And I honestly can't imagine any of my classmates doing so, either. Textbooks at this point in our career are many things: a) something not to buy b) something to buy and not read c) something to buy, read, and never look at again, and d) something to buy, read, and use as a reference.
These jokers won't make any money off of the first three kinds of people, which represent the vast majority of the students. People like me who like the reference will simply turn to quite free alternatives, often available in quite handy palm pilot form.
That said, there are very few essential textbooks. Many, such as Albert's tome on Cell biology, are being offered on-line through the ncbi site. I seriously doubt that many or even any of the major authors would limit their probably brisk sales (Netter, Bates, Janeway, Harrison, etc.) by giving this company a monopoly. So, IMHO, this is a doomed business plan just like so many others in the past (ie DIVX...yeesh!)
No kidding. I just got done with my med school neuro class and we had a seminar on how glial cells are responsible for all sorts of things, including ionic balance, nerve regeneration, rapid uptake of secreted neurotransmitters, and, yes, even communication. It always seems that whenever the media pays attention to a science topic, they like to say things about how it opposes conventional wisdom. I'm not sure what that accomplishes, though. I guess they just like scientists to be wrong...
The most helpful site that I have found while doing genetics research is the NCBI site at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
This site allows access to the enormous amounts of data generated by genome sequencing projects including the Human Genome Project as well as links to research articles about specific sequences. It is especially helpful when researching specific mutations in genes and proteins and what they do to the organism. The attached OMIM database is a treasure trove of genetic disease information.
Important parts of the database include the BLAST section, in which you can search for sequence homology given a short stretch of gene or protein. This is very helpful whether you are querying for either protein or gene.
Another important part is PubMed, which is the place to start for literature searches. Entrez is helpful if you have a specific gene name in mind and want sequence information (genomic sequence, cDNA sequence, protein sequence, and even links to NMR and X-ray structures). LocusLink allows a gene name query to retrieve information about the gene's chromosomal location, alternate names, and related diseases.
All in all, the NCBI site is the most helpful site for on-line queries about specific genes and the Human Genome Project. The site might not be the best for someone who is looking for ready-made answers; there are few clear-cut answers in genetics right now and this site is good for formulating one's one hypothesis based on the real data. The NCBI site also has a small news section that features some of the more interesting finds.
Anyway, I help that this and all the other sites being given help!
Is it just me or is this announcement less than overwhelming from a clinical science perspective?
Aside from basic science research, I can see very little application for this kind of device. Introducing molecules into cells is indeed a problem at times and a specific gate would indeed be helpful. However, simply using an electrode to open voltage gated protein transporters/pores does little to help because there are literally hundreds of different pores that would be affected by such a whole-cell transient voltage clamp. There are probably applications for measuring cell reaction in response to hyper/de-polarization. However...
Gene therapy. I don't see how this is applicable. The cell transformation would have to take place in vitro - the number of diseases in which this is helpful are quite limited. In addition, the current ability to process one cell at a time seriously limits the utility of this device in most diseases where large cell populations need conversion for clinical efficacy. Someone mentioned stem cell conversion: this would (more than likely) help in converting these cells. However, it seems that successful reimplantation requires more than would be feasible with such a specific device. I suppose that it could be made into a huge grid for mass conversions, but I would be interested to know how they would expect to test conversion in such a case.
In any event, I suppose this is a first. However, as far as gene therapy goes, I feel that the current vectors (retroviruses, AAV, lipids, etc.) hold more promise due to the built-in cellular specificity possible, their built-in capacity to (often) incorporate into the genome, and the sheer numbers of gene conversion events possible. Not to mention the size and possible immune issues restricting this device's in vivo use.
First of all, I have yet to see mention of this medicine in either JAMA or the New England Journal. I don't know where or if the Phase I trials were ever published. So, as far as this particular thing ever materializing, there's a lot of doubt in my mind.
