look at the following two scenes. In these scenes, Bobby -unknowingly- tell Vonnie about his uncle’s (Phil) divorce and keep in mind Vonnie and Phil are lovers.

YouTube link – With Audio

If YouTube link doesn’t work, Vimeo link – With Audio

YouTube link – Without Audio

If YouTube link doesn’t work, Vimeo link – Without Audio

Now, this is my first edit in my life. Also, I have used a free editing program. If the editing would be smoother and if you remove that cheesy background music, the end result would be much better. But still, I think if you give silence in that scene, you actually create a “lost in thought” effect for Vonnie. Also, the last comment from Bobby is really unnecessary, abolishes the feelings you should get from the scene.




Jesse Eisenberg is an actor with that weird acting. His acting is like a nervous boy, which works for the first half of the movie. He is a “boy” who was away from home for the first time. He is in a new place, in a new society (pun is not intended), and he is surrounded by people who are really important for the film industry. But on the second half, after he became owner of the club -together with his brother Ben-, he has married and became a father; that “nervous boy” acting doesn’t work.

Kristen Stewart is…. Kristen Stewart. She tries to look sad, she tries to look like she is in love, she tries to look like she is having fun; but you can’t feel those feelings from her. I think hers was the worst performance.

Steve Carell tries to save the film, but even he can’t. He is weird in the places he is supposed to be weird, funny in the places he is supposed to be funny, and serious in the places he is supposed to be serious. I think his acting was the best.




Now, let’s compare Café Society to La La Land

La La Land doesn’t have narration and it doesn’t need to have a narration. As I said before, a narration in the first or the last scenes of a film is okay, not good, but okay. There is no sub-plot, which occupies about the half of the movie. The main plot is interesting, unlike Café Society’s main plot and sub-plot. There are no unnecessary scenes or the scenes are not disrupted. Additionally, La La Land is not trying to be funny, it IS funny.

Editing is done wonderfully, I will talk about those more in the actual review, but the transitions and cuts are top-notch. I wasn’t surprised when I learned the director and the writer is Damien Chazelle. He was also the director and the writer of Whiplash, another wonderfully written and edited film. He won Golden Globe in Best Director in Motion Picture and Best Screenplay in Motion Picture categories.

The acting part was also wonderful. Emma Stone shone in her role and she is a great actress. She won Golden Globe in Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture and BAFTA in Best Leading Actress categories. She is also nominated for Academy Award for Best Actress category.

La La Land doesn’t make the amateurish mistakes Café Society does. That is why I highly recommend La La Land and do not recommend you to watch Café Society, unless you are a fanboy or fangirl of Woody Allen or you have to watch every movie that is in Romance genre.

Café Society


It’s been a long time since I haven’t done anything with this blog. But, from now on, my goal is to make weekly posts about;

  1. An in-depth analysis of a film
  2. An essay about a topic
  3. Summary of an article

I will also make a review of a book every month.

That’s all about the update. I hope you’ll enjoy my blog.



Yesterday, I have talked with a friend about a subject. At one point, she told me four wrong statements she believes because a doctor told her. First one was “our right brain is creative and our left brain is analytical”. Second wrong statement was “our left brain controls all of our organs”. Third statement was “our right brain accepts every statement”. The final statement was “Since our left brain is analytical, it slows us down, which is bad”. I would like to write about why these statements are wrong and prove them scientifically.


First of all, dietitians and doctors rarely understand what science is about, similar to situation between chemical engineers and chemists; they do not try to discover a scientific fact, but try to apply the scientific fact. Therefore, for a doctor, it is important to cure a disease, no matter protein A or B cures the patient. However, for a scientist, it is important to know which one of these proteins actually cures the disease. To make the matter worse, media try to oversimplify the science and create false stories, intentionally. This topic is going to be theme of my next essay, but I would like to give you some examples.


Let’s begin with a simple example. Are trans fats bad for you? Everybody can answer this question with a full confident: Yes! Why are they bad for you? Okay, not everybody can answer this question but some people can tell you that “we cannot process trans fats in our bodies, so they accumulate”. Nobody can oppose these answers, because there is not evidence that opposes these facts. Now, are chicken eggs bad for you? The thing is some doctors say it decreases blood pressure, some doctors say it increases blood pressure and your cholesterol, and some doctors say that eggs do not change your cholesterol level. I think you got my point. There is no clear answer for egg. Why is that so? Because it is not scientifically proven! I can tell you the reason why the trans fats are bad for you, your body can’t process them and they accumulate. Can someone tell me why chicken eggs decrease or increase blood pressure or cholesterol level? With what mechanisms and signal pathways do chicken eggs induce cholesterol production? Can we not process cholesterol, similar to trans fats? There are no answers for these questions.


