“整合物种概念”和“分化路上的物种”

已有的各个物种概念对物种的认识类似盲人摸象, 只包含了物种的某一个方面; 而一个分化后期的成熟物种应涵盖了所有的物种概念。但是, 尚未到达分化后期的物种往往又已开始新一轮的物种分化; 自然中存在的多数“物种”处于分化路上。这种循环往复连续分化产生的物种, 存在种间生殖隔离不彻底、基因流频繁发生、网状进化突出等现象。此外, 对于不同的物种对, 最早开始分化的基因以及不同物种概念所要求的条件的分化顺序不是统一的, 而是随机的。定义一个适合所有“分化路上的物种”概念存在较大困难。但是, 应采用尽可能多的物种概念来界定分化路上的物种、发表新种和进行分类处理; 也应承认种间可能广泛存在不完全的生殖隔离和有限的基因流, 即有不属于两个物种群体的杂交或回交个体的存在。这样划分的物种比只依据一个物种概念认定的物种具有更高的客观性和科学性。     

“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。     

“瑞草”灵芝之现代研究

"灵芝"一词最早出现于东汉,人们"以为瑞草,服之神仙",称之为"灵芝"。现指隶属于真菌界Fungi、担子菌门Basidiomycota、伞菌纲Agaricomycetes、多孔菌目Polyporales、灵芝科Ganodermataceae的一类传统药用真菌的统称,具有免疫调节、抗肿瘤、抗氧化、抑菌、保肝护肝、止咳平喘等多种功效(林志彬2015;Gilletal.2016;Ahmad2018;Wuetal.     

“超级真菌”耳念珠菌研究进展

耳念珠菌Candida auris也被称为“超级真菌”,是近年来出现的一种人体病原真菌新物种,临床分离株通常具有多重耐药和高致死率等特征。2009年日本首次报道耳念珠菌之后,其感染病例在多个国家呈现出爆发式增长。目前已报道的病例分布在全球五大洲27个国家,包括中国。耳念珠菌感染给临床诊断和防控以及人类健康带来了巨大的挑战。本文从该菌临床分离菌株的生物学、遗传变异分化及耐药特征等方面入手,围绕分子流行病学、基因组特征、毒性因子和耐药性等方面系统地综述了近年来国内外取得的相关进展,并探讨了我国耳念珠菌感染的诊断、治疗和预防的措施。     

“Rule of Six”: How Does the Sendai Virus RNA Polymerase Keep Count?

The "rule of six" stipulates that the Paramyxovirus RNA polymerase efficiently replicates only viral genomes counting 6n + 0 nucleotides. Because the nucleocapsid proteins (N) interact with 6 nucleotides, an exact nucleotide-N match at the RNA 3'-OH end (3'-OH congruence) may be required for recognition of an active replication promoter. Alternatively, assuming that the six positions for the interaction of N with the nucleotides are not equivalent, the nucleotide position relative to N may be critical (N phase context). The replication abilities of various minireplicons, designed so that the 3'-OH congruence could be discriminated from the N phase context, were studied. The results strongly suggest that the application of the rule of six depends on the recognition of nucleotides positioned in the proper N phase context.     

Elacestrant in metastatic breast cancer: Is the “standard of care” meeting standard requirements?

The EMERALD trial was an open label phase 3 trial evaluating elacestrant, the first oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), as compared to “standard of care”, in ER+/HER2- (hormone receptor positive, no HER2 overexpression) advanced or metastatic breast cancer.The EMERALD trial restricted the “standard of care” control arm to limited options that may have led to a substandard control arm. We describe how the EMERALD trial protocol allowed different clinically inappropriate scenarios in the control arm, according to prior therapy. The main relevant question remains the potential advantage of elacestrant over fulvestrant in fulvestrant-naive patients.Analyzing outcomes in subgroups according to prior and per-protocol therapy would help analyzing trial results. However, these subgroup results may be non-significant, and another randomized trial will be needed. Trials should be designed to answer directly clinical questions that are relevant.     

