细胞微系统技术及其应用

细胞微系统技术研究是目前细胞生物学、微系统科学及药物筛选等学科交叉领域的一个研究热点,其综合利用了微系统平台技术,将细胞的培养、观测和分析在微系统平台上完成,丰富了细胞研究方法,为细胞研究提供了一个全新的研究平台。现对目前细胞微系统研究中几种典型的方法,如立体微结构模型、软光刻、微流体、芯片毛细管电泳、微电极等进行综述,并阐述其在细胞生物学、生命科学等领域相关研究中的应用。     

Sequencing enabling design and learning in synthetic biology

The ability to read and quantify nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA using sequencing technologies has revolutionized our understanding of life. With the emergence of synthetic biology, these tools are now being put to work in new ways — enabling de novo biological design. Here, we show how sequencing is supporting the creation of a new wave of biological parts and systems, as well as providing the vast data sets needed for the machine learning of design rules for predictive bioengineering. However, we believe this is only the tip of the iceberg and end by providing an outlook on recent advances that will likely broaden the role of sequencing in synthetic biology and its deployment in real-world environments.     

The challenge of Down syndrome

Down syndrome (DS) has been recognized as a clinical entity for about 150 years, but it is only recently that there has been hope for the possibility to understand its pathogenesis and to use this information to devise approaches for the prevention and treatment of its numerous features. The earlier pessimism was due to several reasons, including: (i) the nature of the genetic defect that leads to the syndrome; (ii) the multiplicity of systems involved; and (iii) the high degree of variability of the phenotype. However, science has now caught up with the problem, and recent developments, especially in genetics, genomics, developmental biology and neuroscience, suggest that these potential impediments might not be as arduous as once appeared. As a result, basic research on DS is now rapidly accelerating, and there is hope that the findings will be translatable into benefit for people with DS.     

Beyond reductionism: metabolic circularity as a guiding vision for a real biology of systems

The definition of life has excited little interest among molecular biologists during the past half-century, and the enormous development in biology during that time has been largely based on an analytical approach in which all biological entities are studied in terms of their components, the process being extended to greater and greater detail without limit. The benefits of this reductionism are so obvious that they need no discussion, but there have been costs as well, and future advances, for example, for creating artificial life or for taking biotechnology beyond the level of tinkering, will need more serious attention to be given to the question of what makes a living organism living. According to Robert Rosen's theory of metabolism-replacement systems, the central idea missing from molecular biology is that of metabolic circularity, most evident from the obvious but commonly ignored fact that proteins are not given from outside but are products of metabolism, and thus metabolites. Among other consequences, this implies that the usual distinction between proteome and metabolome is conceptually artificial -- however useful it may be in practice -- as the proteome is part of the metabolome.     

Diffusion of synthetic biology: a challenge to biosafety

One of the main aims of synthetic biology is to make biology easier to engineer. Major efforts in synthetic biology are made to develop a toolbox to design biological systems without having to go through a massive research and technology process. With this “de-skilling” agenda, synthetic biology might finally unleash the full potential of biotechnology and spark a wave of innovation, as more and more people have the necessary skills to engineer biology. But this ultimate domestication of biology could easily lead to unprecedented safety challenges that need to be addressed: more and more people outside the traditional biotechnology community will create self-replicating machines (life) for civil and defence applications, “biohackers” will engineer new life forms at their kitchen table; and illicit substances will be produced synthetically and much cheaper. Such a scenario is a messy and dangerous one, and we need to think about appropriate safety standards now.     

Host Biology in Light of the Microbiome: Ten Principles of Holobionts and Hologenomes

Groundbreaking research on the universality and diversity of microorganisms is now challenging the life sciences to upgrade fundamental theories that once seemed untouchable. To fully appreciate the change that the field is now undergoing, one has to place the epochs and foundational principles of Darwin, Mendel, and the modern synthesis in light of the current advances that are enabling a new vision for the central importance of microbiology. Animals and plants are no longer heralded as autonomous entities but rather as biomolecular networks composed of the host plus its associated microbes, i.e., "holobionts." As such, their collective genomes forge a "hologenome," and models of animal and plant biology that do not account for these intergenomic associations are incomplete. Here, we integrate these concepts into historical and contemporary visions of biology and summarize a predictive and refutable framework for their evaluation. Specifically, we present ten principles that clarify and append what these concepts are and are not, explain how they both support and extend existing theory in the life sciences, and discuss their potential ramifications for the multifaceted approaches of zoology and botany. We anticipate that the conceptual and evidence-based foundation provided in this essay will serve as a roadmap for hypothesis-driven, experimentally validated research on holobionts and their hologenomes, thereby catalyzing the continued fusion of biology''s subdisciplines. At a time when symbiotic microbes are recognized as fundamental to all aspects of animal and plant biology, the holobiont and hologenome concepts afford a holistic view of biological complexity that is consistent with the generally reductionist approaches of biology.     

