From Basic Research to Molecular Breeding——Chinese Scientists Play A Central Role in Boosting World Rice Production

On November 18, 2018, the Future Science Prize Awarding Ceremony was held in Beijing. In the area of life science, Professors Jiayang Li, Longping Yuan, and Qifa Zhang shared the prize for their pioneering contributions in producing high-yield, superior-quality rice through systematic study of molecular mechanisms associated with speci?c rice features and application of novel approaches in rice breeding. The Future Science Prize is also touted as ‘‘China's Nobel Prize", fully af?rming their achievements in rice basic research and breeding.     

The aging of biomedical research in the United States

In the past 30 years, the average age of biomedical researchers has steadily increased. The average age of an investigator at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) rose from 39 to 51 between 1980 and 2008. The aging of the biomedical workforce was even more apparent when looking at first-time NIH grantees. The average age of a new investigator was 42 in 2008, compared to 36 in 1980. To determine if the rising barriers at NIH for entry in biomedical research might impact innovative ideas and research, we analyzed the research and publications of Nobel Prize winners from 1980 to 2010 to assess the age at which their pioneering research occurred. We established that in the 30-year period, 96 scientists won the Nobel Prize in medicine or chemistry for work related to biomedicine, and that their groundbreaking research was conducted at an average age of 41-one year younger than the average age of a new investigator at NIH. Furthermore, 78% of the Nobel Prize winners conducted their research before the age of 51, the average age of an NIH principal investigator. This suggested that limited access to NIH might inhibit research potential and novel projects, and could impact biomedicine and the next generation scientists in the United States.     

The birth of immunology. III. The fate of the phagocytosis theory.

During the period of 1895-1910, immunology was preoccupied with defining the cellular (Elie Metchnikoff's phagocytosis theory) as opposed to the humoral basis of bactericidal defense. Although initial discovery of immunopathologic phenomena had been made (e.g., relating to transplantation, autoimmunity, allergy), focus on microbicidal therapy and diagnosis of infectious diseases remained the major stimuli of inquiry. The debate concerning the relative roles of phagocytes, complement, amboceptors (sensibilizing factors, antibody, antitoxins), various lysins (e.g., bacteriolysins, spermatolysins, hemolysins), agglutinins, stimulines, and then Almoth Wright's opsonins reflects the ambiguity of a scientific language being created in an era still struggling with a poorly defined experimental system, for the language, both its vocabulary (newly studied phenomena) and grammar (operational mechanisms) was yet to be codified. The joint award of the Nobel Prize to Metchnikoff and Paul Ehrlich in 1908 for their respective contributions to the "theory of immunity" appeared to proclaim a consensus, but the secret Nobel Committee reports that evaluated Metchnikoff's contributions reveal only a grudging acceptance of his position, and the award was clearly made on the basis of an apparent complementarity between the theoretical views of the humoralists and those elements of the phagocytosis theory that fit the then current discussion of immunity. In this regard, opsonins played an especially important role as both an experimental and conceptual bridge between the competing schools. What was no longer under consideration (and in fact never was explicitly debated) concerned the intellectual foundation of Metchnikoff's original concept of immunity as those activities that defined organismal identity, (developed from Metchnikoff's research in developmental biology) and which regarded host defense mechanisms as only subordinate to this primary function. Immunology in the first half of the 20th century pursued issues pertinent to chemically characterizing immune specificity and only later returned to the Metchnikovian question of how the immune identity was established. This latter venture has achieved molecular sophistication, but even such a formulation may be an inadequate answer to the Metchnikovian postulate. The theoretical discussion between cellularists and humoralists continues in new guises, for the essential debate remains unresolved.     

触觉受体NOMPC及听觉受体TMC的发现

人类感觉包括:视觉、听觉、嗅觉、味觉、触觉,还有温觉、痛觉等.生物体是如何感知物理世界的问题一直吸引着人类,虽然在不同感知觉受体的发现及研究过程中不断取得新的突破性进展,但是对这些感知觉基础生物学层面的理解仍然有限.2021年度诺贝尔生理学或医学奖授予感知觉研究领域,以表彰David Julius和Ardem Pata...     

