我国“干细胞及转化研究”重点专项的组织实施及思考

“十三五”期间,我国设立了国家重点研发计划“干细胞及转化研究”重点专项(以下简称“专项”)。通过五年实施,专项取得了显著进展。通过对专项立项和实施情况的回顾,总结管理中的经验和不足,为“十四五”干细胞研究部署提出相关建议,以进一步增强我国干细胞及转化研究的核心竞争力,加快推进干细胞研究成果惠及人民健康。     

围小丛壳Glomerella cingulata子囊孢子交配繁殖、生物学特性及致病性

炭疽叶枯病（Glomerella leaf spot）是我国苹果上新发现的一种病害。为了解围小丛壳Glomerella cingulata子囊孢子的交配方式、生物学特性和致病性,从安徽砀山、山东牟平等地采集病害样品,经分离培养和纯化获得单孢菌株。在适宜条件下单孢菌株可产生子囊和子囊孢子,经过毛细管破子囊壁后单孢分离,获得12个子囊,每个子囊有8个子囊孢子。其中10个子囊中有4个“正”孢子（+）和4个“负”孢子（-）,2个子囊中只有“负”孢子。子囊孢子单孢菌株培养72h,“正”菌株菌落白色,以营养生长为主;“负”菌株菌落灰白色,直径略小于正菌株,菌丝稀疏,边缘菌丝白色,中部有大量橙色的分生孢子堆。“正”、“负”菌株异宗配合后,可产生大量可育子囊壳;单独的“正”菌株有性生殖产生稀疏丛簇状的可育子囊壳;单个的“负”菌株只能产生分散且不育的子囊壳。“正”、“负”菌株菌落的生长速度没有差异,对温度、营养、光照和pH值的敏感性也没有差异,但“正”、“负”菌株的致病性存在差异。正菌株的有性生殖没有导致rDNA-ITS、β-tubulin基因碱基序列变异。     

本科遗传学教学中的遗传漂变概念探讨

遗传漂变是遗传学教学的难点之一,因其涉及随机性和概率,特别容易引起误解。定义中的“抽样误差”常被误解为遗传漂变是由于“抽样”这一研究方法干扰才导致基因频率的随机变化。本文首先对国内外《遗传学》教材中的遗传漂变定义进行了分析比较,发现“抽样误差”的定义为各教材普遍采用,但只有少数教材对“抽样误差”概念进行了正确的解释,多数未作进一步的说明。文章介绍了遗传漂变的研究历史,亦即Wright、 Fisher和Kimura等学者对遗传漂变研究的贡献。进而,特别介绍了近年来国外关于本科生遗传漂变教学的两篇代表性教学研究论文,指出本科生在学习过程中容易出现错误理解是难以避免的现象,对此也提供了初步的解决办法。作者最后结合自己的教学实践,提出本科生教学中遗传漂变仍然采用含有“抽样误差”概念的定义,只是需要对“抽样误差”做进一步的解释,指出“抽样误差”是等位基因世代传递过程中存在的、配子间的随机结合,“相当于”对整个参与交配的配子库中的配子进行的一次“随机抽样”,而与一般遗传学研究中的人为抽样行为无关。本文旨在为本科遗传学教学中关于遗传源变概念的讲解提供借鉴和参考。     

DNA数据存储的科研概况国际对比与分析

全球数据量快速增长,成为数字经济发展的核心引擎,但传统数据存储介质受到功耗、体积、成本等限制,难以满足不断增长的数据存储需求。以脱氧核糖核酸(deoxyribonucleic acid,DNA)分子作为存储介质的新型存储方式引起了国内外高度重视,世界主要国家均对其研究进行了顶层规划,部署了一系列重要科研计划。但是,DNA数据存储作为一个新兴交叉研究领域,其发展的“源”与“流”仍存在需要深入分析的问题。针对该问题,从信息、半导体与合成生物学交叉融合的角度深入挖掘DNA数据存储发展的源头,对近年来国际上主要国家与地区在DNA数据存储领域的发展规划进行分析归纳,梳理国内外的科研项目规划布局,尤其是美国“半导体合成生物学联盟”推动的基础研究项目、美国国防部高级研究计划局(Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,DARPA)与美国情报高级研究计划局(Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity,IARPA)推动的面向应用的集中攻关项目、欧盟的地平线2020计划以及我国的重点研发计划等。通过比较可发现,美国主要采用政府部门主导、应用目标导向的研究模式,欧盟与我国在“十三五”期间及时跟进;我国在“十四五”期间设立了重点研发计划“生物与信息融合(BT与IT融合)”,致力于推动DNA数据存储等领域的发展,实现DNA数据存储发展带动生化仪器乃至生物经济、数字经济的发展。探索DNA数据存储发展的“源”和“流”,为从事该领域的研究者识别真正制约该领域发展的“真问题”提供参考,也为科技管理部门研判DNA数据存储的国际发展趋势提供参考。     