However, I do say that eventually we will see something that will work. The ability to use x-ray and other techniques to probe the 3-D structure of viral receptors and recent advantages in immunology make "smart" drug design the clear way to go. The article unfortunately does not mention specific points the drugs attack, but there are many vulnerable points on all viruses. And where they attack will, in my mind, make a difference as to whether we'll ever see the extinction of these viruses.
The small RNA viruses (picornaviruses - which actually include the two genuses mentioned - enteroviridae and rhinoviridae) do mutate at a rapid rate. However, many if not most of them have humans as their only host. If a drug struck at the appropriate point in the viral life cycle, it would be possible to wipe it out. Now, this drug is far too expensive and the rhinovirus is far too mild to warrant the necessary world-wide attack. But other members (poliovirus, hepatitis A), even though they have relatively cheap vaccines available, might benefit from having a product which affect viral transfer after infection.
In the end, this development probably isn't too significant. Some people in the developed world will have a way to fight off some symptoms of a bad cold. Shorten their suffering by a few days. Now, I'd like to see this technique applied to something important like the rotavirus, which kills more than a million children worldwide with its diarrhea. Of course, most companies would rather be known as the people who cured the common cold rather than the people who stopped deadly diarrhea in some far off place. So it goes.
Okay, despite the fact that this seemingly trivial article was blown way out of proportion by the word "cloning," I can see where this is newsworthy. I mean, if what the scientists say is true and this is the first time that we have been able to create a genetically identical population of rhesus monkeys, then I could see why the scientific community might be excited. Despite the fact that they can probably only get a limited number of offspring from any given zygote. I see this as news not because of the technical achievement but because of the research that it makes possible...if the same could be done with humans then the whole nature/nurture argument could be closed for good in many instances. Depending on how close these monkeys are, this development could end many of the same arguments.
This is obviously crap, as everyone here has already pointed out. I just wanted to add that B. subtilis is a poor choice for an argument of a common extraterrestrial ancestor. There are many bacteria that appear to be much older than this one. I guess I can't say anything about the other bug, but this one is really like saying that a human was the first thing on earth and that everything else evolved downward from it. Anyway...this only highlights the need for greater science education in this country.
As far as I remember, the protest was, in fact, against the park service banning BASE jumping. She was trying to prove that it was so safe that even a 60 year old woman could do it...tragic.
I always thought that this particular exercise was a pretty funny idea. I was able to enjoy it primarily because I DID think that they were all fabricated (I still believe that many are). However, two years ago I was sharing it with one of my friends who I knew was from one of the towns mentioned (Woodbridge, VA, site of the death of a young man who liked to dig pits on the beach and sit in them)and, to my surprise, it was a good friend of his. I guess that the deaths are still humorous to some, but after seeing that these are actual deaths that are being laughed at, they have lost all their comic appeal to me...
I was thinking more along the lines of small towns not being aware of the problems/not having the money to deal with them. I guess there's not really any reason to think that, though. Smart people live in small towns, too.:^)
I've long felt that the modern sewage system is one of humankind's greatest achievements. Just looking back at the pre-sewage European cities during a plague or cholera outbreak reminds you just how many disgusting things live in our waste. While I'm sure that many major cities (at least in the US) won't be totally affected, I could see where this would be a problem in small towns (like my own) and in foreign countries. It's funny when you stop and think about just how much computers affect our lives. Sewer systems!
I actually wouldn't call the Taq polymerase a PROCESS. It is, in fact, a protein derived from a thermophilic bacteria which allows the PCR to proceed at the necessary temperatures. Therefore, I think that this really would constitute a genetic patent which has been overruled. The discovery of Taq is not much different than the discovery of a gene. That gives me hope. Especially if a place like the Bay Area begins this trend, with all that gene patents mean to the location.
It is weird language, but I'm hoping that it reflects the legal tactic used to oppose the use of the patent. It seems like it could be read: "this molecule was made by nature and you just discovered it and, despite your claims, really didn't do anything to alter it that gives you rights to a patent."
As far as I know, little was done to alter Taq after it was discovered. Maybe I just don't know. Anyway, if it's simply a case that people can't patent naturally occuring substances, then I don't see how genes can be patented. Which would sure be a blessing in the next few decades...
