“教学、实践、科研、临床”四位一体的医学遗传学教学体系建设探索与实践

医学遗传学课程介于基础医学和临床医学之间,是一门应用性很强的学科,在现代医学教育体系中有着重要的地位。教学团队在多年的医学遗传学教学实践中,在建设省级精品课程的过程中,构建了“教学、实践、科研、临床”四位一体的医学遗传学教学体系,主要内容包括“课堂教学、社会实践、科学研究、临床应用”四者之间相互渗透、相互补充、相互促进,以课堂教学为基础,用社会实践补充教学,科学研究提升教学,临床应用促进教学。“四位一体”教学体系为基础课程与临床课程的有机整合探索了一条切实可行的路子。实施几年来,课程建设收到了良好效果,学科团队科研水平、社会声誉、医疗服务能力也有明显提高。     

利用文献精读教学新模式优化遗传学教学

《遗传学》是生命科学相关专业本科阶段最重要的课程之一。近年来,随着生命科学领域研究的不断深入,新知识与新技术也在不断更新。但遗传学的教学模式目前仍以理论讲授为主,这使得抽象的原理难以被学生理解接受,直接影响了教学效果。因此探索新的教学模式尤为必要。2010年以来我校在生物技术专业《微生物遗传学》教学中开展了新教学模式——文献精读,文章从文献精读的前期课程基础,如何选择专业文献,怎样组织教学过程,开展文献精读对学生和教师的意义等方面全面分析了实施情况和应用价值,指出该教学模式体现了“前沿”和“经典”的结合,使书本的知识在实践中具体化,既提高学生的学习效果,激发学习兴趣,又开拓了学生的思路,锻炼其能力。这种教学模式为《遗传学》教学授课不断探索新的模式、在“精准医疗”时代下如何培养兼具临床与科研能力的医疗人才提供新思路。     

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。     

“地衣”词考

本文考证了中国先秦时期到清末古籍中对“地衣”的解释;其中有共生学意义的“地衣”一词,是在清代李善兰的《植物学》一书中被提出的。     

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。     

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。     

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。     

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。     

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。     

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。     

A systems genetics approach provides a bridge from discovered genetic variants to biological pathways in rheumatoid arthritis

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have yielded novel genetic loci underlying common diseases. We propose a systems genetics approach to utilize these discoveries for better understanding of the genetic architecture of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Current evidence of genetic associations with RA was sought through PubMed and the NHGRI GWAS catalog. The associations of 15 single nucleotide polymorphisms and HLA-DRB1 alleles were confirmed in 1,287 cases and 1,500 controls of Japanese subjects. Among these, HLA-DRB1 alleles and eight SNPs showed significant associations and all but one of the variants had the same direction of effect as identified in the previous studies, indicating that the genetic risk factors underlying RA are shared across populations. By receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the area under the curve (AUC) for the genetic risk score based on the selected variants was 68.4%. For seropositive RA patients only, the AUC improved to 70.9%, indicating good but suboptimal predictive ability. A simulation study shows that more than 200 additional loci with similar effect size as recent GWAS findings or 20 rare variants with intermediate effects are needed to achieve AUC = 80.0%. We performed the random walk with restart (RWR) algorithm to prioritize genes for future mapping studies. The performance of the algorithm was confirmed by leave-one-out cross-validation. The RWR algorithm pointed to ZAP70 in the first rank, in which mutation causes RA-like autoimmune arthritis in mice. By applying the hierarchical clustering method to a subnetwork comprising RA-associated genes and top-ranked genes by the RWR, we found three functional modules relevant to RA etiology: “leukocyte activation and differentiation”, “pattern-recognition receptor signaling pathway”, and “chemokines and their receptors”.These results suggest that the systems genetics approach is useful to find directions of future mapping strategies to illuminate biological pathways.     

A density-dependent switch drives stochastic clustering and polarization of signaling molecules

Positive feedback plays a key role in the ability of signaling molecules to form highly localized clusters in the membrane or cytosol of cells. Such clustering can occur in the absence of localizing mechanisms such as pre-existing spatial cues, diffusional barriers, or molecular cross-linking. What prevents positive feedback from amplifying inevitable biological noise when an un-clustered “off” state is desired? And, what limits the spread of clusters when an “on” state is desired? Here, we show that a minimal positive feedback circuit provides the general principle for both suppressing and amplifying noise: below a critical density of signaling molecules, clustering switches off; above this threshold, highly localized clusters are recurrently generated. Clustering occurs only in the stochastic regime, suggesting that finite sizes of molecular populations cannot be ignored in signal transduction networks. The emergence of a dominant cluster for finite numbers of molecules is partly a phenomenon of random sampling, analogous to the fixation or loss of neutral mutations in finite populations. We refer to our model as the “neutral drift polarity model.” Regulating the density of signaling molecules provides a simple mechanism for a positive feedback circuit to robustly switch between clustered and un-clustered states. The intrinsic ability of positive feedback both to create and suppress clustering is a general mechanism that could operate within diverse biological networks to create dynamic spatial organization.     