So where do these conclusions for chicken eggs, coffee, teas, and other foods come from? They come from the statistical results of experimental subjects that consume these foods. They look at what percentage of these experimental subjects that eat chicken eggs, have cholesterol level above the average. After finding out the result, they create an article and publish it. One of the problems with this approach is the sample size of the experimental subjects. If I invite three people to my house and two of the virtual people have blue eyes, do I conclude that majority of the people outside have blue eyes or two-thirds of people have blue eyes? Then, it is important to have high sample sizes for experiments, especially with something as complicated as cholesterol levels. Other problem is that no matter how hard you try to make a control group, the individuals always will have differences. So, a person’s cholesterol level might have increased that day because of the food the person ate. More examples can be given considering gender, age, diet, and other variables for people, but the point is that in order to conclude something with a scientific proof, you need to eliminate all other possibilities, which requires molecular level approach, instead of statistical analysis. Of course, statistical analysis is important, don’t get me wrong. The problem is the conclusion, which you shouldn’t make right after you read an article, so that we wouldn’t have an article on TIME that claims “Scientists say smelling farts might prevent cancer”. The TIME article is real, except they changed it later considering how stupid it is. That article in that serious magazine shows us how serious these problems are. Last but not the least, some of these statistical analyses is done with experimental subjects, which are not human. The fact that chicken eggs increase a rodent’s cholesterol levels doesn’t mean that they would increase your cholesterol levels, too. Yet, those articles are published –and they should be published– and media immediately come to the conclusion that you should never eat a chicken egg in your life.


I told you I wasn’t joking


Now that I have talked about the scientific approach and mediatic approach to the science, I would like talk about the left and right brains. The asymmetry of brain was pointed out as early as 5th century BC by Hippocrates. He has observed that if one side of the brain is damaged, the opposite side of the body would have seizures [1]. Later years the observation became a fact. Furthermore, it is observed that epileptic seizures in one hemisphere often cross over and cause seizures in the other hemisphere [2]. In early 1960s, Roger Sperry, Joseph Bogen, and Philip Vogel speculated that cutting corpus callosum, which connects two hemispheres, might prevent crossing of the seizure. The patients’ symptoms were disappeared considerably. However, although they could be able to do their daily activities as normal, the patients, who held objects in their left hands out of sight, claimed they held nothing. They could feel and name the objects that are in their right hands. With further experiments they have concluded that our different brain hemispheres are specialized to do different things [2]. But, we now know that right brain hemisphere controls left hand and right hemisphere is limited –not incapable– of producing speech. Since, the corpus callosum was cut, the hemispheres can’t communicate with each other.


The communication of hemispheres is very important, because they require each other’s cooperation [3]. We produce speech with our left hemisphere, but we give our speech intonation with our right hemisphere [2]. So, we are able to say: “Of course that dress is red!” with our left brain hemisphere, but we say it as sarcasm not as a statement thanks to our right brain hemisphere. This phenomenon is so incredibly misunderstood; most people interpret as if we have two distinct brains, one of them is artistic and the other one is analytical. Neurologists even named this phenomenon as dichotomania.


Right Brain, Left Brain, Whole Brain8
That’s right! We have individual brains, just like our lungs. See? I used my right brain hemisphere.


There is no scientific paper or mediatic paper that talks about relationship between our left brain hemisphere and all of our organs. In fact, it is known that our left brain hemisphere controls our right side of body and our right brain hemisphere controls our left side of body. There is also no scientific paper, which is written about which of our hemisphere accepts every statements and which denies or be neutral about it.


For the final fact, assume that our left brain hemisphere is analytical and slows us down. Is it a bad thing? The thing is we actually accept every statement immediately, although left or right side of our brain has nothing to do with it. When I talk about yellow mice, most of the people imagine a yellow rat, before dismissing the fact that yellow rats don’t exist. This process of accepting every fact and then eliminating them is done in our daily lives and we generally do not notice it.


Analytical thinking –not that I claim it comes from left brain hemisphere– is what we must actually do. If we want to find a truth behind many lies and false information, we have to question every statement we see, including this essay. So, what do you think about these statements and my approach to these statements. Please don’t forget to comment below.




  1. LeMay, M. “Left-right dissymmetry, handedness.” American Journal of Neuroradiology 13.2 (1992): 493-504.
  2. Wolfe, Patricia. Brain matters: Translating research into classroom practice. ASCD, (2010): 44-48.
  3. Brodal, Per. The central nervous system: structure and function. Oxford University Press, (2004): 593.