跨国种企作物育种专利布局及对我国的启示*

当前全球种业基本形成“两超、四强、差异化发展”新格局,种业巨头主导着全球作物育种技术研发和产业发展。通过深入分析和挖掘跨国种企作物育种专利,洞察其技术研发布局,为我国合理部署作物育种技术研发、改善知识产权布局与保护具有借鉴意义。基于Derwent Innovation(DI)专利数据库,以“两超四强”跨国种企2015~2019年申请的作物生物育种专利为研究对象,通过文本聚类法全面分析了“两超四强”跨国种企的生物育种研发布局,通过计量指标结合专家咨询遴选出其重点专利,厘清其技术研发重点。据此提出我国应当瞄准生物育种核心领域加强新兴前沿技术原始创新与集成开发,加强新型抗虫基因挖掘与抗虫新机制研发,强化生物育种核心技术链、产业链知识产权协同保护与布局,提升知识产权保护水平及全球化结合重点布局的知识产权战略意识的建议。     

新医学是解决人类健康问题的真正钥匙——需“精准”理解奥巴马的“精准医学计划”

2015年年初,美国总统奥巴马在国情咨文中提出了一个预算2.15亿美元的“精准医学计划”,希望以此“引领一个医学时代”。新闻一经发布,“精准医学”立刻成为了媒体和百姓嘴边的热词,受此影响国内亦有不少人士纷纷为美国总统的这一计划点“赞”。有人用“医学革命”来形容它,有人用“开创性”来抬高它,还有一个传闻,受奥巴马“精准医学计划”的影响,中国将在15年内投入600亿元人民币启动并发展中国版的“精准医学计划”。对此,有人提出了质疑,美国版精准医学计划是否符合中国国情?是否存在“水土不服”的可能?直接套用美国总统的智慧能否解决具有中国特色的实际问题?争论由此引发一个让人思考的问题,究竟什么才是现代医学的核心?在盲目堆钱的行动前,我们确实有必要从科学和临床应用的角度来探讨和思考一下现代医学的发展方向。 为了能“精准”地看到问题的实质,我将从当下时髦并且相关的词汇谈起,通过梳理,期待找出解决人类健康问题的真正钥匙。     

中国与“一带一路”参与国家抗击新冠肺炎疫情的国际科技合作现状与展望

2019年底暴发并席卷全球的新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情已经成为需要世界各国共同努力克服的全球重大卫生安全挑战。当前,中国已基本控制国内新冠肺炎疫情,并在疫情相关科学研究及公共卫生产品研发方面取得重大进展,同时加强了与“一带一路”参与国家开展国际科技合作。对中国与“一带一路”参与国家抗击新冠肺炎疫情的基础研究合作、国际科技合作项目等方面进行梳理,可以看到:中国与“一带一路”参与国家形成了领域交叉、节点多样的复杂合作网络,并主要与东南亚、中东欧和西亚各国合作密切;中国与“一带一路”参与国家的科研机构已在防控、流行病学和治疗等领域展开了大量实质研究,合作关系更偏向援助型合作。未来应加强与“一带一路”参与国家的生物技术产业合作与技术转移,发挥“一带一路”区域支点国家的示范效应等方面构建与“一带一路”参与国家更丰富、紧密、务实的科技合作关系。     