I don't see why this article is so sensational. It is essentially extrapolating wildly from an gene-finding exercise akin to the human genome project.
For one, I believe that, could this group presently create life, they would. Instead, I think they merely wish to start a debate about the nature of creation.
First: I think that "creating" life means much more than simply taking DNA and reconstituting it into a preexisting lipid membrane and seeing if it works. Life surely did not evolve in this manner and I doubt the researchers would succeed with this method. Dividing cells take with them proteins from the parent cell which are necessary for life; if the researchers plan to include these the significance will be diminished further.
In any event, I don't think that this achievement is anywhere near as important as cloning a mammal like Dolly; both accomplish roughly the same goal. While it would certainly be a technical accomplishment, taking a self-replicating molecule and providing it with a safe environment and all the right materials is hardly creating life if you subscribe to the "body as a life-support system for a gene" view.
All in all, I think this is just an attempt to both spur debate and to bring attention to a research group which has accomplished an admittedly awesome feat: isolating the genes which are the bare essentials for life...
Although I'm no expert on the subject and all real questions should be asked of Dr. Kral himself, I do have a passing familiarity with his experiments after certain lectures he gave in my micro class (I attend the University of Arkansas and had him for class this past year).
He is really not trying to say anything special about this experiment; his happens to be a field which excites the imagination and draws popular attention. As such, I think that many of the quotes he has are the result of a request to speculate...
Anyway, his experiment was simply to grow microorganisms in a fairly hostile environment which approximates many of the things that we know about current conditions on Mars. He used volcanic ash which is believed to resemble Martian soil. No temperature or pressure differences were attempted in the first run because little is known about below Mars below the surface. Indeed, the surface is too cold for liquid water (apparently around -200C) and higher temperatures must be assumed if life (as we currently understand it) currently exists on Mars. There are plans for a range of growth conditions which include harsher temperatures and pressures (as far as I know, no one has been able to grow microbes in the experimental conditions, let alone less hospitable ones).
As far as radiation goes, both ionizing and non-ionizing forms are incident on the surface of Mars. However, at subsurface depths there is little reason to think that the intensities will remain the same, especially for non-ionizing (such as UV) forms. Since this is the environment which is to be modeled, radiation was ignored.
Questions about nitrogen appear to stem from a misunderstanding, perhaps, of the metabolism of Archaebacteria. These bacteria are believed by many to be ancestral to the more accessible bacteria which abound on earth and in textbooks. Methanogens, from a very basic understanding that I have, can use a variety of molecules to provide the reducing power necessary to produce biologically accessible forms of energy and, as a result, biologically useful molecules. I know that NO3 is used but am less sure about pure nitrogen. I am not sure that the researchers themselves know the specific nitrogen source the microbes utilized, but it is believed that the nitrogen content of the experimental medium was ~1%, less than the 3% believed to be present in the Martian atmosphere. In any event, the microbes do not tolerate oxygen (it forms radicals which the cell cannot handle) and it is thought that, esp. given the low level of atmospheric oxygen, subsurface levels of O2 would be conducive to cell growth.
Finally, as to previous proof of life on Mars (esp. the ALH001 meteorite), recent research has cast doubt on Zare, et. al's hypotheses. In fact, this past year Dr. Kral coauthored a paper which suggested that similar chemical patterns could be identified on rocks taken from the moon. Because the moon is such an unlikely candidate for life, the meteorite evidence shouldn't stand on its own as proof of life anywhere.
This all just goes to say that no one will really know anything for certain about life on Mars until some redneck terraformer comes down with a cold...
Sources for this post come from the university press release:
Sears D. W. G. and Kral T. A. (1998) Martian "microfossils" in lunar meteorites? Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33, 791-794,
and correspondence with members of the research group. All information presented herein represent the (somewhat poor) understanding of an unrelated party (me!) and do not represent the actual researchers' beliefs or opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
And I honestly can't imagine any of my classmates doing so, either. Textbooks at this point in our career are many things: a) something not to buy b) something to buy and not read c) something to buy, read, and never look at again, and d) something to buy, read, and use as a reference.