Ectogenesis and the case against the right to the death of the foetus

Ectogenesis, or the use of an artificial womb to allow a foetus to develop, will likely become a reality within a few decades, and could significantly affect the abortion debate. We first examine the implications for Judith Jarvis Thomson’s violinist analogy, which argues for a woman’s right to withdraw life support from the foetus and so terminate her pregnancy, even if the foetus is granted full moral status. We show that on Thomson’s reasoning, there is no right to the death of the foetus, and abortion is not permissible if ectogenesis is available, provided it is safe and inexpensive. This raises the question of whether there are persuasive reasons for the right to the death of the foetus that could be exercised in the context of ectogenesis. Eric Mathison and Jeremy Davis have examined several arguments for this right, doubting that it exists, while Joona Räsänen has recently criticized their reasoning. We respond to Räsänen’s analysis, concluding that his arguments are unsuccessful, and that there is no right to the death of the foetus in these circumstances.     

Molecular architecture of bacteriophage T4

In studying bacteriophage T4—one of the basic models of molecular biology for several decades—there has come a Renaissance, and this virus is now actively used as object of structural biology. The structures of six proteins of the phage particle have recently been determined at atomic resolution by X-ray crystallography. Three-dimensional reconstruction of the infection device—one of the most complex multiprotein components—has been developed on the basis of cryo-electron microscopy images. The further study of bacteriophage T4 structure will allow a better understanding of the regulation of protein folding, assembly of biological structures, and also mechanisms of functioning of the complex biological molecular machines.Translated from Biokhimiya, Vol. 69, No. 11, 2004, pp. 1463–1476.Original Russian Text Copyright © 2004 by Mesyanzhinov, Leiman, Kostyuchenko, Kurochkina, Miroshnikov, Sykilinda, Shneider.     

Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine: wicked problems, ragged edges and ethical precipices

In the age of genomic medicine we can often now do the genetic testing that will permit more accurate personal tailoring of medications to obtain the best therapeutic results. This is certainly a medically and morally desirable result. However, in other areas of medicine pharmacogenomics is generating consequences that are much less ethically benign and much less amenable to a satisfactory ethical resolution. More specifically, we will often find ourselves left with 'wicked problems,' 'ragged edges,' and well-disguised ethical precipices. This will be especially true with regard to these extraordinarily expensive cancer drugs that generally yield only extra weeks or extra months of life. Our key ethical question is this: Does every individual faced with cancer have a just claim to receive treatment with one of more of these targeted cancer therapies at social expense? If any of these drugs literally made the difference between an unlimited life expectancy (a cure) and a premature death, that would be a powerful moral consideration in favor of saying that such individuals had a strong just claim to that drug. However, what we are beginning to discover is that different individuals with different genotypes respond more or less positively to these targeted drugs with some in a cohort gaining a couple extra years of life while others gain only extra weeks or months. Should only the strongest responders have a just claim to these drugs at social expense when there is no bright line that separates strong responders from modest responders from marginal responders? This is the key ethical issue we address. We argue that no ethical theory yields a satisfactory answer to this question, that we need instead fair and respectful processes of rational democratic deliberation.     

Insights into Monascus biology at the genetic level

The genus of Monascus was nominated by van Tieghem in 1884, but its fermented product—red mold rice (RMR), namely red yeast rice, has been used as folk medicines, food colorants, and fermentation starters for more than thousands of years in oriental countries. Nowadays, RMR is widely developed as food supplements around the world due to its functional compounds such as monacolin K (MK, also called lovastatin) and γ-aminobutyric acid. But the usage of RMR also incurs controversy resulting from contamination of citrinin (a kind of mycotoxin) produced by some Monascus strains. In the past decade, it has made great progress to Monascus spp. at the genetic level with the application of molecular biology techniques to restrain the citrinin production and increase the yields of MK and pigment in RMR, as well as aid Monascus classification and phylogenesis. Up to now, hundreds of papers about Monascus molecular biology (MMB) have been published in the international primary journals. However, to our knowledge, there is no MMB review issued until now. In this review, current understanding of Monascus spp. from the view of molecular biology will be covered and insights into research areas that need to be further investigated will also be discussed.     