基于报告基因敲入构建果生刺盘孢细胞核荧光标记菌株

运用基因敲入技术,将GFP、mCherry整合到果生刺盘孢 Colletotrichum fructicola组蛋白histone H1位点,实现融合表达,获得细胞核荧光标记菌株。基于标记菌株可以对分生孢子、营养菌丝、附着胞、侵染菌丝等结构中的细胞核进行实时活体观察。果生刺盘孢存在性亲和的“+”、“-”型菌株分化,GFP“+”型菌株和mCherry“-”型菌株接触形成明显杂交线,杂交线上单子囊内含红绿两种孢子,表明“+”、“-”型菌株间发生杂交;杂交线上子囊壳壁表达mCherry,表明由“-”型菌株发育而来。本研究构建的核荧光标记菌株将是研究果生炭疽菌细胞周期调控和有性繁殖过程的重要材料。     

大气CO2浓度和气温升高对麦田节肢动物群落的影响

为了预测气候变化对麦田节肢动物群落多样性的影响, 本研究在麦田开放环境中设置4种处理, 分别是高温(高于当时气温2℃和当前CO₂浓度)、高CO₂浓度(500 μL/L和当时气温)、高温+高CO₂浓度和对照(当前CO₂浓度和气温)等, 采用定期随机抽样方法调查节肢动物群落的多样性, 用经典的多样性指数对整体节肢动物群落以及不同食性节肢动物群落多样性进行分析。共采到节肢动物3纲10目42科52种。仅“高温”和“高温+高CO₂”处理显著增大节肢动物群落的均匀度, 其余处理均无显著影响。“高温+高CO₂”处理的影响随小麦生长发育期不同而略有差异, 在苗期可增大Shannon-Wiener多样性指数, 而在后期使该指数减小; “高温+高CO₂”与“高温”处理的群落多样性较为相似。对不同食性节肢动物群落的分析表明, 与对照相比, 植食性昆虫群落在“高CO₂”下丰富度显著增大; 寄生性昆虫群落的多度在“高温”下显著增大; 腐食性等节肢动物群落的多度在“高CO₂+高温”和“高温”处理下有所增大、均匀度在“高温”下略降低, 但均未达统计上的显著水平; 捕食性节肢动物群落不受影响。本研究说明, CO₂浓度和气温升高不同程度地影响麦田节肢动物群落的物种多样性, 两类因素同时升高与各自单独升高的影响不完全一致。     

白灵侧耳栽培种质对高温胁迫的反应研究

本文以“中农一号”、“华杂13”、“中农翅鲍”和“CCMSSC 00488”4个白灵侧耳菌株为材料,通过测定高温胁迫下菌丝体内硫代巴比妥酸反应物（thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances,TBARS）和蛋白质羰基（protein carbonyl,PCO）含量,观察适温培养和高温胁迫后恢复培养时菌落的生长速率、生长势和菌丝形态特征,研究不同白灵侧耳栽培种质对高温胁迫的反应。研究表明,白灵侧耳不同栽培种质对高温胁迫的反应在氧化损伤程度、菌落形态和菌丝形态特征上都有变化,不同材料的高温伤害程度有着较显著的差异。4个材料高温胁迫条件下TBARS和PCO含量均显著升高,但是升高程度不同,按照TBARS和PCO含量多少排序,依次为CCMSSC 00488>华杂13>中农翅鲍>中农一号。高温胁迫处理后恢复生长需要的时间依次为：CCMSSC 00488>华杂13>中农翅鲍、中农一号;菌落生长势：中农一号>中农翅鲍=华杂13>CCMSSC 00488;菌丝形态特征：菌丝表面增长率、菌丝顶端细胞表面积、菌丝直径和菌丝体分支频率均显著降低,但降低程度以中农一号为最大。菌丝体分支频率与菌落生长势相对应。     

科技考古研究范式之思考

范式自20世纪60年代创立以来,已普遍使用于多个科学研究领域,并于七八十年代引入至考古学。目前,国内外学界对考古学的研究范式有不少讨论,但对科技考古的研究范式的认知仍属空白。本文在简要介绍科学研究范式和考古学研究范式的基础上,首次提出了科技考古研究的3种范式,即科技范式、考古范式、科技考古融合范式,详细阐述了3种研究范式的理论、方法、实践等。此外,本文还指出：科技范式是推动科技考古研究发展的“发动机”,考古范式是掌控科技考古研究方向的“方向盘”,而科技考古融合范式则是协调科技考古各研究领域的“中控台”,真正让科技与考古融为一体。最后,笔者还对在科技考古研究范式下如何构建研究人员的知识体系提出了一些看法。     