Susceptibility of Anopheles stephensi to Plasmodium gallinaceum: a trait of the mosquito, the parasite, and the environment

Background

Vector susceptibility to Plasmodium infection is treated primarily as a vector trait, although it is a composite trait expressing the joint occurrence of the parasite and the vector with genetic contributions of both. A comprehensive approach to assess the specific contribution of genetic and environmental variation on “vector susceptibility” is lacking. Here we developed and implemented a simple scheme to assess the specific contributions of the vector, the parasite, and the environment to “vector susceptibility.” To the best of our knowledge this is the first study that employs such an approach.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We conducted selection experiments on the vector (while holding the parasite “constant”) and on the parasite (while holding the vector “constant”) to estimate the genetic contributions of the mosquito and the parasite to the susceptibility of Anopheles stephensi to Plasmodium gallinaceum. We separately estimated the realized heritability of (i) susceptibility to parasite infection by the mosquito vector and (ii) parasite compatibility (transmissibility) with the vector while controlling the other. The heritabilities of vector and the parasite were higher for the prevalence, i.e., fraction of infected mosquitoes, than the corresponding heritabilities of parasite load, i.e., the number of oocysts per mosquito.

Conclusions

The vector''s genetics (heritability) comprised 67% of “vector susceptibility” measured by the prevalence of mosquitoes infected with P. gallinaceum oocysts, whereas the specific contribution of parasite genetics (heritability) to this trait was only 5%. Our parasite source might possess minimal genetic diversity, which could explain its low heritability (and the high value of the vector). Notably, the environment contributed 28%. These estimates are relevant only to the particular system under study, but this experimental design could be useful for other parasite-host systems. The prospects and limitations of the genetic manipulation of vector populations to render the vector resistant to the parasite are better considered on the basis of this framework.     

Growth and asymmetry of soil microfungal colonies from "Evolution Canyon," Lower Nahal Oren, Mount Carmel, Israel

Background

Fluctuating asymmetry is a contentious indicator of stress in populations of animals and plants. Nevertheless, it is a measure of developmental noise, typically obtained by measuring asymmetry across an individual organism''s left-right axis of symmetry. These individual, signed asymmetries are symmetrically distributed around a mean of zero. Fluctuating asymmetry, however, has rarely been studied in microorganisms, and never in fungi.

Objective and Methods

We examined colony growth and random phenotypic variation of five soil microfungal species isolated from the opposing slopes of “Evolution Canyon,” Mount Carmel, Israel. This canyon provides an opportunity to study diverse taxa inhabiting a single microsite, under different kinds and intensities of abiotic and biotic stress. The south-facing “African” slope of “Evolution Canyon” is xeric, warm, and tropical. It is only 200 m, on average, from the north-facing “European” slope, which is mesic, cool, and temperate. Five fungal species inhabiting both the south-facing “African” slope, and the north-facing “European” slope of the canyon were grown under controlled laboratory conditions, where we measured the fluctuating radial asymmetry and sizes of their colonies.

Results

Different species displayed different amounts of radial asymmetry (and colony size). Moreover, there were highly significant slope by species interactions for size, and marginally significant ones for fluctuating asymmetry. There were no universal differences (i.e., across all species) in radial asymmetry and colony size between strains from “African” and “European” slopes, but colonies of Clonostachys rosea from the “African” slope were more asymmetric than those from the “European” slope.

Conclusions and Significance

Our study suggests that fluctuating radial asymmetry has potential as an indicator of random phenotypic variation and stress in soil microfungi. Interaction of slope and species for both growth rate and asymmetry of microfungi in a common environment is evidence of genetic differences between the “African” and “European” slopes of “Evolution Canyon.”     

