Environmentally-induced mutation definitely does play a large role in tumor formation--that's why smoker's get lung cancer, sunburns can lead to skin cancer, etc! There's also viruses that can play a role.
However, we also don't really know how many mutations are necessary for cancer to arise, and one of the first things to happen may be either immortalization through mechanisms including telomerase activity (or the tumor could arise in stem cells where this activity is already present) or (more often) a mutation that in turns leads to an increased mutation rate! Regardless, it's probably not that many mutations, and don't underestimate just how large a number of cells there are in the body (on the order of 10^13 - 10^14)!
In humans, telomeres limit cells to ~50 divisions, which is probably related to how DNA replication is only 99.9998% accurate. After that many divisions, the genome is 0.001% different from when it started, which is one error per 10,000 base pairs, or an error in 1/3 of all genes. This is in addition to the slow rate of spontaneous mutations you accumulate over your lifetime.
Where did you get your numbers? Human DNA replication (in normal cells with no damage) is 99.99999999% accurate (i.e. about 1 mutation per 10^-10 base pairs). Please do not mod parent informative for this misinformative post!
Sure...but on the other hand, as soon as you start typing "Gy" into imdb, Gyllenhaal comes up complete with a photo and a big-name movie (for both Jake and Maggie). And if you type in secretary, it brings up an option to go straight to the movie page--without even having to type Gyllenhaal too. So I'd say that's quite a win for imdb. You don't need to know who is in the movie, you don't need to be able to spell "Gyllenhaal"....
To clarify, you want each of your markers to carry maximum information. SNPs are the easiest/cheapest markers to genotype, and represent positions in the genome where some chromosomes in the population have one nucleotide (e.g. G, one of the alleles) and others have a different nucleotide (e.g. T, the other allele). (I say chromosomes instead of people, since people are diploid and will have 2 copies of each chromosome. Diploid genotypes are then GG, GT, or TT for a G/T SNP). To maximize information, you want to choose a SNP where the probability of these genotypes is relatively even--maximized if the proportion of G's and T's in the population are equal, leading to 25% GG, 50% GT, and 25% TT.
While the parent is correct that 24 SNPs is sufficient in a given population, in practice it's probably hard to choose 24 SNPs that cover ALL populations in the world well (since a SNP with a high minor allele frequency in, say, Europeans, may not have a high minor allele frequency in Asians, or Indians, or Australians...
The system is broken, so contribute to breaking it more? No!
I'm sorry for the GP's loss, but that doesn't mean suing the doctor is the right answer. Was surgery really the wrong decision? What if it had a 95% success rate? Or 99%? On average it may have been the right thing to do--and I have faith the doctor took into account the patient's expected lifespan with and without operation before making a decision. Unless the doctor lied about the statistics when convincing the patient to go forward with surgery, I don't see any reason to sue.
FYI, the genetic bases for both of these trends is (at least partially) known. For Down's syndrome, this is caused by non-disjunction of chromosome 21. Since eggs are in a state of suspension in a female (after all having been created at the same time), the longer they are in this suspended state, the higher the chance for a non-disjunction. This also contributes to why miscarriage rates go up (and fertility down) as women age.
For autism, at least one of the contributing factors is de novo copy number variants (segment of the genome that have been deleted or duplicated). As the father gets older, his sperm (which he constantly makes) have undergone more copying, and mutations (errors in that copying) will accrue. Errors such as non-disjunctions, in which a whole chromosome is copied, lead to inviable sperm. However, smaller mutations are viable...but may still be deleterious.
Hmmmm...the original source, that has the file numbers and everything? If you are playing a game of telephone, would you rather believe the really reliable friend of yours (who happens to be at the end of the line) to tell you the phrase, or hear it from the second guy in the line who you don't know? I'll take the guy I don't know.
Slashdot posts article containing the words "World War III" in it's headline, hoping this attracts attention. Once users click to "read more" they are ambushed by trolls masquerading as insightful or funny comments, but in fact containing insidious messages....
