. Development of a New Molecular Subtyping Tool for Salmonella enterica Serovar Enteritidis Based on Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Genotyping Using PCR. This assignment is worth 35% of your total mark. Please chose one (only) of the articles below and write a critical review. Refer to the specific assignment instructions. You can download the PDF of the articles and any supplementary information from the journal web page. These are accessible thought the Electronic Journals. Ogunremi, D. et al., 2014. Development of a New Molecular Subtyping Tool for Salmonella enterica Serovar Enteritidis Based on Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Genotyping Using PCR. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 52(12), pp.4275–4285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128%2FJCM.01410-14 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4313298/ the critical review should contain the following criteria : 1- Word count: 2000 + or – 200 wordswithout references. 2- Write a review of the article with the following sections: The critical review consist of two part A- summary and background of the article : two to three pages on the background and contents of the paper. This section should cover the introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion sections. Also, may either write a section under each of these sections or write an overall “summary” of the contents of the paper, provided all sections are mentioned in your report. As this paper is written primarily for microbiologists working in medical microbiology, there may be some sections that are not explained in the detail that you need for your own understanding. In that case, go to the literature and fill in the gaps. Additional references used should be cited using the Vancouver referencing system. B- Critical Review: Present a critical review of the article with an emphasis on the novelty and significant of the research being described. To do this you will need to discuss the finding of other recent publication in the area. You should also provide a critical assessment of the presentation, flow and technical aspects of the article and point out any areas that could be improved.The following points will be helpful in the review: It is not essential that you answer all of these questions ( not all will be directly relevant to the article you have chosen): or even that you write your review in the order set out below, but use these points as a guide and check list. Questions to consider when critically reviewing an article: The following guidelines are modified from guidelines for reviewers of the European Journal of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (EJMID): Permission was obtained from the journal to reproduce this information. 1. General: How original is this paper? For example, is it simply applying the methods used in another study to a new situation or is the idea completely novel? Are there any published studies on the same topic? What is unique about this study? How important is this study to medical microbiology? Are there any sections of the paper that are too long and could be shortened?Is the writing clear, simple and concise? Is there any incorrect use of bacterial names? 2. Title Does the title reflect the content of the paper?Is it clear and an appropriate length? 3. Abstract Does the abstract outline the aims of the study, main methods, results and conclusions? 3. Introduction Does the introduction state the research question to be addressed?Is sufficient background information provided for readers to understand the question? 4. Materials and methodsAre the methods appropriate to the research question/s being addressed? Are the methods described in sufficient detail to be repeated by another microbiologist?Is any important information missing? Are there any well-known methods that are given in detail, but could be replaced by a reference? Have references been provided for all the methods, except new ones developed by the authors? 5. Results Have the authors presented only their own results in this section? Any comparison with the results of other scientists does not belong in the results section. Are there any results in the text that would be better presented in a table or figure?Is there any material presented in a table or figure that would be better presented in the text?Is there any repetition of results in text AND a table or figure? 6. Discussion Do you agree with the author’s interpretation of results? Have the authors clearly distinguished between their own results and the results of others? Are there any negative findings in the results that could be important but have not been discussed? Have the authors adequately discussed their results and conclusions in relation to the results of other investigators? Are the author’s conclusions acceptable and is there sufficient evidence for the conclusions they have drawn? 7. ReferencesCheck that all statements in the text that require a reference are properly referenced. Are there any references that are less relevant to the study and could be omitted? 8. Tables and figuresDo all tables and figures have complete legends so that they can be understood without reference to the text? Could any of the tables and figures be omitted or simplified? Comment on the design and quality of the tables and figures. – References. Vancouver Referencing style -in the critical review section you can use another references to support the review. • * Using the Vancouver referencing system and should be citied in critical review. • Avoid plagiarism