The A to T of historical evidence

Geneticists and historians collaborated recently to identify the remains of King Richard III of England, found buried under a car park. Genetics has many more contributions to make to history, but scientists and historians must learn to speak each other''s languages.The remains of King Richard III (1452–1485), who was killed with sword in hand at the Battle of Bosworth Field at the end of the War of the Roses, had lain undiscovered for centuries. Earlier this year, molecular biologists, historians, archaeologists and other experts from the University of Leicester, UK, reported that they had finally found his last resting place. They compared ancient DNA extracted from a scoliotic skeleton discovered under a car park in Leicester—once the site of Greyfriars church, where Richard was rumoured to be buried, but the location of which had been lost to time—with that of a seventeenth generation nephew of King Richard: it was a match. Richard has captured the public imagination for centuries: Tudor-friendly playwright William Shakespeare (1564–1616) portrayed Richard as an evil hunchback who killed his nephews in order to ascend to the throne, whilst in succeeding years others have leapt to his defence and backed an effort to find his remains.The application of genetics to history is revealing much about the ancestry and movements of groups of humans, from the fall of the Roman Empire to ancient ChinaMolecular biologist Turi King, who led the Leicester team that extracted the DNA and tracked down a descendant of Richard''s older sister, said that Richard''s case shows how multi-disciplinary teams can join forces to answer history''s questions. “There is a lot of talk about what meaning does it have,” she said. “It tells us where Richard III was buried; that the story that he was buried in Greyfriars is true. I think there are some people who [will] try and say: “well, it''s going to change our view of him” […] It won''t, for example, tell us about his personality or if he was responsible for the killing of the Princes in the Tower.”The discovery and identification of Richard''s skeleton made headlines around the world, but he is not the main prize when it comes to collaborations between historians and molecular biologists. Although some of the work has focused on high-profile historic figures—such as Louis XVI (1754–1793), the only French king to be executed, and Vlad the Impaler, the Transylvanian royal whose patronymic name inspired Bram Stoker''s Dracula (Fig 1)—many other projects involve population studies. Application of genetics to history is revealing much about the ancestry and movements of groups of humans, from the fall of the Roman Empire to ancient China.Open in a separate windowFigure 1The use of molecular genetics to untangle history. Even when the historical record is robust, molecular biology can contribute to our understanding of important figures and their legacies and provide revealing answers to questions about ancient princes and kings.Medieval historian Michael McCormick of Harvard University, USA, commented that historians have traditionally relied on studying records written on paper, sheepskin and papyrus. However, he and other historians are now teaming up with geneticists to read the historical record written down in the human genome and expand their portfolio of evidence. “What we''re seeing happening now—because of the tremendous impact from the natural sciences and particularly the application of genomics; what some of us are calling genomic archaeology—is that we''re working back from modern genomes to past events reported in our genomes,” McCormick explained. “The boundaries between history and pre-history are beginning to dissolve. It''s a really very, very exciting time.”…in the absence of written records, DNA and archaeological records could help fill in gapsMcCormick partnered with Mark Thomas, an evolutionary geneticist at University College London, UK, to try to unravel the mystery of one million Romano-Celtic men who went missing in Britain after the fall of the Roman Empire. Between the fourth and seventh centuries, Germanic tribes of Angles, Saxons and Jutes began to settle in Britain, replacing the Romano-British culture and forcing some of the original inhabitants to migrate to other areas. “You can''t explain the predominance of the Germanic Y chromosome in England based on the population unless you imagine (a) that they killed all the male Romano-Celts or (b) there was what Mark called ‘sexual apartheid'' and the conquerors mated preferentially with the local women. [The latter] seems to be the best explanation that I can see,” McCormick said of the puzzle.Ian Barnes, a molecular palaeobiologist at Royal Holloway University of London, commented that McCormick studies an unusual period, for which both archaeological and written records exist. “I think archaeologists and historians are used to having conflicting evidence between the documentary record and the archaeological record. If we bring in DNA, the goal is to work out how to pair all the information together into the most coherent story.”Patrick Geary, Professor of Western Medieval History at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, USA, studies the migration period of Europe: a time in the first millennium when Germanic tribes, including the Goths, Vandals, Huns and Longobards, moved across Europe as the Roman Empire was declining. “We do not have detailed written information about these migrations or invasions or whatever one wants to call them. Primarily what we have are accounts written later on, some generations later, from the contemporary record. What we tend to have are things like sermons bemoaning the faith of people because God''s wrath has brought the barbarians on them. Hardly the kind of thing that gives us an idea of exactly what is going on—are these really invasions, are they migrations, are they small military groups entering the Empire? And what are these ‘peoples'': biologically related ethnic groups, or ad hoc confederations?” he said.Geary thinks that in the absence of written records, DNA and archaeological records could help fill in the gaps. He gives the example of jewellery, belt buckles and weapons found in ancient graves in Hungary and Northern and Southern Italy, which suggest migrations rather than invasions: “If you find this kind of jewellery in one area and then you find it in a cemetery in another, does it mean that somebody was selling jewellery in these two areas? Does this mean that people in Italy—possibly because of political change—want to identify themselves, dress themselves in a new style? This is hotly debated,” Geary explained. Material goods can suggest a relationship between people but the confirmation will be found in their DNA. “These are the kinds of questions that nobody has been able to ask because until very recently, DNA analysis simply could not be done and there were so many problems with it that this was just hopeless,” he explained. Geary has already