Should we stay or should we go: mechanisms and ecological consequences for biofilm dispersal

In most environments, bacteria reside primarily in biofilms, which are social consortia of cells that are embedded in an extracellular matrix and undergo developmental programmes resulting in a predictable biofilm 'life cycle'. Recent research on many different bacterial species has now shown that the final stage in this life cycle includes the production and release of differentiated dispersal cells. The formation of these cells and their eventual dispersal is initiated through diverse and remarkably sophisticated mechanisms, suggesting that there are strong evolutionary pressures for dispersal from an otherwise largely sessile biofilm. The evolutionary aspect of biofilm dispersal is now being explored through the integration of molecular microbiology with eukaryotic ecological and evolutionary theory, which provides a broad conceptual framework for the diversity of specific mechanisms underlying biofilm dispersal. Here, we review recent progress in this emerging field and suggest that the merging of detailed molecular mechanisms with ecological theory will significantly advance our understanding of biofilm biology and ecology.     

On the road to understanding truffles in the underground

The genome of the ectomycorrhizal ascomycete Tubermelanosporum has recently been published and this has given researchers unique opportunities to learn more about the biology of this precious edible fungus. The epigeous ascomycete lives in Mediterranean countries in symbiotic interaction with roots of broad-leaf trees such as oaks and hazel. A most important new finding was the single mating type locus in the genome that occurs with two alleles in natural populations. The life cycle is now confirmed to be heterothallic and the species is outcrossing. Unlike sexual development in the soil, mycorrhization of the roots by homokaryotic haploid mycelia is mating-type-independent. Gene regulation during mycorrhization and fruiting and environmental influences on it is now genome-wide addressed. Genome profiling for functions in specific metabolic pathways is undertaken. Insights in most enthralling features of tubers such as on odor formation are thus gained.     

Marine molecular biology: an emerging field of biological sciences

An appreciation of the potential applications of molecular biology is of growing importance in many areas of life sciences, including marine biology. During the past two decades, the development of sophisticated molecular technologies and instruments for biomedical research has resulted in significant advances in the biological sciences. However, the value of molecular techniques for addressing problems in marine biology has only recently begun to be cherished. It has been proven that the exploitation of molecular biological techniques will allow difficult research questions about marine organisms and ocean processes to be addressed. Marine molecular biology is a discipline, which strives to define and solve the problems regarding the sustainable exploration of marine life for human health and welfare, through the cooperation between scientists working in marine biology, molecular biology, microbiology and chemistry disciplines. Several success stories of the applications of molecular techniques in the field of marine biology are guiding further research in this area. In this review different molecular techniques are discussed, which have application in marine microbiology, marine invertebrate biology, marine ecology, marine natural products, material sciences, fisheries, conservation and bio-invasion etc. In summary, if marine biologists and molecular biologists continue to work towards strong partnership during the next decade and recognize intellectual and technological advantages and benefits of such partnership, an exciting new frontier of marine molecular biology will emerge in the future.     

Advanced eusociality, kin selection and male haploidy

Abstract  The generation-long primacy of kin selection in explaining the evolution of advanced eusociality in social insects has been challenged in recent papers. Does this challenge succeed? I consider three questions: is kin selection still the unchallengeable explanation for the evolution of eusociality; is the male haploidy of Hymenoptera important in this explanation; and, a subsidiary question of why are there no male workers in Hymenoptera? I briefly trace the origins of kin selection back to Darwin and then consider the explanations of mutualism, group selection, parental manipulation, and kin selection and its variant 'green beard' alleles. I stress that in the kin selection equation, however written, relatedness is deeply intertwined with ecology so that both are essential. Kin selection does remain unchallengeable but, for some, the role of male haploidy has lost favour recently despite several modelling efforts all finding that it favours the evolution of eusociality. Sex allocation is deep at the heart of the evolution of hymenopteran advanced eusociality, indicating the interacting roles of population genetics and general biology. Modellers have also found no reason for a lack of male workers, so that a biological superiority of females for this role is indicated for social Hymenoptera.     