These jokers won't make any money off of the first three kinds of people, which represent the vast majority of the students. People like me who like the reference will simply turn to quite free alternatives, often available in quite handy palm pilot form.
That said, there are very few essential textbooks. Many, such as Albert's tome on Cell biology, are being offered on-line through the ncbi site. I seriously doubt that many or even any of the major authors would limit their probably brisk sales (Netter, Bates, Janeway, Harrison, etc.) by giving this company a monopoly. So, IMHO, this is a doomed business plan just like so many others in the past (ie DIVX...yeesh!)
Invicta{HOG}
No kidding. I just got done with my med school neuro class and we had a seminar on how glial cells are responsible for all sorts of things, including ionic balance, nerve regeneration, rapid uptake of secreted neurotransmitters, and, yes, even communication. It always seems that whenever the media pays attention to a science topic, they like to say things about how it opposes conventional wisdom. I'm not sure what that accomplishes, though. I guess they just like scientists to be wrong...
Invicta{HOG}
The most helpful site that I have found while doing genetics research is the NCBI site at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
This site allows access to the enormous amounts of data generated by genome sequencing projects including the Human Genome Project as well as links to research articles about specific sequences. It is especially helpful when researching specific mutations in genes and proteins and what they do to the organism. The attached OMIM database is a treasure trove of genetic disease information.
Important parts of the database include the BLAST section, in which you can search for sequence homology given a short stretch of gene or protein. This is very helpful whether you are querying for either protein or gene.
Another important part is PubMed, which is the place to start for literature searches. Entrez is helpful if you have a specific gene name in mind and want sequence information (genomic sequence, cDNA sequence, protein sequence, and even links to NMR and X-ray structures). LocusLink allows a gene name query to retrieve information about the gene's chromosomal location, alternate names, and related diseases.
All in all, the NCBI site is the most helpful site for on-line queries about specific genes and the Human Genome Project. The site might not be the best for someone who is looking for ready-made answers; there are few clear-cut answers in genetics right now and this site is good for formulating one's one hypothesis based on the real data. The NCBI site also has a small news section that features some of the more interesting finds.
Anyway, I help that this and all the other sites being given help!
Invicta{HOG}
Is it just me or is this announcement less than overwhelming from a clinical science perspective?
Aside from basic science research, I can see very little application for this kind of device. Introducing molecules into cells is indeed a problem at times and a specific gate would indeed be helpful. However, simply using an electrode to open voltage gated protein transporters/pores does little to help because there are literally hundreds of different pores that would be affected by such a whole-cell transient voltage clamp. There are probably applications for measuring cell reaction in response to hyper/de-polarization. However...
Gene therapy. I don't see how this is applicable. The cell transformation would have to take place in vitro - the number of diseases in which this is helpful are quite limited. In addition, the current ability to process one cell at a time seriously limits the utility of this device in most diseases where large cell populations need conversion for clinical efficacy. Someone mentioned stem cell conversion: this would (more than likely) help in converting these cells. However, it seems that successful reimplantation requires more than would be feasible with such a specific device. I suppose that it could be made into a huge grid for mass conversions, but I would be interested to know how they would expect to test conversion in such a case.
In any event, I suppose this is a first. However, as far as gene therapy goes, I feel that the current vectors (retroviruses, AAV, lipids, etc.) hold more promise due to the built-in cellular specificity possible, their built-in capacity to (often) incorporate into the genome, and the sheer numbers of gene conversion events possible. Not to mention the size and possible immune issues restricting this device's in vivo use.
Invicta{HOG}
First of all, I have yet to see mention of this medicine in either JAMA or the New England Journal. I don't know where or if the Phase I trials were ever published. So, as far as this particular thing ever materializing, there's a lot of doubt in my mind.