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。     

Prenatal genetic screening and the evolving quest for “perfect babies”: at what cost for genetic diversity?

Commercial screening services for inheritable diseases raise concerns about pressure on parents to terminate “imperfect babies”. Subject Categories: S&S: Economics & Business, Molecular Biology of Disease

Nearly two decades have passed since the first draft sequences of the human genome were published at the eyewatering cost of nearly US$3 billion for the publicly funded project. Sequencing costs have dropped drastically since, and a range of direct‐to‐consumer genetics companies now offer partial sequencing of your individual genome in the US$100 price range, and whole‐genome sequencing for less than US$1,000.While such tests are mainly for personal peruse, there have also been substantial drops in price in clinical genome sequencing, which has greatly enabled the study of and screening for inheritable disorders. This has both advanced our understanding of these diseases in general, and benefitted early diagnosis of many genetic disorders, which is crucial for early and efficient treatment. Such detection can, in fact, now occur long before birth: from cell‐free DNA testing during the first trimester of pregnancy, to genetic testing of embryos generated by in vitro fertilization, to preconception carrier screening of parents to find out if both are carriers of an autosomal recessive condition. While such prenatal testing of foetuses or embryos primarily focuses on diseases caused by chromosomal abnormalities, technological advances allow also for the testing of an increasing number of heritable monogenic conditions in cases where the disease‐causing variants are known.The medical benefits of such screening are obvious: I personally have lost two pregnancies, one to Turner''s syndrome and the other to an extremely rare and lethal autosomal recessive skeletal dysplasia, and I know first‐hand the heartbreak and devastation involved in finding out that you will lose the child you already love so much. It should be noted though that, very rarely, Turner syndrome is survivable and the long‐term outlook is typically good in those cases (GARD, 2021). In addition, I have Kallmann syndrome, a highly genetically complex dominant endocrine disorder (Maoine et al, 2018), and early detection and treatment make a difference in outcome. Being able to screen early during pregnancy or childhood therefore has significant benefits for affected children. Many other genetic disorders similarly benefit from prenatal screening and detection.But there is also obvious cause for concern: the concept of “designer babies” selected for sex, physical features, or other apparent benefits is well entrenched in our society – and indeed culture – as a product from a dystopian future. Just as a recent example, Philipp Ball, writing for the Guardian in 2017, described designer babies as “an ethical horror waiting to happen” (Ball, 2017). In addition, various commercial enterprises hope to capitalize on these screening technologies. Orchid Inc claims that their preconception screening allows you to “… safely and naturally, protect your baby from diseases that run in your family”. The fact that this is hugely problematic if not impossible from a technological perspective has already been extensively clarified by Lior Pachter, a computational biologist at Caltech (Pachter, 2021). George Church at Harvard University suggested creating a DNA‐based dating app that would effectively prevent people who are both carriers for certain genetic conditions from matching (Flynn, 2019). Richard Dawkins at Oxford University recently commented that “…the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down [syndrome] baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare” (Dawkins, 2021).These are just a few examples, and as screening technology becomes cheaper, more companies will jump on the bandwagon of perfect “healthy” babies. Conversely, this creates a risk that parents come under pressure to terminate pregnancies with “imperfect babies” as I have experienced myself. What does this mean for people with rare diseases? From my personal moral perspective, the ethics are clear in cases where the pregnancy is clearly not viable. Yet, there are literally thousands of monogenic conditions and even chromosomal abnormalities, not all of which are lethal, and we are making constant strides in treating conditions that were previously considered untreatable. In addition, there is still societal prejudice against people with genetic disorders, and ignorance about how it is to live with a rare disease. In reality, however, all rare disease patients I have encountered are happy to be alive and here, even those whose conditions have significant impact on their quality of life. Many of us also don''t like the term “disorder” or “syndrome”, as we are so much more than merely a disorder or a syndrome.Unfortunately, I also see many parents panic about the results of prenatal testing. Without adequate genetic counselling, they do not understand that their baby’s condition may have actually a quite good prognosis without major impact on the quality of life. Following from this, a mere diagnosis of a rare disease – many of which would not even necessarily have been detectable until later in life, if at all – can be enough to make parents consider termination, due to social stigma.This of course raises the thorny issue of regulation, which range from the USA where there is little to no regulation of such screening technologies (ACOG, 2020), to Sweden where such screening technologies are banned with the exception of specific high‐risk/lethal medical conditions both parents are known carriers for (SMER, 2021). As countries come to grips with both the potential and the risks involved in new screening technologies, medical ethics board have approached this issue. And as screening technologies advance, we will need to ask ourselves difficult questions as a society. I know that in the world of “perfect babies” that some of these companies and individuals are trying to promote, I would not exist, nor would my daughter. I have never before had to find myself so often explaining to people that our lives have value, and I do not want to continue having to do so. Like other forms of diversity, genetic diversity is important and makes us richer as a society. As these screening technologies quickly advance and become more widely available, regulation should at least guarantee that screening must involve proper genetic counselling from a trained clinical geneticist so that parents actually understand the implications of the test results. More urgently, we need to address the problem of societal attitudes towards rare diseases, face the prejudice and fear towards patients, and understand that abolishing genetic diversity in a quest for perfect babies would impoverish humanity and make the world a much poorer place.     