collected some ancient DNA samples and plans to collect more from burial sites north and south of the Alps dating from the sixth century, hoping to sort out kinship relations and genetic profiles of populations.King said that working with ancient DNA is a tricky business. “There are two reasons that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is the DNA we wished to be able to analyse in [King] Richard. In the first instance, we had a female line relative of Richard III and mtDNA is passed through the female line. Fortunately, it''s also the most likely bit of DNA that we''d be able to retrieve from the skeletal remains, as there are so many copies of it in the cell. After death, our DNA degrades, so mtDNA is easier to retrieve simply due to the sheer number of copies in each cell.”Geary contrasted the analysis of modern and ancient DNA. He called modern DNA analysis “[…] almost an industrial thing. You send it off to a lab, you get it back, it''s very mechanical.” Meanwhile, he described ancient DNA work as artisanal, because of degeneration and contamination. “Everything that touched it, every living thing, every microbe, every worm, every archaeologist leaves DNA traces, so it''s a real mess.” He said the success rate for extracting ancient mtDNA from teeth and dense bones is only 35%. The rate for nuclear DNA is only 10%. “Five years ago, the chances would have been zero of getting any, so 10% is a great step forward. And it''s possible we would do even better because this is a field that is rapidly transforming.”But the bottleneck is not only the technical challenge to extract and analyse ancient DNA. Historians and geneticists also need to understand each other better. “That''s why historians have to learn what it is that geneticists do, what this data is, and the geneticists have to understand the kind of questions that [historians are] trying to ask, which are not the old nineteenth century questions about identity, but questions about population, about gender roles, about relationship,” Geary said.DNA analysis can help to resolve historical questions and mysteries about our ancestors, but both historians and geneticists are becoming concerned about potential abuses and frivolous applications of DNA analysis in their fields. Thomas is particularly disturbed by studies based on single historical figures. “Unless it''s a pretty damn advanced analysis, then studying individuals isn''t particularly useful for history unless you want to say something like this person had blue eyes or whatever. Population level studies are best,” he said. He conceded that the genetic analysis of Richard III''s remnants was a sound application but added that this often is not the case with other uses, which he referred to as “genetic astrology.” He was critical of researchers who come to unsubstantiated conclusions based on ancient DNA, and scientific journals that readily publish such papers.…both historians and geneticists are becoming concerned about potential abuses or frivolous applications of DNA analysis in their fieldsThomas said that it is reasonable to analyse a Y chromosome or mtDNA to estimate a certain genetic trait. “But then to look at the distribution of those, note in the tree where those types are found, and informally, interpretively make inferences—“Well this must have come from here and therefore when I find it somewhere else then that means that person must have ancestors from this original place”—[…] that''s deeply flawed. It''s the most widely used method for telling historical stories from genetic data. And yet is easily the one with the least credibility.” Thomas criticized such facile use of genetic data, which misleads the public and the media. “I suppose I can''t blame these [broadcast] guys because it''s their job to make the programme look interesting. If somebody comes along and says ‘well, I can tell you you''re descended from some Viking warlord or some Celtic princess'', then who are they to question.”Similarly, the historians have reservations about making questionable historical claims on the basis of DNA analysis. Geary said the use of mtDNA to identify Richard III was valuable because it answered a specific, factual question. However, he is turned off by other research using DNA to look at individual figures, such as a case involving a princess who was a direct descendant of the woman who posed for Leonardo Da Vinci''s Mona Lisa. “There''s some people running around trying to dig up famous people and prove the obvious. I think that''s kind of silly. There are others that I think are quite appropriate, and while is not my kind of history, I think it is fine,” he said. “The Richard III case was in the tradition of forensics.”…the cases in which historians and archaeologists work with molecular biologists are rare and remain disconnected in general from the mainstream of historical or archaeological researchNicola Di Cosmo, a historian at the Institute for Advanced Study, who is researching the impact of climate change on the thirteenth century Mongol empire, follows closely the advances in DNA and history research, but has not yet applied it to his own work. Nevertheless, he said that genetics could help to understand the period he studies because there are no historical documents, although monumental burials exist. “It is important to get a sense of where these people came from, and that''s where genetics can help,” he said. He is also concerned about geneticists who publish results without involving historians and without examining other records. He cited a genetic study of a so-called ‘Eurasian male'' in a prestige burial of the Asian Hun Xiongnu, a nomadic people who at the end of the third century B.C. formed a tribal league that dominated most of Central Asia for more than 500 years. “The conclusion the geneticists came to was that there was some sort of racial tolerance in this nomadic empire, but we have no way to even assume that they had any concept of race or tolerance.”Di Cosmo commented that the cases in which historians and archaeologists work with molecular biologists are rare and remain disconnected in general from the mainstream of historical or archaeological research. “I believe that historians, especially those working in areas for which written records are non-existent, ought to be taking seriously the evidence churned out by genetic laboratories. On the other hand, geneticists must realize that the effectiveness of their research is limited unless they access reliable historical information and understand how a historical argument may or may not explain the genetic data” [1].Notwithstanding the difficulties in collaboration between two fields, McCormick is excited about historians working with DNA. He said the intersection of history and genomics could create a new scientific discipline in the years ahead. “I don''t know what we''d call it. It would be a sort of fusion science. It certainly has the potential to produce enormous amounts of enormously interesting new evidence about our human past.”     