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.: no obvious changes for the biotechnology market

With the advent of molecular biology, genomics, and proteomics, the intersection between science and law has become increasingly significant. In addition to the ethical and legal concerns surrounding the collection, storage, and use of genomic data, patent disputes for new biotechnologies are quickly becoming part of mainstream business discussions. Under current patent law, new technologies cannot be patented if they are “obvious” changes to an existing patent. The definition of “obvious,” therefore, has a huge impact on determining whether a patent is granted. For example, are modifications to microarray protocols, popular in diagnostic medicine, considered “obvious” improvements of previous products? Also, inventions that are readily apparent now may not have been obvious when discovered. Polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, is now a common component of every biologist’s toolbox and seems like an obvious invention, though it clearly was not in 1983. Thus, there is also a temporal component that complicates the interpretation of an invention’s obviousness. The following article discusses how a recent Supreme Court decision has altered the definition of “obviousness” in patent disputes. By examining how the obviousness standard has changed, the article illuminates how legal definitions that seem wholly unrelated to biology or medicine could still potentially have enormous effects on these fieldsJust what is obvious or not is a question that has provoked substantial litigation in the Federal Circuit, the appellate court with special jurisdiction over patent law disputes. Under U.S. patent law, an inventor may not obtain a patent, which protects his invention from infringement by others, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that “the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill” in the patent’s subject matter area [1]. However, what was “obvious” at the time of invention to a person of ordinary skill is hardly clear and is, in effect, a legal fiction designed to approximate objectivity. As illustrated by Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court in a moment of levity, “Who do you get to ... tell you something’s not obvious … the least insightful person you can find?” [2] Despite the apparent objectivity provided by a “person of ordinary skill” obviousness standard, the difficulty lies in that such a standard is still susceptible to multiple interpretations, depending on the point of view and knowledge ascribed to the “ordinary person.” As such, how obviousness is defined and interpreted by the courts will have important implications on biotechnology patents and the biotechnology business.The issue of obviousness arose in April 2007 when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. [3] The facts of the case were anything but glamorous; in the suit, Teleflex, a manufacturer of adjustable pedal systems for automobiles, sued KSR, its rival, for infringement of its patent, which “describe[d] a mechanism for combining an electronic sensor with an adjustable automobile pedal so that the pedal’s position can be transmitted to a computer that controls the throttle in the vehicle’s engine.” [4] Teleflex believed that KSR’s new pedal design was too similar to its own patented design and therefore infringed upon it [5]. In defense, KSR argued that Teleflex’s patent was merely the obvious combination of two pre-existing elements and, thus, the patent, upon which Teleflex’s infringement claim was based, was invalid.Patent law relies on the concept of obviousness to distinguish whether new inventions are worthy of being protected by a patent. If a new invention is too obvious, it is not granted a patent and is therefore not a legally protected property interest. However, if an invention is deemed not obvious and has met the other patentability requirements, a patent will be granted, thereby conferring exclusive use of the invention to the patent holder. This exclusive right prohibits others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing into the United States the patented invention [6]. Essentially, the definition of obviousness sets the balance between rewarding new inventions with exclusive property rights and respecting old inventions by not treating minor variations of existing patents as new patents. In this manner, the law seeks to provide economic incentives for the creation of new inventions by ensuring that the property right conferred by the patent will be protected against insignificant variations. The importance of where the line for obviousness is drawn and how clearly it is drawn is especially important in the biotechnology industry. Studies have shown that the development of a new pharmaceutical therapy can take up to 14 years with costs exceeding $800 million [7]. Such an enormous investment of time and money would not be practical if it did not predictably result in a legally enforceable property right.The standard for what constitutes a patentable discovery has evolved over the last 150 years. In 1851, the Supreme Court held in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood that a patentable discovery required a level of ingenuity above that possessed by an ordinary person [8]. Lower