However, I do say that eventually we will see something that will work. The ability to use x-ray and other techniques to probe the 3-D structure of viral receptors and recent advantages in immunology make "smart" drug design the clear way to go. The article unfortunately does not mention specific points the drugs attack, but there are many vulnerable points on all viruses. And where they attack will, in my mind, make a difference as to whether we'll ever see the extinction of these viruses.
The small RNA viruses (picornaviruses - which actually include the two genuses mentioned - enteroviridae and rhinoviridae) do mutate at a rapid rate. However, many if not most of them have humans as their only host. If a drug struck at the appropriate point in the viral life cycle, it would be possible to wipe it out. Now, this drug is far too expensive and the rhinovirus is far too mild to warrant the necessary world-wide attack. But other members (poliovirus, hepatitis A), even though they have relatively cheap vaccines available, might benefit from having a product which affect viral transfer after infection.
In the end, this development probably isn't too significant. Some people in the developed world will have a way to fight off some symptoms of a bad cold. Shorten their suffering by a few days. Now, I'd like to see this technique applied to something important like the rotavirus, which kills more than a million children worldwide with its diarrhea. Of course, most companies would rather be known as the people who cured the common cold rather than the people who stopped deadly diarrhea in some far off place. So it goes.
Invicta{HOG}
Okay, despite the fact that this seemingly trivial article was blown way out of proportion by the word "cloning," I can see where this is newsworthy. I mean, if what the scientists say is true and this is the first time that we have been able to create a genetically identical population of rhesus monkeys, then I could see why the scientific community might be excited. Despite the fact that they can probably only get a limited number of offspring from any given zygote. I see this as news not because of the technical achievement but because of the research that it makes possible...if the same could be done with humans then the whole nature/nurture argument could be closed for good in many instances. Depending on how close these monkeys are, this development could end many of the same arguments.
Invicta{HOG}
This is obviously crap, as everyone here has already pointed out. I just wanted to add that B. subtilis is a poor choice for an argument of a common extraterrestrial ancestor. There are many bacteria that appear to be much older than this one. I guess I can't say anything about the other bug, but this one is really like saying that a human was the first thing on earth and that everything else evolved downward from it. Anyway...this only highlights the need for greater science education in this country.
Invicta{HOG}
I'm just wondering when he jumped ship...check your history books...
Invicta{HOG}
As far as I remember, the protest was, in fact, against the park service banning BASE jumping. She was trying to prove that it was so safe that even a 60 year old woman could do it...tragic.
Invicta{HOG}
I was thinking more along the lines of small towns not being aware of the problems/not having the money to deal with them. I guess there's not really any reason to think that, though. Smart people live in small towns, too. :^)
Invicta{HOG}
I've long felt that the modern sewage system is one of humankind's greatest achievements. Just looking back at the pre-sewage European cities during a plague or cholera outbreak reminds you just how many disgusting things live in our waste. While I'm sure that many major cities (at least in the US) won't be totally affected, I could see where this would be a problem in small towns (like my own) and in foreign countries. It's funny when you stop and think about just how much computers affect our lives. Sewer systems!
Invicta{HOG}
I actually wouldn't call the Taq polymerase a PROCESS. It is, in fact, a protein derived from a thermophilic bacteria which allows the PCR to proceed at the necessary temperatures. Therefore, I think that this really would constitute a genetic patent which has been overruled. The discovery of Taq is not much different than the discovery of a gene. That gives me hope. Especially if a place like the Bay Area begins this trend, with all that gene patents mean to the location.
Invicta{HOG}
It is weird language, but I'm hoping that it reflects the legal tactic used to oppose the use of the patent. It seems like it could be read: "this molecule was made by nature and you just discovered it and, despite your claims, really didn't do anything to alter it that gives you rights to a patent."
As far as I know, little was done to alter Taq after it was discovered. Maybe I just don't know. Anyway, if it's simply a case that people can't patent naturally occuring substances, then I don't see how genes can be patented. Which would sure be a blessing in the next few decades...