All MRI machines can do it all; they are just different programs you feed the machines to get different images. Unfortunately, the images at the end still have to be lined up. This is typically done by allowing the brains to rotate in 3 dimensions until the registration maximizes some function; for example, the mutual information between the two images. See the package fsl (http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl/) for some great fMRI analysis tools, including FLIRT for aligning brains (of multiple patients, or one patient's fMRI scan to MRI scan).
Nowhere in TFA were diamonds mentioned. As numerous posts have already pointed out, cubic zirconia is not diamond-like, it's a cheap diamond substitute. The properties of diamonds have nothing to do with the technology in this article. So why was that added to the summary of an article that doesn't mention it?!?
You don't sound much like a statistical genetics insider to me.
Statistically speaking, you don't need 10 subjects per covariate. Where did you pull that number from? Let's say we have 100 subjects (50 cases, 50 controls), and 100 tests that we're performing. Let's say one of those tests segregates perfectly with our subjects. Bam! Huge result statistically. The probability of that result is astonishingly small (p ~ 10^-30). That means unless we are performing close to 10^30 tests, we can believe this result. So there's no law about number of subjects per covariate tested--with more tests, you just need a stricter p-value. By the way, hundreds of thousands of tests were performed, since one tests for association to genetic variability (in this case single nucleotide polymorphisms (aka SNPs)), not to genes. Genes reported are typically the nearest gene to the SNP.
So, in a good study, with appropriately stringent tests, one can believe the results. However, I agree replication is necessary, especially since many labs don't hold to the rigor that is required. However, you are wrong about two things. First, negative results are in fact published in this field. Second, many many associations have been replicated in completely independent cohorts (and oftentimes even different populations!). See here for an example about this very study! or
here for another diabetes replication.
Erm, this is the whole sequence, and there is important variation that is non-coding. So: ~3Gigabases of human DNA, and there's 2 copies (both of which are recorded here, so that's 6 gigabases of DNA. While a certainly sensical way to store it (uncompressed even) would be to use 2 bits per base, results in 12 gigabits = 1.5 Gb which easily fits on a DVD, the stupid (but convenient) way involves just storing each base as a full byte (as a char: A C T or G), coming out to 6Gb. Enough for two DVDs. This leaves some room for annotation, splitting up the sequence by chr, etc. And makes it very easy to view the sequence. You can just open the files up in a word processor, instead of having a special format.
Unfortunately amyloid beta protein builds up in cells (and extracellular matrix). The problem with the buildup is that it's insoluble. So, being insoluble, and in the brain, and not in the blood...make it a pretty poor candidate for this technology.
While there should technically be nothing wrong with the extra information, it turns out it can hurt more than help. Most people wouldn't know what to do with all the information being provided, and would be much happier with someone else making the decision of what to buy for them. People don't have the time, the ability, or the inclination to become fully informed enough to make the right decision--and printing all this information would hide (in plain sight) warnings the FDA really should require.
"It would be all one long spectrum except for Computer Science, which makes the connection (via AI) between the hard sciences and the soft sciences."
Hmmm...in order for it not to be one long spectrum (and the circle it is instead), doesn't it need to have two connections between the hard sciences and the soft sciences? The first link just stops it from being 2 disjoint groups...
It's so cheap? Go ahead and do it yourself. Treat yourself, your friends, whoever, to whatever drugs you can get your hands on. You want it to just cost a few bucks? That rules out getting a prescription. No doctor visits. Nobody watching over you to check for sideeffects. No robust clinical testing ahead of time to see if it really works or not.
Oh, you want public funds to pay for that? They should take the risk of spending billions for a drug that might fail? That doesn't sound too wise.
If you don't like the "bullshit treatments" that are available, don't use them. Don't buy insurance. Don't prolong your life. Don't prolong the agony. Nobody forced your motherinlaw or your father to get radiation and chemotherapy--it was given as a chance to save their lives, and more likely as a chance to prolong their lives. You think there's a different, easy way to just kill off cancerous cells? Go ahead and find it. I know I'm trying. Not then when I do I'll have any thanks from the likes of you--just more complaints about the cost, the sideeffects, the questions about why I didn't do more, didn't do better. Go and find the cure your own damn self.
