i am not trying to suggest that transgenic manipulation of crops or anything else can never lead to problems. new technologies tend to create new problems. they also tend to outstrip the pace of thoughtful regulatory legislation. what i am suggesting is that the fear surrounding transgenics is wildly out of proportion with the actual potential for harm, stemming what I see as an almost complete misunderstanding of the biology behind the tech. transgenic constructs are much more complicated than say a steam engine, and so consequently fewer people are able to fully grasp what is going on. some people might think that is a bad thing in itself, but unfortunately that's how technology progresses in general. this lack of understanding has create a vacuum that has been filled by misinformation and propaganda.
my university is well known for its leftist thinking, and I consider myself to be far to the left of the median in America. but I soundly reject those on the left, especially on the fringe, who say that GMOs need to be stopped. in my mind, without GMO crops, we can never hope to feed the masses. even borlaug said organic farming can only feed ~4 billion, and the fertilizers/pesticides we currently use on non-GMO (and even current 1st gen GMOs)represent an unsustainable form of agriculture. thus, I think future, baller GMOs will save the planet.
i'm glad you brought up corn. i work in a molecular biology lab at a major university. we study maize in my lab, so I know a thing or two about it. extinction isn't the proper term for loss of a species from a particular area. disappearance is more like it.
you must be referring to Bt corn. i can believe that pollen could do what you describe, but at the same time I know that it could have been prevented with the proper promoter on the Bt gene. there's no need for pollen to express the peptide pesticide. fortunately, corn pollen is absurdly massive compared to most other pollen, and doesn't fly far.
what I was really asking about was the irresponsible use of transgenics. you say you work for a company involved with them. have you seen the amount of paperwork needed to even get transgenic seed? the amount of regulation surrounding transgenics is enormous, and I have never really heard of a biologically-irresponsible use in the field (not that it's impossible).
the problem with the mind link thing from an evolutionary perspective is not whether it could have evolved spontaneously. the question is, if only a subset of the population uses it, how can it persist as a functional trait? eg the turok (big red bird thing) has only connected with a blue guy 5 times in their history, then surely through the course of random mutations etc. the bird would have lost the ability. this of course assumes, 1) a relatively short lifespan, and 2) that the animals don't use these connections within the species.
care to provide an example? i'm no fan of monsanto and the like, but as a molecular biology student I am getting pretty tired of the luddite/hippy trash talk when it comes to transgenic crops. ever hear of allopolyploidy?
did you see the movie? different species are able to link up and communicate through the hair nerve bundle thingy (official term!). unless there was some strong selective pressure to keep those links intact across the species, they would have lost the ability quickly. considering how few of the wild animals connected to the blue guys, i doubt it could have stuck around as a trait (unless of course the links were used extensively within each species, something I don't remember seeing but it's entirely possible.) /genetics major
if radio waves caused cancer, we would all have been dead a long time ago. what exactly is supposed to be unique about cell phones? that you hold them to your head? anyone ever heard of a chemical bond that a 1900 mhz wave could break?
i agree, but that isn't unique to facebook. facebook certainly didn't innovate in the area of getting a lot of people involved. you could argue that facebook has made being involved with something just a couple of clicks away, but that's just the nature of communication progressing. if it hadn't been facebook, it would have been something else.
it's not quite that simple. there are many many many events that are required, and it can't really be boiled down to those three categories. there are some key players that are almost always inactivated in some way or another across any cancer types (eg p53 or Rb), but many are unique to particular cancers (eg GSK-3b).
I just completed an intensive undergraduate course on cancer with a focus on genetics at UC Berkeley. We spent a significant amount of time on cancer genomes, and I have to say this announcement doesn't mean that much unfortunately. Cancers are genetically very unstable, and any given tumor you sequence will have many mutations that are completely unrelated to the cancer's survival and proliferation. they are known as passenger mutations, and need to be separated from the causative 'driver' mutations. sequencing many tumors of the same type and applying statistical analysis has been useful in this area, but considering that there are potentially millions of different combinations of active and inactive genes that lead to tumor formation, this approach has its limitations. this is especially true given that some genes are both tumor suppressors and tumor activators in different contexts (eg the TGF-b pathway). even if you identify a genetic locus as highly associated with a particular cancer, it is hard to go from there to understanding the molecular biology behind that association.
we have a long way to go before we defeat cancer, and sequencing can only take us so far.