Invicta{HOG}
I don't see why this article is so sensational. It is essentially extrapolating wildly from an gene-finding exercise akin to the human genome project.
For one, I believe that, could this group presently create life, they would. Instead, I think they merely wish to start a debate about the nature of creation.
First: I think that "creating" life means much more than simply taking DNA and reconstituting it into a preexisting lipid membrane and seeing if it works. Life surely did not evolve in this manner and I doubt the researchers would succeed with this method. Dividing cells take with them proteins from the parent cell which are necessary for life; if the researchers plan to include these the significance will be diminished further.
In any event, I don't think that this achievement is anywhere near as important as cloning a mammal like Dolly; both accomplish roughly the same goal. While it would certainly be a technical accomplishment, taking a self-replicating molecule and providing it with a safe environment and all the right materials is hardly creating life if you subscribe to the "body as a life-support system for a gene" view.
All in all, I think this is just an attempt to both spur debate and to bring attention to a research group which has accomplished an admittedly awesome feat: isolating the genes which are the bare essentials for life...
Invicta{HOG}
Although I'm no expert on the subject and all real questions should be asked of Dr. Kral himself, I do have a passing familiarity with his experiments after certain lectures he gave in my micro class (I attend the University of Arkansas and had him for class this past year).
He is really not trying to say anything special about this experiment; his happens to be a field which excites the imagination and draws popular attention. As such, I think that many of the quotes he has are the result of a request to speculate...
Anyway, his experiment was simply to grow microorganisms in a fairly hostile environment which approximates many of the things that we know about current conditions on Mars. He used volcanic ash which is believed to resemble Martian soil. No temperature or pressure differences were attempted in the first run because little is known about below Mars below the surface. Indeed, the surface is too cold for liquid water (apparently around -200C) and higher temperatures must be assumed if life (as we currently understand it) currently exists on Mars. There are plans for a range of growth conditions which include harsher temperatures and pressures (as far as I know, no one has been able to grow microbes in the experimental conditions, let alone less hospitable ones).
As far as radiation goes, both ionizing and non-ionizing forms are incident on the surface of Mars. However, at subsurface depths there is little reason to think that the intensities will remain the same, especially for non-ionizing (such as UV) forms. Since this is the environment which is to be modeled, radiation was ignored.
Questions about nitrogen appear to stem from a misunderstanding, perhaps, of the metabolism of Archaebacteria. These bacteria are believed by many to be ancestral to the more accessible bacteria which abound on earth and in textbooks. Methanogens, from a very basic understanding that I have, can use a variety of molecules to provide the reducing power necessary to produce biologically accessible forms of energy and, as a result, biologically useful molecules. I know
that NO3 is used but am less sure about pure nitrogen. I am not sure that the researchers themselves know the specific nitrogen source the microbes utilized, but it is believed that the nitrogen content of the experimental medium was ~1%, less than the 3% believed to be present in the Martian atmosphere. In any event, the microbes do not tolerate oxygen (it forms radicals which the cell cannot handle) and it is thought that, esp. given the low level of atmospheric oxygen, subsurface levels of O2 would be conducive to cell growth.
Finally, as to previous proof of life on Mars (esp. the ALH001 meteorite), recent research has cast doubt on Zare, et. al's hypotheses. In fact, this past year Dr. Kral coauthored a paper which suggested that similar chemical patterns could be identified on rocks taken from the moon. Because the moon is such an unlikely candidate for life, the meteorite evidence shouldn't stand on its own as proof of life anywhere.
This all just goes to say that no one will really know anything for certain about life on Mars until some redneck terraformer comes down with a cold...
Sources for this post come from the university press release:
http://PIGTRAIL.UARK.EDU/NEWS/june99/ mars_life.html
Sears D. W. G. and Kral T. A. (1998) Martian "microfossils" in lunar meteorites? Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33, 791-794,
and correspondence with members of the research group. All information presented herein represent the (somewhat poor) understanding of an
unrelated party (me!) and do not represent the actual researchers' beliefs or opinions.
Invicta{HOG}