Endpiece: Three different talks

ObjectivesTo characterise the information needs of family doctors by collecting the questions they asked about patient care during consultations and to classify these in ways that would be useful to developers of knowledge bases.DesignObservational study in which investigators visited doctors for two half days and collected their questions. Taxonomies were developed to characterise the clinical topic and generic type of information sought for each question.SettingEastern Iowa.ParticipantsRandom sample of 103 family doctors.ResultsParticipants asked a total of 1101 questions. Questions about drug prescribing, obstetrics and gynaecology, and adult infectious disease were most common and comprised 36% of all questions. The taxonomy of generic questions included 69 categories; the three most common types, comprising 24% of all questions, were “What is the cause of symptom X?” “What is the dose of drug X?” and “How should I manage disease or finding X?” Answers to most questions (702, 64%) were not immediately pursued, but, of those pursued, most (318, 80%) were answered. Doctors spent an average of less than 2 minutes pursuing an answer, and they used readily available print and human resources. Only two questions led to a formal literature search.ConclusionsFamily doctors in this study did not pursue answers to most of their questions. Questions about patient care can be organised into a limited number of generic types, which could help guide the efforts of knowledge base developers.

Key messages

• Questions that doctors have about the care of their patients could help guide the content of medical information sources and medical training
• In this study of US family doctors, participants frequently had questions about patient care but did not pursue answers to most questions (64%)
• On average, participants spent less than 2 minutes seeking an answer to a question
• The most common resources used to answer questions included textbooks and colleagues; formal literature searches were rarely performed
• The most common generic questions were “What is the cause of symptom X?” “What is the dose of drug X?” and “How should I manage disease or finding X?”

     

Genomes, race and health. Racial profiling in medicine might just be a stepping stone towards personalized health care