Protein–protein interactions and genetic diseases: The interactome

Protein–protein interactions mediate essentially all biological processes. Despite the quality of these data being widely questioned a decade ago, the reproducibility of large-scale protein interaction data is now much improved and there is little question that the latest screens are of high quality. Moreover, common data standards and coordinated curation practices between the databases that collect the interactions have made these valuable data available to a wide group of researchers. Here, I will review how protein–protein interactions are measured, collected and quality controlled. I discuss how the architecture of molecular protein networks has informed disease biology, and how these data are now being computationally integrated with the newest genomic technologies, in particular genome-wide association studies and exome-sequencing projects, to improve our understanding of molecular processes perturbed by genetics in human diseases. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: From Genome to Function.     

A case for more curiosity-driven basic research

Having been selected to be among the exquisitely talented scientists who won the Sandra K. Masur Senior Leadership Award is a tremendous honor. I would like to take this opportunity to make the case for a conviction of mine that I think many will consider outdated. I am convinced that we need more curiosity-driven basic research aimed at understanding the principles governing life. The reasons are simple: 1) we need to learn more about the world around us; and 2) a robust and diverse basic research enterprise will bring ideas and approaches essential for developing new medicines and improving the lives of humankind.When I was a graduate student, curiosity-driven basic research ruled. Studying mating-type switching in budding yeast, for example, was exciting because it was an interesting problem: How can you make two different cells from a single cell in the absence of any external cues? We did not have to justify why it is important to study what many would now consider a baroque question. Scientists and funding agencies alike agreed that this was an exciting biological problem that needed to be solved. I am certain that all scientists of my generation can come up with similar examples.Open in a separate windowAngelika AmonSince the time I was a graduate student, the field of biological research has experienced a revolution. We can now determine the genetic makeup of every species in a week or so and have an unprecedented ability to manipulate any genome. This revolution has led to a sense that we understand the principles governing life and that it is now time to apply this knowledge to cure diseases and make the world a better place. While applying knowledge to improve lives and treat diseases is certainly a worthwhile endeavor, it is important to realize that we are far from having a mechanistic understanding of even the basic principles of biology. What the genomic revolution brought us are lists, some better than others. We now know how many coding genes define a given species and how many protein kinases, GTPases, and so forth there are in the various genomes we sequenced. This knowledge, however, does not even scratch the surface of understanding their function. When I browse the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome database (my second-favorite website), I am still amazed how many genes there are that have not even been given a name.To me the most important achievement the new genome-sequencing and genome-editing technologies brought us is that nearly every organism can be a model organism now. We can study and manipulate the processes that most fascinate us in the organisms in which they occur, with the exception, of course, of humans. Thus, I believe that the golden era of basic biological research is not behind us but in front of us, and we need more people who will take advantage of the tools that have been developed in the past three decades. I am therefore hoping that many young people will chose a career in basic research and find an exciting question to study. The more of us there are, the more knowledge we will acquire, and the higher the likelihood we will discover something amazing and important. There is so much interesting biology out there that we should strive to understand. Some of my favorite unanswered questions are: What are the biological principles underlying symbiosis and how did it evolve? Why is sleep essential? Why do plants, despite an enormous regenerative potential, never die of cancer? Why do brown bears, despite inactivity, obesity, and high levels of cholesterol, exhibit no signs of atherosclerosis? How do sharks continuously produce teeth?One could, of course, argue that the knowledge we have accumulated over the past 50 years provides a reasonable framework, and it is now time to leave basic science and model organisms behind and focus on what matters—curing diseases, developing methods to produce energy, cleaning up the oceans, preventing global warming, building biological computers, designing organisms, or engineering whatever the current buzz is about. Like David Botstein, who eloquently discussed the importance of basic research in these pages in 2012 (Botstein, 2012 ), I believe that the notion that we already know enough is wrong and the current application-centric view of biology is misguided. Experience has taught us over and over that we cannot predict where the next important breakthrough will be emerge. Many of the discoveries that we consider groundbreaking and that have brought us new medicines or improved our lives in other ways are the result of curiosity-driven basic research. My favorite example is the discovery of penicillin. Alexander Fleming, through the careful study of his (contaminated) bacterial plates, enabled humankind to escape natural selection. More recent success stories such as new cures for hepatitis C, the human papillomavirus vaccine, the HIV-containment regimens, or treatments for BCR-ABL induced chronic myelogenous leukemia have also only been possible because of decades of basic research in model organisms that taught us the principles of life and enabled us to acquire the methodologies critical to develop these treatments. Although work from my own lab on the causes and consequences of chromosome mis-segregation in budding yeast has not led to the development of new treatments, it has taught us a lot about how an imbalanced karyotype, a hallmark of cancer, affects the physiology of cancer cells and creates vulnerabilities in cancer cells that could represent new therapeutic targets.These are but a few examples for why it is important that we scientists must dedicate ourselves to the pursuit of basic knowledge and why we as a society must make funding basic research a priority. Achieving the latter requires that we scientists tell the public about the importance of what we are doing and explain the potential implications of basic research for human health. At the same time, it will be important to manage expectations. We must explain that not every research project will lead to the development of new medicines and that we cannot predict where the next big breakthroughs will materialize. We must further make it clear that this means we have to fund a broad range of basic research at a healthy level. Perhaps a website that collects examples of how basic research has led to breakthroughs in medicine could serve as a showcase for such success stories, bringing the importance of what we do to the public.While conducting research to improve the lives of others is certainly a worthy motivation, it is not the main reason why I get up very early every morning to go to the lab. To me, gaining an understanding of a basic principle in the purest Faustian terms is what I find most rewarding and exciting. Designing and conducting experiments, pondering the results, and developing hypotheses as to how something may work is most exciting, the idea that I, or nowadays the people in my lab, may be (hopefully) the first to discover a new aspect of biology is the best feeling. It is these rare eureka moments, when you first realize how a process works or when you discover something that opens up a new research direction, that make up for all the woes and frustrations that come with being an experimental scientist in an expensive discipline.For me, having a career in curiosity-driven basic research has been immensely rewarding. It is my hope that basic research remains one of the pillars of the American scientific enterprise, attracting the brightest young minds for generations to come. We as a community can help to make this a reality by telling people what we do and highlighting the importance of our work to their lives.     