courts treated the Hotchkiss standard as a subjective standard, whereby courts sought to determine “what constitute[d] an invention” [9] and a “flash of creative genius” [10]. However, the attempts at imposing the Hotchkiss standard proved unworkable, and in 1952, Congress overrode the case law with the Patent Act, “mandat[ing] that patentability be governed by an objective nonobviousness standard.” [11] This new statutory standard moved the courts away from subjective determinations and toward a more workable, objective obviousness standard.While the Patent Act laid the foundation for the current obviousness standard, the Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co. interpreted the statutory language in an attempt to provide greater clarity as to what exactly “obvious” meant [12]. The Supreme Court determined that the objective analysis would require “the scope and content of the prior art ... to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue ... to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.” [13] In addition to analysis under this three-part framework, the Supreme Court called for several secondary considerations to be weighed, including “commercial success, long felt but unresolved needs, [and the] failure of others [to solve the problem addressed].” [13]Unsurprisingly, lower courts were unsatisfied with the Supreme Court’s attempts to clarify the obviousness standard and sought to provide “more uniformity and consistency” to their evaluation of obviousness than the Supreme Court’s jumble of factors provided [14]. In search of consistency, the Federal Circuit created the “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” test (TSM test) “under which a patent is only proved obvious if ‘some motivation or suggestion to combine prior art teachings’ can be found in the prior art, the nature of the problem, or the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art.” [14] Through implementation of the TSM test, the Federal Circuit sought to maintain the flexibility envisioned by the Supreme Court in Graham, while at the same time providing more certainty and predictability to obviousness determinations.The issue before the Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. was whether the Federal Circuit’s elaboration on the statutory language of the Patent Act, the TSM test, was consistent with the terms of the Patent Act itself and the Supreme Court’s own analysis in Graham. The Supreme Court determined that while the TSM test was, on its terms, consistent with the framework set out in Graham, the rigid manner in which the Federal Circuit had taken to applying that standard was inconsistent with the flexible approach established by Graham [15]. More generally, it appears the Supreme Court was mainly interested in restoring a more rounded, thorough inquiry to the evaluation of obviousness: “Graham set forth a broad inquiry and invited courts, where appropriate, to look at any secondary considerations that would prove instructive.” [16] As stated by the Supreme Court, “[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it.” [17] As such, the Supreme Court reversed the findings of the Federal Circuit, which had found the Teleflex patent valid, and remanded the case back to the lower court with directions to analyze, without rigid adherence to the TSM test, whether the Teleflex patent was obvious [18].The Supreme Court’s ruling in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. that the Federal Circuit apply its TSM test less rigidly may have implications for those seeking biotechnology patents in the future. As discussed above, the large investments necessary to develop a marketable biotechnology product demand that entrepreneurs making those investments be reasonably assured that they can predict any future legal hurdles in patenting their invention and in ultimately protecting their patent. As explained by the Biotechnology Industry Organization in its amicus curiae brief in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., “[i]nvestment thus is predicated on an expected return on investment in the form of products or services that are protected by patents whose validity can be fairly determined.” [19] Therefore, the Supreme Court’s insistence that the Federal Circuit no longer rigidly rely on the TSM test could increase uncertainty in the grant of future patents. However, the Supreme Court’s refusal to completely dismiss the TSM test, while in fact endorsing its continued use, albeit on a less rigid basis, has to be viewed as a profound victory for an industry with a significant stake in maintaining the status quo. Moreover, it is unclear how much the Supreme Court’s holding in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. will truly change the legal analysis of the lower courts, given the evidence that lower courts already were independently shifting away from rigid adherence to the TSM test before the Supreme Court’s ruling [20].More importantly, several aspects of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. seem to directly address relevant concerns of the biotechnology market in favorable ways. First, the Supreme Court made clear that though a product is the result of a combination of elements that were “obvious to try,” it is not necessarily “obvious” under the Patent Act. Retaining the possibility