Considering a patient''s ethnic background can make some diagnoses easier. Yet, ‘racial profiling'' is a highly controversial concept and might soon be replaced by the advent of individualized medicine.In 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA; Bethesda, MD, USA) approved BiDil—a combination of vasodilators to treat heart failure—and hailed it as the first drug to specifically treat an ethnic group. “Approval of a drug to treat severe heart failure in self-identified black population is a striking example of how a treatment can benefit some patients even if it does not help all patients,” announced Robert Temple, the FDA''s Director of Medical Policy. “The information presented to the FDA clearly showed that blacks suffering from heart failure will now have an additional safe and effective option for treating their condition” (Temple & Stockbridge, 2007). Even the National Medical Association—the African-American version of the American Medical Association—advocated the drug, which was developed by NitroMed, Inc. (Lexington, MA, USA). A new era in medicine based on racial profiling seemed to be in the offing.By January 2008, however, the ‘breakthrough'' had gone bust. NitroMed shut down its promotional campaign for BiDil—a combination of the vasodilators isosorbide dinitrate, which affects arteries and veins, and hydralazine hydrochloride, which predominantly affects arteries. In 2009, it sold its BiDil interests and was itself acquired by another pharmaceutical company.In the meantime, critics had largely discredited the efforts of NitroMed, thereby striking a blow against the drug if not the concept of racial profiling or race-based medicine. Jonathan Kahn, a historian and law professor at Hamline University (St Paul, MN, USA), described the BiDil strategy as “a leap to genetics.” He demonstrated that NitroMed, motivated to extend its US patent scheduled to expire in 2007, purported to discover an advantage for a subpopulation of self-identified black people (Kahn, 2009). He noted that NitroMed conducted a race-specific trial to gain FDA approval, but, as there were no comparisons with other populations, it never had conclusive data to show that BiDil worked in black people differently from anyone else.“If you want to understand heart failure, you look at heart failure, and if you want to understand racial disparities in conditions such as heart failure or hypertension, there is much to look at that has nothing to do with genetics,” Kahn said, adding “that jumping to race as a genetic construct is premature at best and reckless generally in practice.” The USA, he explained, has a century-old tradition of marketing to racial and ethnic groups. “BiDil brought to the fore the notion that you can have ethnic markets not only in things like cigarettes and food, but also in pharmaceuticals,” Kahn commented.“BiDil brought to the fore the notion that you can have ethnic markets not only in things like cigarettes and food, but also in pharmaceuticals”However, despite BiDil''s failure, the search for race-based therapies and diagnostics is not over. “What I have found is an increasing, almost exponential, rise in the use of racial and ethnic categories in biotechnology-related patents,” Kahn said. “A lot of these products are still in the pipeline. They''re still patent applications, they''re not out on the market yet so it''s hard to know how they''ll play out.”The growing knowledge of the human genome is also providing new opportunities to market medical products aimed at specific ethnic groups. The first bumpy steps were taken with screening for genetic risk factors for breast cancers. Myriad Genetics (Salt Lake City, UT, USA) holds broad patents in the USA for breast-cancer screening tests that are based on mutations of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, but it faced challenges in Europe, where critics raised concerns about the high costs of screening.The growing knowledge of the human genome is also providing new opportunities to market medical products aimed at specific ethnic groupsThe European Patent Office initially granted Myriad patents for the BRCA1 and BRCA2-based tests in 2001, after years of debate. But it revoked the patent on BRCA1 in 2005, which was again reversed in 2009. In 2005 Myriad decided to narrow the scope of BRCA2 testing on the basis of ethnicity. The company won a patent to predict breast-cancer risk in Ashkenazi Jewish women on the basis of BRCA2 mutations, which occur in one in 100 of these women. Physicians offering the test are supposed to ask their patients whether they are in this ethnic group, and then pay a fee to Myriad.Kahn said Myriad took this approach to package the test differently in order to protect its financial interests. However, he commented, the idea of ethnic profiling by asking women whether they identify themselves as Ashkenazi Jewish and then paying extra for an ‘ethnic'' medical test did not work in Europe. “It''s ridiculous,” Kahn commented.After the preliminary sequence of the human genome was published a decade ago, experts noted that humans were almost the same genetically, implying that race was irrelevant. In fact, the validity of race as a concept in science—let alone the use of the word—has been hotly debated. “Race, inasmuch as the concept ought to be used at all, is a social concept, not a biological one. And using it as though it were a biological one is as a much an ethical problem as a scientific problem,” commented Samia Hurst, a physician and bioethicist at Geneva University Medical School in Switzerland.​Switzerland.Open in a separate window© Monalyn Gracia/CorbisCiting a popular slogan: “There is no gene for race,” she noted, “there doesn''t seem to be a single cluster of genes that fits with identification within an ethnic group, let alone with disease risks as well. We''re also in an increasingly mixed world where many people—and I count myself among them—just don''t know what to check on the box. If you start counting up your grandparents and end up with four different ethnic groups, what are you going to do? So there are an increasing number of people who just don''t fit into those categories at all.”Still, some dismiss criticism of racial profiling as political correctness that could potentially prevent patients from receiving proper care. Sally Satel, a psychiatrist in Washington, DC, USA, does not shy away from describing herself as a racially profiling physician and argues that it is good medicine. A commentator and resident scholar at the nonpartisan conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute (Washington, DC, USA), Satel wrote the book PC, M.D.: How Political Correctness is Corrupting Medicine. “In practicing medicine, I am not color blind. I take note of my patient''s race. So do many of my colleagues,” she wrote in a New York Times article entitled “I am a racially profiling doctor” (Satel, 2002).