Claude Fortier: the great history of neuroendocrinology

The work of Claude Fortier is linked to the history of neuroendocrinology. Through him and his pioneer work in Montreal with Hans Selye, the < Man of stress >, and at Laval University in Quebec City in his own laboratory, where all researchers involved in the study of the hypothalamo-hypophysial adrenal axis have been through, it is the whole saga of the search for the neuropeptide CRH (corticotropin releasing factor), and the harsh fight for the Nobel distinction that can be related. Among Claude Fortier's scientific discoveries, the feedback mechanisms of glucocorticoid hormones on brain and pituitary function, the presence of both mineralo and glucocorticoid receptors in some brain structures, and the introduction of computer science in biomedical research, can be cited. The consequences of these discoveries are illustrated in the pathologies linked to stress (anxiety, depression, addiction). Claude Fortier was not only a great figure in biomedical science, honored by several distinctions, but also an important personality in the policy of research in which he played a prominent role in Quebec medical research and allowed it to rank among the best in the world.     

Telomeres: the beginnings and ends of eukaryotic chromosomes

The ends of eukaryotic chromosomes are called telomeres. This article provides a short history of telomere and telomerase research starting with the pioneering work of Muller and McClintock through the molecular era of telomere biology. These studies culminated in the 2009 Nobel Prize in Medicine. Critical findings that moved the field forward and that suggest directions for future research are emphasized.     

科学史视角下的“基因工程”课程思政探索与实践

课程思政是新时期高校思想政治教育的重要途径之一。科学史记载了科学知识从产生到持续发展的过程,蕴含着丰富的育人价值,能够为专业课的课程思政教学提供新的视角和思路。本文从科学史丰富的育人价值中选择科学精神、科学思维、科学兴趣和科学伦理4个方面的素材;依托"基因工程"课程内容,对有关诺贝尔奖的科学史进行梳理;然后,以4个方面的素材为育人载体,深挖其中蕴含的思政元素,通过实施课程思政教学,帮助学生达成课程思政目标;最后,综合运用问卷和深度访谈相结合的方式评价教学效果。借此引领学生树立正确的价值观,提高思想政治水平,以期为生物学专业的课程思政体系建设提供参考。     

Profit (p)-Index: The Degree to Which Authors Profit from Co-Authors

Current metrics for estimating a scientist’s academic performance treat the author’s publications as if these were solely attributable to the author. However, this approach ignores the substantive contributions of co-authors, leading to misjudgments about the individual’s own scientific merits and consequently to misallocation of funding resources and academic positions. This problem is becoming the more urgent in the biomedical field where the number of collaborations is growing rapidly, making it increasingly harder to support the best scientists. Therefore, here we introduce a simple harmonic weighing algorithm for correcting citations and citation-based metrics such as the h-index for co-authorships. This weighing algorithm can account for both the nvumber of co-authors and the sequence of authors on a paper. We then derive a measure called the ‘profit (p)-index’, which estimates the contribution of co-authors to the work of a given author. By using samples of researchers from a renowned Dutch University hospital, Spinoza Prize laureates (the most prestigious Dutch science award), and Nobel Prize laureates in Physiology or Medicine, we show that the contribution of co-authors to the work of a particular author is generally substantial (i.e., about 80%) and that researchers’ relative rankings change materially when adjusted for the contributions of co-authors. Interestingly, although the top University hospital researchers had the highest h-indices, this appeared to be due to their significantly higher p-indices. Importantly, the ranking completely reversed when using the profit adjusted h-indices, with the Nobel laureates having the highest, the Spinoza Prize laureates having an intermediate, and the top University hospital researchers having the lowest profit adjusted h-indices, respectively, suggesting that exceptional researchers are characterized by a relatively high degree of scientific independency/originality. The concepts and methods introduced here may thus provide a more fair impression of a scientist’s autonomous academic performance.     