that “obvious to try” inventions still may be patentable is extremely important to the biotechnology industry in particular because “many patentable inventions in biotechnology spring from known components and methodologies found in [the] prior art.” [21] Rather than foreclosing all “obvious to try” inventions as being obvious, and therefore not patentable, the Supreme Court instead explained that where there is “a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,” it is more likely that a person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to pursue “known options.” [22] Thus, the proper inquiry, as stated by the Supreme Court, is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” [23] While this reasoning may prevent some “obvious to try” inventions from being patented, it is unlikely to have a substantial effect on inventions in the biotechnology market because “most advances in biotechnology are only won through great effort and expense, and with only a low probability of success in achieving the claimed invention at the outset.” [24] In other words, it would be hard to characterize the use of prior art in the biotechnology context as predictable based on the inherent unpredictability of obtaining favorable results. As such, most biotechnology inventions would presumably fall outside the Supreme Court’s “obvious to try” reasoning due to the very nature of the industry, meaning they would remain patentable under the Supreme Court’s KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. decision.Second, the Supreme Court recognized the “distortion caused by hindsight bias” and the importance of avoiding “arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning,” though it lessened the Federal Circuit’s rigid protection against hindsight bias [24]. Hindsight bias requires that obviousness be viewed at the time the invention was made, because what may seem revolutionary at the time of invention may, upon the passage of time, seem “obvious.” Cognizance of hindsight bias is crucial for biotechnology patents because “there often is a long ‘passage of time between patent application filing and litigation with biotechnology inventions [that] can exacerbate the problem’ of hindsight bias.” [25] The problem is further exacerbated by the “significantly longer durations of commercial utility” biotechnology inventions enjoy as compared to those in other fields [25]. The more time between the filing of a patent and the subsequent litigation over its validity, the greater the risk that “reliable accounts of [the] context” in which the discovery is made will no longer exist [26]. As such, inventions that were not obvious when they were created will be inescapably colored by the passage of time and by new knowledge and discoveries; the likelihood of this occurrence is higher the further removed the litigation is from the patent filing date. Once again, however, it seems clear that despite the Supreme Court’s abandonment of the TSM test’s rigidity, strong protections against hindsight bias still were emphasized in the Supreme Court’s KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. decision. In fact, lower courts applying KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. acknowledge they are “cautious” to avoid “using hindsight” in biotechnology obviousness determinations [27].Finally, the Supreme Court seems to believe that the imposition of a more flexible approach will be more likely to benefit markets not directly at issue in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. The Supreme Court asserted, “[t]he diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology counsels against limiting the analysis” to the rigid TSM test of the Federal Circuit [28]. This language suggests that the Supreme Court expects lower courts to take into consideration the special considerations facing unique markets, such as the biotechnology market. As such, the specific concerns of the biotechnology market discussed above may receive more attention under the flexible framework asserted by the Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.Leading up to the oral argument in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., there was widespread speculation that the case could result in a watershed moment, significantly altering the definition of obviousness in patent law. For many, including those in the biotechnology industry, there was ample reason to be concerned. Any change in the definition of obviousness would effectively shift property rights from new patent holders to old, or vice versa. However, the Supreme Court acted with restraint. While the decision purports to make substantial changes by doing away with the Federal Circuit’s TSM test, the opinion seems more like a mild-mannered rebuke of lower courts that had become too complacent in the implementation of their beloved test. If anything, the Supreme Court’s insistence on a more flexible formula is simply a call for lower courts to employ common sense, in addition to considering the factors from Graham and the TSM test. Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s opinion in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. is unlikely to have a pronounced effect on the biotechnology market, despite the widespread concern generated before the actual decision was handed down.     