…some dismiss criticism of racial profiling as political correctness that could potentially prevent patients from receiving proper careSatel noted in an interview that it is an undeniable fact that black people tend to have more renal disease, Native Americans have more diabetes and white people have more cystic fibrosis. She said these differences can help doctors to decide which drugs to prescribe at which dose and could potentially lead researchers to discover new therapies on the basis of race.Satel added that the mention of race and medicine makes many people nervous. “You can dispel that worry by taking pains to specify biological lineage. Simply put, members of a group have more genes in common than members of the population at large. Some day geneticists hope to be able to conduct genomic profiles of each individual, making group identity irrelevant, but until then, race-based therapeutics has its virtues,” she said. “Denying the relationship between race and medicine flies in the face of clinical reality, and pretending that we are all at equal risk for health problems carries its own dangers.”However, Hurst contended that this approach may be good epidemiology, rather than racial profiling. Physicians therefore need to be cautious about using skin colour, genomic data and epidemiological data in decision making. “If African Americans are at a higher risk for hypertension, are you not going to check for hypertension in white people? You need to check in everyone in any case,” she commented.Hurst said European physicians, similarly to their American colleagues, deal with race and racial profiling, albeit in a different way. “The way in which we struggle with it is strongly determined by the history behind what could be called the biases that we have. If you have been a colonial power, if the past is slavery or if the past or present is immigration, it does change some things,” she said. “On the other hand, you always have the difficulty of doing fair and good medicine in a social situation that has a kind of ‘them and us'' structure. Because you''re not supposed to do medicine in a ‘them and us'' structure, you''re supposed to treat everyone according to their medical needs and not according to whether they''re part of ‘your tribe'' or ‘another tribe''.”Indeed, social factors largely determine one''s health, rather than ethnic or genetic factors. August A. White III, an African-American orthopaedic surgeon at Harvard Medical School (Boston, MA, USA) and author of the book Seeing Patients: Unconscious Bias In Health Care, noted that race is linked to disparities in health care in the USA. A similar point can be made in Europe where, for example, Romani people face discrimination in several countries.White said that although genetic research shows that race is not a scientific concept, the way people are labelled in society and how they are treated needs to be taken into account. “It''d be wonderful at some point if we can pop one''s key genetic information into a computer and get a printout of which medications are best of them and which doses are best for them,” he commented. “In the meantime though, I advocate careful operational attempts to treat everyone as human beings and to value everyone''s life, not devalue old people, or devalue women, or devalue different religious faiths, etc.”Notwithstanding the scientific denunciation, a major obstacle for the concept of racial profiling has been the fact that the word ‘race'' itself is politically loaded, as a result of, among other things, the baggage of eugenics and Nazi racism and the legacies of slavery and colonialism. Richard Tutton, a sociologist at Lancaster University in the UK, said that British scientists he interviewed for a Wellcome Trust project a few years ago prefer the term ethnicity to race. “Race is used in a legal sense in relation to inequality, but certainly otherwise, ethnicity is the preferred term, which obviously is different to the US” he said. “I remember having conversations with German academics and obviously in Germany you couldn''t use the R-word.”Jan Helge Solbakk, a physician, theologian and medical ethicist at the University of Oslo in Norway, said the use of the term race in Europe is a non-starter because it makes it impossible for the public and policy-makers to communicate. “I think in Europe it would be politically impossible to launch a project targeting racial differences on the genetic level. The challenge is to find not just a more politically correct concept, but a genetically more accurate concept and to pursue such research questions,” he said. According to Kahn, researchers therefore tend to refer to ethnicity rather than race: “They''re talking about European, Asian and African, but they''re referring to it as ethnicity instead of race because they think somehow that''s more palatable.”Regardless, race-based medicine might just be a stepping stone towards more refined and accurate methods, with the advent of personalized medicine based on genomics, according to Leroy Hood, whose work has helped to develop tools to analyse the human genome. The focus of his company—the Institute for Systems Biology (Seattle, WA, USA)—is to identify genetic variants that can inform and help patients to pioneer individualized health care.“Race as a concept is disappearing with interbreeding,” Hood said. “Race distinction is going to slowly fade away. We can use it now because we have signposts for race, which are colour, fairness, kinkiness of hair, but compared to a conglomeration of things that define a race, those are very few features. The race-defining features are going to be segregating away from one another more and more as the population becomes racially heterogeneous, so I think it''s going to become a moot point.”Hood instead advocates “4P” health care—“Predictive, Personalized, Preventive and Participatory.” “My overall feeling about the race-based correlations is that it is far more important to think about the individual and their individual unique spectra of health and wellness,” he explained. “I think we are not going to deal in the future with racial or ethnic populations, rather medicine of the future is going to be focused entirely on the individual.”Yet, Arthur Caplan, Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA, USA), is skeptical about the prospects for both race-based and personalized medicine. “Race-based medicine will play a minor role over the next few years in health care because race is a minor factor in health,” he said. “It''s not like we have a group of people who keel over dead at 40 who are in the same ethnic group.”Caplan also argued that establishing personalized genomic medicine in a decade is a pipe dream. “The reason I say that is it''s not just the science,” he explained. “You have to redo the whole health-care system to make that possible. You have to find manufacturers who can figure out how to profit from personalized medicine who are both in Europe and the United States. You have to have doctors that know how to prescribe them. It''s a big, big revamping. That''s not going to happen in 10 years.”Hood, however, is more optimistic and plans to advance the concept with pilot projects; he believes that Europe might be the better testing ground. “I think the European systems are much more efficient for pioneering personalized medicine than the United States because the US health-care system is utterly chaotic. We have every combination of every kind of health care and health delivery. We have no common shared vision,” he said. “In the end we may well go to Europe to persuade a country to really undertake this. The possibility of facilitating a revolution in health care is greater in Europe than in the United States.”     