I'm sorry to hear you have cancer. However, I assure you this is not because the pharmaceutical companies are keeping a miracle cure under wraps. In addition to the boatload of cash they would make with a cure (and they would--there would always be plenty of new patients to cure), a lot of them really are headed by well-meaning scientists who would like nothing better than to help the world.
Think about this: How many people do you know who have cancer? Well guess what--comparing the average age of a slashdotter to the average age of a pharmaceutical CEO, and I'd guess the CEO knows quite a few more. And has relatives with cancer.
Next: Imagine how many people with cancer the scientists running the clinical studies know? And the oncologists who are often involved in the research? These people care, man. They care about their patients, their friends, their family, and themselves.
I'm afraid the number one reason you still have cancer is because it's a darn hard disease to cure. The reason people still have diabetes is because it's a hard disease to cure. Hell, every disease is hard to cure, and it's a miracle we have treatments for the symptoms. I want you to know though, I know many, many, many people who want nothing more than to help people with disease, in whatever way they can. There are good people out there doing research, both public and private. Those people dominate the people in research. Have faith.
The reason child porn is illegal is not because being attracted to minors is a crime, not matter what your age. The reason it is a crime is because you are feeding an industry that is preying on children. Children under 18 are not considered old enough to make the decision to appear in porn. So sure, at 16, it's perfectly reasonable to be attracted to girls his age. But supporting those girls as they start a pornography career (under the influence of others) is what's wrong!
And over the next year, productivity of the employees will be enhanced. Each employee will save on average 20 hours of work. So it's a net gain.
That's why new software comes out. That's why we upgrade. Because new stuff takes time to learn, but in return does something cool, or new, or saves us time.
The only thing I use texting for is writing myself an email...a reminder to try something, a to do list, whatever. And I think it would be a helluva lot safer if while I'm walking home from work I could email said reminder to myself by voice instead of trying to type a txt message while crossing the street in Boston.
Slashdot Mirror
Which of the Ten Commandments are confusing to you?
Is this a serious question? There isn't even agreement on what the 10 commandments *are*: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Environmentally-induced mutation definitely does play a large role in tumor formation--that's why smoker's get lung cancer, sunburns can lead to skin cancer, etc! There's also viruses that can play a role.
However, we also don't really know how many mutations are necessary for cancer to arise, and one of the first things to happen may be either immortalization through mechanisms including telomerase activity (or the tumor could arise in stem cells where this activity is already present) or (more often) a mutation that in turns leads to an increased mutation rate! Regardless, it's probably not that many mutations, and don't underestimate just how large a number of cells there are in the body (on the order of 10^13 - 10^14)!
In humans, telomeres limit cells to ~50 divisions, which is probably related to how DNA replication is only 99.9998% accurate. After that many divisions, the genome is 0.001% different from when it started, which is one error per 10,000 base pairs, or an error in 1/3 of all genes. This is in addition to the slow rate of spontaneous mutations you accumulate over your lifetime.
Where did you get your numbers? Human DNA replication (in normal cells with no damage) is 99.99999999% accurate (i.e. about 1 mutation per 10^-10 base pairs). Please do not mod parent informative for this misinformative post!
Sure...but on the other hand, as soon as you start typing "Gy" into imdb, Gyllenhaal comes up complete with a photo and a big-name movie (for both Jake and Maggie). And if you type in secretary, it brings up an option to go straight to the movie page--without even having to type Gyllenhaal too. So I'd say that's quite a win for imdb. You don't need to know who is in the movie, you don't need to be able to spell "Gyllenhaal"....
To clarify, you want each of your markers to carry maximum information. SNPs are the easiest/cheapest markers to genotype, and represent positions in the genome where some chromosomes in the population have one nucleotide (e.g. G, one of the alleles) and others have a different nucleotide (e.g. T, the other allele). (I say chromosomes instead of people, since people are diploid and will have 2 copies of each chromosome. Diploid genotypes are then GG, GT, or TT for a G/T SNP). To maximize information, you want to choose a SNP where the probability of these genotypes is relatively even--maximized if the proportion of G's and T's in the population are equal, leading to 25% GG, 50% GT, and 25% TT.