Julius Wagner-Jauregg and the Legacy of Malarial Therapy for the Treatment of General Paresis of the Insane

Julius Wagner-Jauregg, a preeminent Austrian psychiatrist was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1927 for the development of malaria therapy for the treatment of neurosyphilis, or general paresis of the insane. Despite being only one of three psychiatrists to win a Nobel Prize, he has faded from public consciousness and his name recognition pales in comparison to his contemporary and fellow Austrian, Sigmund Freud. This paper explores his contributions to the field of biological psychiatry and also touches upon reasons, such as the growing bioethics movement, his controversial affiliation with the Nazi Party, and the evolution of neurosyphilis, that explain why Wagner-Jauregg is not more widely celebrated for his contributions to the field of psychiatry, even though his malarial treatment could be considered the earliest triumph of biological psychiatry over psychoanalysis.     

The life and legacy of Marie Curie

Marie Curie was a remarkable woman whose discoveries broke new ground in physics and chemistry and also opened the door for advances in engineering, biology, and medicine. She broke new ground for women in science: she was, for example, the first woman to receive a doctor of science degree in France, the first woman to win Nobel Prize, the first woman to lecture at the Sorbonne, the first person to win two Nobel Prizes, and the first Nobel Laureate whose child also won a Nobel Prize. Her life offers insights into the changing role of women in science and academia over the past century. It also offers examples of many ways in which scientists can, and should, work to improve the educational programs and career opportunities available to those who follow in their footsteps.     

The bacteriophage, its role in immunology: how Macfarlane Burnet's phage research shaped his scientific style

The Australian scientist Frank Macfarlane Burnet-winner of the Nobel Prize in 1960 for his contributions to the understanding of immunological tolerance-is perhaps best recognized as one of the formulators of the clonal selection theory of antibody production, widely regarded as the 'central dogma' of modern immunology. His work in studies in animal virology, particularly the influenza virus, and rickettsial diseases is also well known. Somewhat less known and publicized is Burnet's research on bacteriophages, which he conducted in the first decade of his research career, immediately after completing medical school. For his part, Burnet made valuable contributions to the understanding of the nature of bacteriophages, a matter of considerable debate at the time he began his work. Reciprocally, it was while working on the phages that Burnet developed the scientific styles, the habits of mind and laboratory techniques and practices that characterized him for the rest of his career. Using evidence from Burnet's published work, as well as personal papers from the period he worked on the phages, this paper demonstrates the direct impact that his experiments with phages had on the development of his characteristic scientific style and approaches, which manifested themselves in his later career and theories, and especially in his thinking regarding various immunological problems.     

DNA修复——基因组稳定性护卫机制的原创与发现之旅

基因组DNA是遗传的物质基础,编码的信息指导生物种系的复制延续、生命体的生长发育和代谢活动。无论是在外环境因素的应激压力下还是处于正常状态,DNA损伤时刻在发生,由此,DNA损伤修复作为重要的细胞内在机制,在维护基因组稳定性、降低癌症等人类系列重大疾病风险中发挥了不可替代作用。三位科学家汤姆·林达尔(Tomas Lindahl)、阿齐兹·桑贾尔（Aziz Sancar）、保罗·莫德里奇（Paul Modrich）因发现和揭示DNA修复及其机制的杰出贡献,获得2015年诺贝尔化学奖。本文综述了三位获奖者分别在DNA损伤的碱基切除修复、核苷酸切除修复和错配修复研究中的原创发现,以及相应的修复通路机制的描绘。此3种修复通路,主要是针对紫外线和化学物所致DNA的碱基损伤、嘧啶二聚体及加合物或者DNA复制过程中发生的碱基错误配对的修复。恰巧,2015年拉斯克基础医学研究奖授予的两位科学家,也因他们揭示了DNA损伤应答现象和机制研究的重大贡献而获奖,本文也呈现了获奖者的关键性科学发现。最后,简要展望了中国DNA损伤修复领域的发展。     

Brain plasticity and mental processes: Cajal again

The year 2006 marks the 100th anniversary of the first Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for studies in the field of the Neurosciences jointly awarded to Camillo Golgi and Santiago Ramón y Cajal for their key contributions to the study of the nervous system. This award represented the beginning of the modern era of neuroscience. Using the Golgi method, Cajal made fundamental, but often unappreciated, contributions to the study of the relationship between brain plasticity and mental processes. Here, I focus on some of these early experiments and how they continue to influence studies of brain plasticity.     