Genetic models in applied physiology: invited review: effect of oxygen deprivation on cell cycle activity: a profile of delay and arrest.

One of the most fascinating fields that have emanated in the past few decades is developmental biology. This is not only the case from a research point of view but also from the angle of clinical care and treatment strategies. It is now well demonstrated that there are many diseases (some believe all diseases) that have their roots in embryogenesis or in early life, where nature and environment often team up to facilitate the genesis of disease. There is probably no better example to illustrate the interactions between nature and environment than in early life, as early as in the first several cell cycles. As will be apparent in this review, the cell cycle is a very regulated activity and this regulation is genetic in nature, with checkpoint proteins playing an important role in controlling the timing, the size, and the growth of daughter cells. However, it is also very clear, as will be discussed in this work, that the microenvironment of the first dividing cells is so important for the outcome of the organism. In this review, we will focus on the effect of one stress, that of hypoxia, on the young embryo and its cell division and growth. We will first review some of the cell cycle definitions and stages and then review briefly our current knowledge and its gaps in this area.     

Evolutionary developmental biology and vertebrate head segmentation: A perspective from developmental constraint

Summary The question of vertebrate head segmentation has become one of the central issues in Evolutionary Developmental Biology. Beginning as a theory based in comparative anatomy, a segmental theory of the head has been adopted and further developed by comparative embryologists. With the use of molecular and cellular biology, and in particular analyses of the Hox gene complex, the question has been addressed at new levels, but it remains unresolved. In this review, vertebrate head segmentation is reevaluated, by introducing findings from experimental embryology and evolutionary biology. Developmental biology has shown that pattern is generated through hierarchically organized and causally linked series of events. The question of head segmentation can be viewed as a question of generative constraint, that is whether segmentation in the head is imposed by underlying segmental patterns, as it is in the trunk. In this respect, amphioxus appears to be segmented along the entire anteroposterior axis, with myotomes and peripheral nerves repeating with the same rhythm (somitomerism). Similarly, in the vertebrate trunk, the segmental patterns shared by myotomes, peripheral nerves and vertebrae are derived from the somites. However, in the head of vertebrates there is no such mesodermal pattern, although neuromerism and branchiomerism do indicate the presence of constraints derived from rhombomeres and pharyngeal pouches, respectively. These data fit better the concept of dual metamerism of the vertebrate body proposed by Romer (1972), than the traditional head cavity-based segmental model by Goodrich (1930).