元基因组学及其在转化医学中的应用

微生物群落遍布于人体的每个角落,与人共生并对人体健康产生重要和深刻的影响。与人类共生的全部微生物的基因组总和称为“元基因组”或“人类第二基因组”。研究人体微生物群落及相关元基因组数据,对转化医学领域的基础研究和临床应用具有重要的价值。通过对生物医学相关的高通量元基因组数据进行分析,不仅能为基础医学研究向医学临床应用转化提供新思路和新方法,而且具有广阔的应用前景。基于新一代测序技术产生的数据,元基因组分析技术和方法能够弥补以往人体微生物先培养后鉴定方法的缺陷,同时能有效鉴定和分析微生物群落的组成及功能,从而进一步探究和揭示微生物群落与机体生理状态之间的关系,为解决许多医学领域的难题提供了全新的切入角度和思维方法。文章系统介绍了元基因组研究的现状,包括元基因组的方法概念和研究进展,并以元基因组在医学研究中的应用为着眼点,综述了元基因组在转化医学方面的研究进展,进一步阐述了元基因组研究在转化医学应用领域中具有的重要地位。     

Self‐stigma and the “why try” effect: impact on life goals and evidence‐based practices

Many individuals with mental illnesses are troubled by self-stigma and the subsequent processes that accompany this stigma: low self-esteem and self-efficacy. “Why try” is the overarching phenomenon of interest here, encompassing self-stigma, mediating processes, and their effect on goal-related behavior. In this paper, the literature that explains “why try” is reviewed, with special focus on social psychological models. Self-stigma comprises three steps: awareness of the stereotype, agreement with it, and applying it to one’s self. As a result of these processes, people suffer reduced self-esteem and self-efficacy. People are dissuaded from pursuing the kind of opportunities that are fundamental to achieving life goals because of diminished self-esteem and self-efficacy. People may also avoid accessing and using evidence-based practices that help achieve these goals. The effects of self-stigma and the “why try” effect can be diminished by services that promote consumer empowerment.     

论我国国家植物园体系建设: 以任务带学科构建国家植物园迁地保护综合体系

植物园诞生的原初是“皇家”或“国家”意志的产物, 植物园的概念从公元前2,800年我国的“神农本草园”起源, 至今已历经沧桑巨变, 而西方文艺复兴后演替出了现代植物园。科研、保护、教育与示范四大功能始终是植物园的主线。植物园作为专门从事野生植物收集、科学研究、引种驯化和保护利用的专业研究机构, 始终肩负着国家的重要使命。本文系统综述了植物园的起源与演变, 并对世界各国的国家植物园与国家植物园体系进行了系统梳理和分析。在对我国植物园历史与发展概况总结的基础上, 论述了我国国家植物园体系建设的定位与目标、区域布局、科学研究、人才队伍、基础设施等五个方面的思考, 以任务带学科构建我国国家植物园迁地保护综合体系。     

Twin Town in South Brazil: A Nazi's Experiment or a Genetic Founder Effect?

Cândido Godói (CG) is a small municipality in South Brazil with approximately 6,000 inhabitants. It is known as the “Twins'' Town” due to its high rate of twin births. Recently it was claimed that such high frequency of twinning would be connected to experiments performed by the German Nazi doctor Joseph Mengele. It is known, however, that this town was founded by a small number of families and therefore a genetic founder effect may represent an alternatively explanation for the high twinning prevalence in CG. In this study, we tested specific predictions of the “Nazi''s experiment” and of the “founder effect” hypotheses. We surveyed a total of 6,262 baptism records from 1959–2008 in CG catholic churches, and identified 91 twin pairs and one triplet. Contrary to the “Nazi''s experiment hypothesis”, there is no spurt in twinning between the years (1964–1968) when Mengele allegedly was in CG (P = 0.482). Moreover, there is no temporal trend for a declining rate of twinning since the 1960s (P = 0.351), and no difference in twinning among CG districts considering two different periods: 1927–1958 and 1959–2008 (P = 0.638). On the other hand, the “founder effect hypothesis” is supported by an isonymy analysis that shows that women who gave birth to twins have a higher inbreeding coefficient when compared to women who never had twins (0.0148, 0.0081, respectively, P = 0.019). In summary, our results show no evidence for the “Nazi''s experiment hypothesis” and strongly suggest that the “founder effect hypothesis” is a much more likely alternative for explaining the high prevalence of twinning in CG. If this hypothesis is correct, then this community represents a valuable population where genetic factors linked to twinning may be identified.     

Coding "what" and "when" in the Archer fish retina

Traditionally, the information content of the neural response is quantified using statistics of the responses relative to stimulus onset time with the assumption that the brain uses onset time to infer stimulus identity. However, stimulus onset time must also be estimated by the brain, making the utility of such an approach questionable. How can stimulus onset be estimated from the neural responses with sufficient accuracy to ensure reliable stimulus identification? We address this question using the framework of colour coding by the archer fish retinal ganglion cell. We found that stimulus identity, “what”, can be estimated from the responses of best single cells with an accuracy comparable to that of the animal''s psychophysical estimation. However, to extract this information, an accurate estimation of stimulus onset is essential. We show that stimulus onset time, “when”, can be estimated using a linear-nonlinear readout mechanism that requires the response of a population of 100 cells. Thus, stimulus onset time can be estimated using a relatively simple readout. However, large nerve cell populations are required to achieve sufficient accuracy.