I'm sure the paper is fine if it's in PNAS, I haven't had the chance to read it myself. But if you read the press release, it makes it seem as if this represents the discovery of p16. In fact, they make it seem as if p16 is unique to mole rats. I'd agree with you that a transformation of a more accepted cell line like NIH 3T3 or some human line would be more convincing. I imagine they are working on it.
really? how do you explain how those species overcome the end replication problem? we agree that aging is more complex than just telomeres... nobody thinks that. perhaps in the mainstream media.
i never said that telomeres were the answer to aging. but i did say that highly active telomerase is a characteristic trait among immortal cell lines. and that they are deeply involved in the aging process, especially in humans (which is the species in question). yes, many (not all) of those lines are messed up in one way or another. the point stands though: if there is a possibility of extending human lifespans through biotechnology, you can be sure that telomeres will be involved. i mean, just think of cancer. telomeres and telomerase are a key component of how cancer manages to sustain such explosive growth. if we had a good telomerase RT inhibitor, it would help greatly against cancer. once we do, average human age will necessarily increase, ergo biochemical control of telomeres is intimately related to aging.
that's a little silly to say. are you suggesting that telomeres evolved to place an upper limit on an organism's lifespan? I doubt you believe that.
telomerase is expressed at very low levels in adult somatic cells -> telomeres shorten, eventually get lost -> genes get lost. in what way is this not a large part of aging?
telomeres can be thought of as one part of the aging process. if the person you responded to had talked about DNA methylation or mutations, you could have responded by saying "well what about telomeres!" my point is that its involved, and from what I have been taught they play quite a large role in aging.
This is not strictly true. There are cell lines that are so-called 'immortalized', and have been dividing continuously for many years with no signs of slowing down. They typically have very high expression of telomerase and other protective factors. Cancer can be thought of as an immortalized cell line in a living body.
I am an undergraduate at UC Berkeley and am currently taking a class on cancer, especially the genetic basis for its development. One of the professors is Steve Martin, a famous cancer researcher. Even if I wasn't in this class, I would know that p16 is a well-known gene. They definitely did not discover it in this study. This article is very misleading. Humans definitely have p16, is it vital to the normal cell cycle. It is also frequently mutated in melanomas, one of the most vicious cancers. It is most likely that this group has found that naked mole rat cells use p16 in a unique way as it relates to certain types of cancer transformation pathways. Bear in mind that this sounds like this was a completely in vitro study, and so there is no proof this this gene behaves this way in wild mole rats.
All that being said, this could still turn out to be a big discovery. If they can identify the molecular mechanism behind the improved cancer suppression, it could lead to novel treatments.
this is only slightly removed from one of those horrible child leashes. No child needs GPS tracking.
if you are that worried about your child's safety, move to a nicer neighborhood. you'll make up the cost difference with years of therapy averted in the future.
I do grunt work research in the ucb astro department, and I overheard some professors in the hall today complaining about these fiber cuts. apparently it affected their ability to download images from the keck telescopes in hawaii.
i second that. they offer the best DSL i have ever used with minimal BS.
my experience with speakeasy in the past (i moved out of their coverage area) has been nothing short of stellar.