While the parent is correct that 24 SNPs is sufficient in a given population, in practice it's probably hard to choose 24 SNPs that cover ALL populations in the world well (since a SNP with a high minor allele frequency in, say, Europeans, may not have a high minor allele frequency in Asians, or Indians, or Australians...
The system is broken, so contribute to breaking it more? No!
I'm sorry for the GP's loss, but that doesn't mean suing the doctor is the right answer. Was surgery really the wrong decision? What if it had a 95% success rate? Or 99%? On average it may have been the right thing to do--and I have faith the doctor took into account the patient's expected lifespan with and without operation before making a decision. Unless the doctor lied about the statistics when convincing the patient to go forward with surgery, I don't see any reason to sue.
FYI, the genetic bases for both of these trends is (at least partially) known. For Down's syndrome, this is caused by non-disjunction of chromosome 21. Since eggs are in a state of suspension in a female (after all having been created at the same time), the longer they are in this suspended state, the higher the chance for a non-disjunction. This also contributes to why miscarriage rates go up (and fertility down) as women age.
For autism, at least one of the contributing factors is de novo copy number variants (segment of the genome that have been deleted or duplicated). As the father gets older, his sperm (which he constantly makes) have undergone more copying, and mutations (errors in that copying) will accrue. Errors such as non-disjunctions, in which a whole chromosome is copied, lead to inviable sperm. However, smaller mutations are viable...but may still be deleterious.
I was thinking more of Hari Seldon
Hmmmm...the original source, that has the file numbers and everything? If you are playing a game of telephone, would you rather believe the really reliable friend of yours (who happens to be at the end of the line) to tell you the phrase, or hear it from the second guy in the line who you don't know? I'll take the guy I don't know.
Slashdot posts article containing the words "World War III" in it's headline, hoping this attracts attention. Once users click to "read more" they are ambushed by trolls masquerading as insightful or funny comments, but in fact containing insidious messages....
All MRI machines can do it all; they are just different programs you feed the machines to get different images. Unfortunately, the images at the end still have to be lined up. This is typically done by allowing the brains to rotate in 3 dimensions until the registration maximizes some function; for example, the mutual information between the two images. See the package fsl (http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl/) for some great fMRI analysis tools, including FLIRT for aligning brains (of multiple patients, or one patient's fMRI scan to MRI scan).
Nowhere in TFA were diamonds mentioned. As numerous posts have already pointed out, cubic zirconia is not diamond-like, it's a cheap diamond substitute. The properties of diamonds have nothing to do with the technology in this article. So why was that added to the summary of an article that doesn't mention it?!?
You appear to be missing the simple if and else keywords! How do you miss an if-then statement?
You don't sound much like a statistical genetics insider to me.
Statistically speaking, you don't need 10 subjects per covariate. Where did you pull that number from? Let's say we have 100 subjects (50 cases, 50 controls), and 100 tests that we're performing. Let's say one of those tests segregates perfectly with our subjects. Bam! Huge result statistically. The probability of that result is astonishingly small (p ~ 10^-30). That means unless we are performing close to 10^30 tests, we can believe this result. So there's no law about number of subjects per covariate tested--with more tests, you just need a stricter p-value. By the way, hundreds of thousands of tests were performed, since one tests for association to genetic variability (in this case single nucleotide polymorphisms (aka SNPs)), not to genes. Genes reported are typically the nearest gene to the SNP.
So, in a good study, with appropriately stringent tests, one can believe the results. However, I agree replication is necessary, especially since many labs don't hold to the rigor that is required. However, you are wrong about two things. First, negative results are in fact published in this field. Second, many many associations have been replicated in completely independent cohorts (and oftentimes even different populations!). See here for an example about this very study! or here for another diabetes replication.
Just to nitpick a little: you're off by a factor of 2, since we each have 2 copies of the 3 billion base pairs--one from Mommy, and one from Daddy.
Erm, this is the whole sequence, and there is important variation that is non-coding. So: ~3Gigabases of human DNA, and there's 2 copies (both of which are recorded here, so that's 6 gigabases of DNA. While a certainly sensical way to store it (uncompressed even) would be to use 2 bits per base, results in 12 gigabits = 1.5 Gb which easily fits on a DVD, the stupid (but convenient) way involves just storing each base as a full byte (as a char: A C T or G), coming out to 6Gb. Enough for two DVDs. This leaves some room for annotation, splitting up the sequence by chr, etc. And makes it very easy to view the sequence. You can just open the files up in a word processor, instead of having a special format.