Authors Summary

In our interaction with the environment we are flooded with a stream of numerous objects and events. Our brain needs to understand the nature of these complex and rich stimuli in order to react. Research has shown ways in which a ‘what’ stimulus was presented can be encoded by the neural responses. However, to understand ‘what was the nature of the stimulus’ the brain needs to know ‘when’ the stimulus was presented. Here, we investigated how the onset of visual stimulus can be signalled by the retina to higher brain regions. We used archer fish as a framework to test the notion that the answer to the question of ‘when’ something has been presented lies within the larger cell population, whereas the answer to the question of ‘what’ has been presented may be found at the single-neuron level. The utility of the archer fish as model animal stems from its remarkable ability to shoot down insects settling on the foliage above the water level, and its ability to distinguish between artificial targets. Thus, the archer fish can provide the fish equivalent of a monkey or a human that can report psychophysical decisions.     

秦冠苹果品种对苹果黑星病的组织学抗性研究

为揭示苹果抗病品种秦冠在组织细胞学水平上抗苹果黑星病的特征,本研究采用扫描和透射电镜技术,将苹果黑星菌Venturia inaequalis接种侵染寄主后,系统观察抗病品种秦冠和感病品种嘎啦的叶片组织和细胞结构变化。扫描电镜观察结果表明,黑星菌分生孢子悬浮液接种秦冠和嘎啦叶片48 h后,病菌沿叶脉生长扩展,其菌丝可从叶片气孔或直接侵入。透射电镜观察结果表明,秦冠叶片的角质层厚度明显高于嘎啦,其中秦冠角质层平均厚度为1.75 μm,嘎啦为1.06 μm。透射电镜观察结果表明,黑星菌菌丝在寄主叶肉细胞间扩展,导致嘎啦栅栏组织细胞萎缩,排列松散,叶绿体变形受损,细胞内出现较大淀粉粒和胞内物质外渗流失,并在后期发展成大量细胞坏死;而秦冠虽症状类似,但受损程度明显小于嘎啦。以上结果表明,秦冠在组织细胞学上对苹果黑星病具有抗侵染、抗扩展和延缓病程发展的作用,可作为苹果黑星病抗性育种材料加以利用。     

A Comparison of Methods for Analyzing Viral Load Data in Studies of HIV Patients

HIV RNA viral load (VL) is a pivotal outcome variable in studies of HIV infected persons. We propose and investigate two frameworks for analyzing VL: (1) a single-measure VL (SMVL) per participant and (2) repeated measures of VL (RMVL) per participant. We compared these frameworks using a cohort of 720 HIV patients in care (4,679 post-enrollment VL measurements). The SMVL framework analyzes a single VL per participant, generally captured within a “window” of time. We analyzed three SMVL methods where the VL binary outcome is defined as suppressed or not suppressed. The omit-participant method uses a 8-month “window” (-6/+2 months) around month 24 to select the participant’s VL closest to month 24 and removes participants from the analysis without a VL in the “window”. The set-to-failure method expands on the omit-participant method by including participants without a VL within the “window” and analyzes them as not suppressed. The closest-VL method analyzes each participant’s VL measurement closest to month 24. We investigated two RMVL methods: (1) repeat-binary classifies each VL measurement as suppressed or not suppressed and estimates the proportion of participants suppressed at month 24, and (2) repeat-continuous analyzes VL as a continuous variable to estimate the change in VL across time, and geometric mean (GM) VL and proportion of participants virally suppressed at month 24. Results indicated the RMVL methods have more precision than the SMVL methods, as evidenced by narrower confidence intervals for estimates of proportion suppressed and risk ratios (RR) comparing demographic strata. The repeat-continuous method had the most precision and provides more information than other considered methods. We generally recommend using the RMVL framework when there are repeated VL measurements per participant because it utilizes all available VL data, provides additional information, has more statistical power, and avoids the subjectivity of defining a “window.”