Slashdot Mirror
i am not trying to suggest that transgenic manipulation of crops or anything else can never lead to problems. new technologies tend to create new problems. they also tend to outstrip the pace of thoughtful regulatory legislation. what i am suggesting is that the fear surrounding transgenics is wildly out of proportion with the actual potential for harm, stemming what I see as an almost complete misunderstanding of the biology behind the tech. transgenic constructs are much more complicated than say a steam engine, and so consequently fewer people are able to fully grasp what is going on. some people might think that is a bad thing in itself, but unfortunately that's how technology progresses in general. this lack of understanding has create a vacuum that has been filled by misinformation and propaganda.
my university is well known for its leftist thinking, and I consider myself to be far to the left of the median in America. but I soundly reject those on the left, especially on the fringe, who say that GMOs need to be stopped. in my mind, without GMO crops, we can never hope to feed the masses. even borlaug said organic farming can only feed ~4 billion, and the fertilizers/pesticides we currently use on non-GMO (and even current 1st gen GMOs)represent an unsustainable form of agriculture. thus, I think future, baller GMOs will save the planet.
i'm glad you brought up corn. i work in a molecular biology lab at a major university. we study maize in my lab, so I know a thing or two about it. extinction isn't the proper term for loss of a species from a particular area. disappearance is more like it.
you must be referring to Bt corn. i can believe that pollen could do what you describe, but at the same time I know that it could have been prevented with the proper promoter on the Bt gene. there's no need for pollen to express the peptide pesticide. fortunately, corn pollen is absurdly massive compared to most other pollen, and doesn't fly far.
what I was really asking about was the irresponsible use of transgenics. you say you work for a company involved with them. have you seen the amount of paperwork needed to even get transgenic seed? the amount of regulation surrounding transgenics is enormous, and I have never really heard of a biologically-irresponsible use in the field (not that it's impossible).
transgenics will save this planet, mark my words.
it could have been that the mountains were magnetic and the unobtanium was underground. newtons laws, etc etc.
the problem with the mind link thing from an evolutionary perspective is not whether it could have evolved spontaneously. the question is, if only a subset of the population uses it, how can it persist as a functional trait? eg the turok (big red bird thing) has only connected with a blue guy 5 times in their history, then surely through the course of random mutations etc. the bird would have lost the ability. this of course assumes, 1) a relatively short lifespan, and 2) that the animals don't use these connections within the species.
care to provide an example? i'm no fan of monsanto and the like, but as a molecular biology student I am getting pretty tired of the luddite/hippy trash talk when it comes to transgenic crops. ever hear of allopolyploidy?
did you see the movie? different species are able to link up and communicate through the hair nerve bundle thingy (official term!). unless there was some strong selective pressure to keep those links intact across the species, they would have lost the ability quickly. considering how few of the wild animals connected to the blue guys, i doubt it could have stuck around as a trait (unless of course the links were used extensively within each species, something I don't remember seeing but it's entirely possible.)
/genetics major
if radio waves caused cancer, we would all have been dead a long time ago. what exactly is supposed to be unique about cell phones? that you hold them to your head? anyone ever heard of a chemical bond that a 1900 mhz wave could break?
i agree, but that isn't unique to facebook. facebook certainly didn't innovate in the area of getting a lot of people involved. you could argue that facebook has made being involved with something just a couple of clicks away, but that's just the nature of communication progressing. if it hadn't been facebook, it would have been something else.
woah, someone admitted being wrong on /.? what the hell is going on here tonight?
no, that someone used a very common name for a well-known song that happens to be one word longer than the 'real' name of the song.
perhaps you are worried that someone might mistake the title used in the summary for a completely different song?
totally.
facebook was just a convenient mechanism, nothing unique about it made this possible
does adding "of" really make you that angry?
it's not quite that simple. there are many many many events that are required, and it can't really be boiled down to those three categories. there are some key players that are almost always inactivated in some way or another across any cancer types (eg p53 or Rb), but many are unique to particular cancers (eg GSK-3b).