为什么在物种概念上难以达成共识?

生物学家通常认为物种是生命多样性的基本单位。然而, 尽管近一个世纪以来生物学家们不断地讨论物种概念问题, 但到目前为止仍然难以形成共识。大多数生物学家关注如何定义物种主要是因为它有非常重要的实践意义, 所以, 不同学者提出的物种概念在很大程度上是基于实践应用上的可操作性, 并且其视角难免受其专业见地以及对形成新物种的进化过程的认识所影响。物种代表了进化过程的一个阶段, 而且不同的“物种”可能处于物种形成这个进化过程的不同阶段。鉴于“定义”实际上是一种类似协议的约定或界定, 任何定义都是一种带有局限性的概括, 因此我们可能很难建立一个与分类实践中千变万化的情况都能完全匹配协调的物种定义。已经提出来的那些物种概念或定义都有其合理性, 但是也没有一个是完美无缺的。认识到这一点很重要, 否则就可能会因为固执地坚持某一特定的物种概念而在物种界定和进化研究中自觉或不自觉地引入错误甚至制造混乱。     

Rethinking Hardy-Weinberg and genetic drift in undergraduate biology

Population genetics is often taught in introductory biology classes, starting with the Hardy-Weinberg principle (HWP) and genetic drift. Here I argue that teaching these two topics first aligns neither with current expert knowledge, nor with good pedagogy. Student difficulties with mathematics in general, and probability in particular, make population genetics difficult to teach and learn. I recommend an alternative, historically inspired ordering of population genetics topics, based on progressively increasing mathematical difficulty. This progression can facilitate just-in-time math instruction. This alternative ordering includes, but does not privilege, the HWP and genetic drift. Stochastic events whose consequences are felt within a single generation, and the deterministic accumulation of the effects of selection across multiple generations, are both taught before tackling the stochastic accumulation of the effects of accidents of sampling.     

The Hot (Invisible?) Hand: Can Time Sequence Patterns of Success/Failure in Sports Be Modeled as Repeated Random Independent Trials?

The long lasting debate initiated by Gilovich, Vallone and Tversky in is revisited: does a “hot hand” phenomenon exist in sports? Hereby we come back to one of the cases analyzed by the original study, but with a much larger data set: all free throws taken during five regular seasons () of the National Basketball Association (NBA). Evidence supporting the existence of the “hot hand” phenomenon is provided. However, while statistical traces of this phenomenon are observed in the data, an open question still remains: are these non random patterns a result of “success breeds success” and “failure breeds failure” mechanisms or simply “better” and “worse” periods? Although free throws data is not adequate to answer this question in a definite way, we speculate based on it, that the latter is the dominant cause behind the appearance of the “hot hand” phenomenon in the data.