荒漠草原“土岛”生境群落物种共存机制

经过长期破碎化, 荒漠草原原生硬质灰钙土斑块散布在广大沙化土地中, 形成类似“土岛”的土被结构。为揭示土岛生境的群落物种共存机制, 2016年在宁夏盐池县皖记沟村选取大(200-300 m²)、中(约100 m²)、小(约50 m²)土岛各3个开展调查, 采用Jaccard相异系数、物种生态位宽度和生态位重叠度、零模型、Meta分析, 综合计算和分析土岛内部与外部植物群落相似性、物种生态位宽度和生态位重叠、物种共存格局及其影响因子。研究发现, (1)随着破碎化加剧, 土岛内部植物多样性整体呈现下降趋势, 群落优势种从短花针茅(Stipa breviflora)转变为猪毛蒿(Artemisia scoparia)和短花针茅共优种, 土岛内外群落相似性增加。(2)土岛内外绝大多数物种生态位重叠较小, 生态位重叠在土岛内呈集中分布, 而土岛外则呈均匀发散分布。(3)环境过滤为主的生态过程决定了土岛生境群落物种的共存格局, 随着土岛面积减小, 环境因子对群落物种共存的调控强度降低, 关键性环境因子由土壤细砂粒和黏粒转变为粗砂粒, 显著性竞争物种共存格局在小岛出现。综上所述, 土岛生境对于维持草原物种具有重要作用, 环境过滤主导了荒漠草原物种共存格局。随着生境破碎化加剧或土岛面积减小, 物种共存格局及其调控因子发生转变。保护面积在200 m²以上的大土岛对于恢复荒漠草原区草原成分种和其物种多样性机制都十分必要。     

而今迈步从头越: 马铃薯育种跨入“有种”时代

现代栽培马铃薯(Solanum tuberosum)是同源四倍体, 基因组高度杂合, 遗传组成复杂, 存在严重的自交衰退, 优异性状难以聚合, 使得育种周期漫长, 造成基于种子传代的马铃薯杂交育种难以突破。与此同时, 块茎无性繁殖导致马铃薯繁殖系数低、储运成本高和易携带病虫害等痼疾, 且种薯脱毒成本高, 限制其产业化发展。近期, 中国农业科学院深圳农业基因组研究所黄三文团队运用基因组设计理论和方法体系培育杂交马铃薯, 用二倍体育种替代四倍体育种, 实现了用杂交种子繁殖替代薯块繁殖, 创制了第1代高纯度的二倍体自交系和杂种优势明显的杂交马铃薯品系。该研究是马铃薯育种领域里程碑式的重大成果, 开启了基于基因组设计和种子迭代的马铃薯生物育种新纪元。