I just completed an intensive undergraduate course on cancer with a focus on genetics at UC Berkeley. We spent a significant amount of time on cancer genomes, and I have to say this announcement doesn't mean that much unfortunately. Cancers are genetically very unstable, and any given tumor you sequence will have many mutations that are completely unrelated to the cancer's survival and proliferation. they are known as passenger mutations, and need to be separated from the causative 'driver' mutations. sequencing many tumors of the same type and applying statistical analysis has been useful in this area, but considering that there are potentially millions of different combinations of active and inactive genes that lead to tumor formation, this approach has its limitations. this is especially true given that some genes are both tumor suppressors and tumor activators in different contexts (eg the TGF-b pathway). even if you identify a genetic locus as highly associated with a particular cancer, it is hard to go from there to understanding the molecular biology behind that association.
we have a long way to go before we defeat cancer, and sequencing can only take us so far.
I'm sure the paper is fine if it's in PNAS, I haven't had the chance to read it myself. But if you read the press release, it makes it seem as if this represents the discovery of p16. In fact, they make it seem as if p16 is unique to mole rats. I'd agree with you that a transformation of a more accepted cell line like NIH 3T3 or some human line would be more convincing. I imagine they are working on it.
really? how do you explain how those species overcome the end replication problem? we agree that aging is more complex than just telomeres... nobody thinks that. perhaps in the mainstream media.
i never said that telomeres were the answer to aging. but i did say that highly active telomerase is a characteristic trait among immortal cell lines. and that they are deeply involved in the aging process, especially in humans (which is the species in question). yes, many (not all) of those lines are messed up in one way or another. the point stands though: if there is a possibility of extending human lifespans through biotechnology, you can be sure that telomeres will be involved. i mean, just think of cancer. telomeres and telomerase are a key component of how cancer manages to sustain such explosive growth. if we had a good telomerase RT inhibitor, it would help greatly against cancer. once we do, average human age will necessarily increase, ergo biochemical control of telomeres is intimately related to aging.
that's a little silly to say. are you suggesting that telomeres evolved to place an upper limit on an organism's lifespan? I doubt you believe that.
telomerase is expressed at very low levels in adult somatic cells -> telomeres shorten, eventually get lost -> genes get lost. in what way is this not a large part of aging?
telomeres can be thought of as one part of the aging process. if the person you responded to had talked about DNA methylation or mutations, you could have responded by saying "well what about telomeres!" my point is that its involved, and from what I have been taught they play quite a large role in aging.
This is not strictly true. There are cell lines that are so-called 'immortalized', and have been dividing continuously for many years with no signs of slowing down. They typically have very high expression of telomerase and other protective factors. Cancer can be thought of as an immortalized cell line in a living body.
I am an undergraduate at UC Berkeley and am currently taking a class on cancer, especially the genetic basis for its development. One of the professors is Steve Martin, a famous cancer researcher. Even if I wasn't in this class, I would know that p16 is a well-known gene. They definitely did not discover it in this study. This article is very misleading. Humans definitely have p16, is it vital to the normal cell cycle. It is also frequently mutated in melanomas, one of the most vicious cancers. It is most likely that this group has found that naked mole rat cells use p16 in a unique way as it relates to certain types of cancer transformation pathways. Bear in mind that this sounds like this was a completely in vitro study, and so there is no proof this this gene behaves this way in wild mole rats.
All that being said, this could still turn out to be a big discovery. If they can identify the molecular mechanism behind the improved cancer suppression, it could lead to novel treatments.
Gyre never made it as far as chortle or galumph, but if it had crossed into proper english it would most certainly be a verb.
this is only slightly removed from one of those horrible child leashes. No child needs GPS tracking.
if you are that worried about your child's safety, move to a nicer neighborhood. you'll make up the cost difference with years of therapy averted in the future.
I do grunt work research in the ucb astro department, and I overheard some professors in the hall today complaining about these fiber cuts. apparently it affected their ability to download images from the keck telescopes in hawaii.
aside from the security risks, this can only become an effective deterrent if it sees widespread use.
good luck with that.
i second that. they offer the best DSL i have ever used with minimal BS. my experience with speakeasy in the past (i moved out of their coverage area) has been nothing short of stellar.