人类基因组计划与后基因组时代

2003年4月14日生命科学诞生了一个新的重要里程碑,人类基因组计划完成,后基因组时代正式来临。着重介绍了人类基因组计划的提出、目标与任务、实施与进展等方面的基本情况,讨论了后基因组时代的时间界定,分析展望了后基因组时代与人类基因组计划密切相关的生物信息学、功能基因组学、蛋白质组学、药物基因组学等几个重要研究领域 。     

新世纪中推动生物科学发展的“Bio-X”

近二年国际上正掀起建立以生物科学为中心的交叉学科研究中心或研究所等实体的热潮。其中最引入注目的是美国斯坦福大学以诺贝尔物理学奖获得者朱棣文教授等人组建的“Bio-X”研究中心。Bio-X中的Bio为生物学,X泛指物理学、化学、工程学、医学等其它学科,在新世纪到来之时,生物科学中有不少迅速发展的领域迫切需要多学科交叉共同研究和参与,特别是：后基因组、基于同步辐射的结构生物学、单分子测量、纳米技术、脑科学、生物医学工程等。     

Herbgenomics: A stepping stone for research into herbal medicine

From the prehistoric era until the publishing of the Compendium of Materia Medica and the first scientific Nobel Prize in the Chinese mainland for Tu's discovery on anti-malarial tablets, each milestone and stepping stone in the developmental history of herbal medicine involved intrepid exploration, bold hypothesis formulation, and cautious verification. After thousands of years of discovery and development, herbal research has entered a new era—the era of herbgenomics. Herbgenomics combines herbal and genomic research, bridging the gap between traditional herbal medicine and cutting-edge omics studies. Therefore, it provides a general picture of the genetic background of traditional herbs, enabling researchers to investigate the mechanisms underlying the prevention and treatment of human diseases from an omics perspective.     

The first water channel protein (later called aquaporin 1) was first discovered in Cluj-Napoca, Romania.

This invited review briefly outlines the importance of membrane water permeability, highlights the landmarks leading to the discovery of water channels. After a decade of systematic studies on water channels in human RBC Benga's group discovered in 1985 the presence and location of the water channel protein among the polypeptides migrating in the region of 35-60 kDa on the electrophoretogram of RBC membrane proteins. The work was extended and reviewed in several articles. In 1988, Agre and coworkers isolated a new protein from the RBC membrane, nick-named CHIP28 (channel-forming integral membrane protein of 28 kDa). However, in addition to the 28 kDa component, this protein had a 35-60 kDa glycosylated component, the one detected by the Benga's group. Only in 1992 Agre's group suggested that "it is likely that CHIP28 is a functional unit of membrane water channels". Half of the 2003 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Peter Agre (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA) "for the discovery of water channels", actually the first water channel protein from the human red blood cell (RBC) membrane, known today as aquaporin 1 (AQP1). The seminal contributions from 1986 of the Benga's group were grossly overlooked by Peter Agre and by the Nobel Prize Committee. Thousands of science-related professionals from hundreds of academic and research units, as well as participants in several international scientific events, have signed as supporters of Benga; his priority is also mentioned in several comments on the 2003 Nobel Prize.     

Beyond the genome: Reconstituting the new genetics

The mapping and sequencing of the human genome has been the 'Holy Grail' of the new genetics, and its publication marks a turning point in the development of modern biotechnology. However, the question remains: what has been the impact of this discovery on how biotechnology develops in science, and in society at large? Using concepts developed in the social studies of science and technology, the paper begins by rehearsing the historical development of the Human Genome Project (HGP), and suggests that its translation into genomics has been achieved through a process of 'black-boxing' to ensure stabilization. It continues by exploring the extent to which the move to genomics is part of a paradigm shift in biotechnology resulting from the conceptual and organizational changes that have occurred following the completion of HGP. The discussion then focuses on whether genomics can be seen as part of the development of socially robust knowledge in late modernity. The paper suggests that there is strong evidence that a transformation is indeed taking place. It concludes by sketching a social scientific agenda for investigating the reconstitution of the new genetics in a post-genomic era using a 'situated' analytic approach based on an understanding of techno-scientific change as both emergent and contingent.