Unfortunately amyloid beta protein builds up in cells (and extracellular matrix). The problem with the buildup is that it's insoluble. So, being insoluble, and in the brain, and not in the blood...make it a pretty poor candidate for this technology.
While there should technically be nothing wrong with the extra information, it turns out it can hurt more than help. Most people wouldn't know what to do with all the information being provided, and would be much happier with someone else making the decision of what to buy for them. People don't have the time, the ability, or the inclination to become fully informed enough to make the right decision--and printing all this information would hide (in plain sight) warnings the FDA really should require.
P.S. Check out the book "The Paradox of Choice."
"It would be all one long spectrum except for Computer Science, which makes the connection (via AI) between the hard sciences and the soft sciences."
Hmmm...in order for it not to be one long spectrum (and the circle it is instead), doesn't it need to have two connections between the hard sciences and the soft sciences? The first link just stops it from being 2 disjoint groups...
Person C: Yeah, but where do Canadian's live? While Canada might be larger in terms of land area, what if you look at inhabited land area?
It's so cheap? Go ahead and do it yourself. Treat yourself, your friends, whoever, to whatever drugs you can get your hands on. You want it to just cost a few bucks? That rules out getting a prescription. No doctor visits. Nobody watching over you to check for sideeffects. No robust clinical testing ahead of time to see if it really works or not.
Oh, you want public funds to pay for that? They should take the risk of spending billions for a drug that might fail? That doesn't sound too wise.
If you don't like the "bullshit treatments" that are available, don't use them. Don't buy insurance. Don't prolong your life. Don't prolong the agony. Nobody forced your motherinlaw or your father to get radiation and chemotherapy--it was given as a chance to save their lives, and more likely as a chance to prolong their lives. You think there's a different, easy way to just kill off cancerous cells? Go ahead and find it. I know I'm trying. Not then when I do I'll have any thanks from the likes of you--just more complaints about the cost, the sideeffects, the questions about why I didn't do more, didn't do better. Go and find the cure your own damn self.
I'm sorry to hear you have cancer. However, I assure you this is not because the pharmaceutical companies are keeping a miracle cure under wraps. In addition to the boatload of cash they would make with a cure (and they would--there would always be plenty of new patients to cure), a lot of them really are headed by well-meaning scientists who would like nothing better than to help the world.
Think about this: How many people do you know who have cancer? Well guess what--comparing the average age of a slashdotter to the average age of a pharmaceutical CEO, and I'd guess the CEO knows quite a few more. And has relatives with cancer.
Next: Imagine how many people with cancer the scientists running the clinical studies know? And the oncologists who are often involved in the research? These people care, man. They care about their patients, their friends, their family, and themselves.
I'm afraid the number one reason you still have cancer is because it's a darn hard disease to cure. The reason people still have diabetes is because it's a hard disease to cure. Hell, every disease is hard to cure, and it's a miracle we have treatments for the symptoms. I want you to know though, I know many, many, many people who want nothing more than to help people with disease, in whatever way they can. There are good people out there doing research, both public and private. Those people dominate the people in research. Have faith.
The reason child porn is illegal is not because being attracted to minors is a crime, not matter what your age. The reason it is a crime is because you are feeding an industry that is preying on children. Children under 18 are not considered old enough to make the decision to appear in porn. So sure, at 16, it's perfectly reasonable to be attracted to girls his age. But supporting those girls as they start a pornography career (under the influence of others) is what's wrong!
And over the next year, productivity of the employees will be enhanced. Each employee will save on average 20 hours of work. So it's a net gain.
That's why new software comes out. That's why we upgrade. Because new stuff takes time to learn, but in return does something cool, or new, or saves us time.
The only thing I use texting for is writing myself an email...a reminder to try something, a to do list, whatever. And I think it would be a helluva lot safer if while I'm walking home from work I could email said reminder to myself by voice instead of trying to type a txt message while crossing the street in Boston.