Streptomycin: discovery and resultant controversy

The antibiotic streptomycin was discovered soon after penicillin was introduced into medicine. Selman Waksman, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery, has since generally been credited as streptomycin's sole discoverer. However, one of Waksman's graduate students, Albert Schatz, was legally recognized as streptomycin's co-discoverer and received a share of the royalties from the drug. The aim of this essay is to discuss the streptomycin story, largely using previously unquoted archival material, and in particular to provide further evidence for the important role which Schatz played in the discovery.     

20th century at a glance: the streptomycin story

The discovery of streptomycin is attributed to a microbiologist, Selman Waksman, Nobel Prize 1952, a paternity that was disputed by his collaborator Albert Schatz, who was the first author of the princeps article. Two pioneering clinical studies involved streptomycin, both of which have been widely used as reference works. The first one was English, under the name of Austin Bradford Hill. It inaugurated a randomization in medicine. The second trial was American, and carried out by the Veteran Administration. It made use for the first time of the "control group". The present article analyses the genesis of clinical trials and illustrates the recurrent difficulties encountered in their implementation.     

In the autophagy trenches: The early research career of Russell L. Deter

Christian de Duve is considered to be one of the founding fathers of autophagy. After all, he coined the term, and he played an instrumental role in the discovery of the lysosome, for which he received the Nobel Prize. There is no question that de Duve is a stellar scientist, but who was the person in the trenches, doing the actual laboratory work in the lab that led to the initial papers on autophagy? Dr. Russell L. Deter wrote the first papers from the de Duve lab that deal with this topic. To get some insight into the origins of this field, I interviewed Dr. Deter, as detailed in this perspective.     

A conversation with John Sulston

Sir John Sulston was a co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2002. He won the prize for his discoveries concerning "genetic regulation of organ development and programmed cell death," along with his colleagues sydney Brenner and H. Robert Horvitz. Dr. Sulston was founding director of the Sanger Centre, Cambridge, England, which he headed from 1992 to 2000. From 1993 to 2000, he led the British arm of the international team selected to work on the Human Genome Project. He is co-author of the book The Common Thread: A Story of Science, Politics, Ethics, and the Human Genome, published by Joseph Henry Press in 2002.This interview was conducted on December 20, 2002, shortly after Dr. Sulston was awarded his Nobel Prize and was originally broadcast on that date on radio station WPKN-FM in Bridgeport, Connecticut. The interview was conducted by Valerie Richardson, the Managing Editor of The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.Dr. Sulston has been an outspoken advocate against letting the data from the Human Genome Project become property of commercial interests that would charge the world's scientific community for its use. Since leaving the Sanger Institute, he has worked with OxFam, the Oxford Campaign for Famine Relief.     

Phenotypic screening meets natural products in drug discovery†

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015 was awarded for discoveries related to the control of parasitic diseases using natural products of microbial and plant origin. In current drug discovery programs, synthesized compounds are widely used as a screening source; however, this award reminds us of the importance of natural products. Here, we introduce our phenotypic screening methods based on changes in cell morphology and discuss their effectiveness and impact for natural products in drug discovery.     

The telomere story or the triumph of an open-minded research

The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institute has decided to award The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2009 jointly to Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider and Jack W. Szostak for the discovery of "how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase". This discovery had major impacts within the scientific community and led to intense research in this field. All the studies performed are now the bases for future investigations and stimulate the development of potential new therapies.     

Evaluation of haemodynamics by cardiac catheterisation: historical perspective and present practice

In 1956, three men were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, in particular ''for their discoveries concerning heart catheterisation and pathological changes in the circulatory system''. Their names in alphabetical order: André F. Cournand, Werner Forssmann and Dickinson W. Richards. Forssmann''s experiment dated from 1929, while Cournand and Richards started their work in 1941. The order in which they presented their Nobel lectures on 11 December 1956 was Forssmann, Richards, Cournand.     

The ubiquitin-proteasome system

The 2004 Nobel Prize in chemistry for the discovery of protein ubiquitination has led to the recognition of cellular proteolysis as a central area of research in biology. Eukaryotic proteins targeted for degradation by this pathway are first ‘tagged’ by multimers of a protein known as ubiquitin and are later proteolyzed by a giant enzyme known as the proteasome. This article recounts the key observations that led to the discovery of ubiquitin-proteasome system (UPS). In addition, different aspects of proteasome biology are highlighted. Finally, some key roles of the UPS in different areas of biology and the use of inhibitors of this pathway as possible drug targets are discussed.     

机体的免疫反应是如何被激活的？——2011年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖解读

2011年10月3日,举世瞩目的 2011年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖在瑞典卡罗林斯卡医学院揭晓[1].因在免疫学领域取得杰出成就,美国科学家布鲁斯.博伊特勒(Bruce A.Beutler)、法国科学家朱尔斯.霍夫曼(Jules A.Hoffmann)和加拿大科学家拉尔夫.斯坦曼(Ralph M.Steinman),共同分享了这一     

Fifty-Year Old and Still Ticking.... An Interview with Emile Zuckerkandl on the 50th Anniversary of the Molecular Clock

In 1962, a young post-doctoral fellow and a prominent Nobel Prize winner, Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, published a seminal paper that described the relationship between the average number of aminoacid replacements and divergence time, known as the molecular clock (Zuckerkandl and Pauling 1962). Fifty years after the original publication, I was fortunate enough to interview Emile Zuckerkandl. We shared thoughts on his life and the historical events that led to the discovery of the molecular clock.     

A simple index for the high-citation tail of citation distribution to quantify research performance in countries and institutions

Background

Conventional scientometric predictors of research performance such as the number of papers, citations, and papers in the top 1% of highly cited papers cannot be validated in terms of the number of Nobel Prize achievements across countries and institutions. The purpose of this paper is to find a bibliometric indicator that correlates with the number of Nobel Prize achievements.

Methodology/Principal Findings

This study assumes that the high-citation tail of citation distribution holds most of the information about high scientific performance. Here I propose the x-index, which is calculated from the number of national articles in the top 1% and 0.1% of highly cited papers and has a subtractive term to discount highly cited papers that are not scientific breakthroughs. The x-index, the number of Nobel Prize achievements, and the number of national articles in Nature or Science are highly correlated. The high correlations among these independent parameters demonstrate that they are good measures of high scientific performance because scientific excellence is their only common characteristic. However, the x-index has superior features as compared to the other two parameters. Nobel Prize achievements are low frequency events and their number is an imprecise indicator, which in addition is zero in most institutions; the evaluation of research making use of the number of publications in prestigious journals is not advised.

Conclusion

The x-index is a simple and precise indicator for high research performance.     

The Nobel Prize as a Reward Mechanism in the Genomics Era: Anonymous Researchers,Visible Managers and the Ethics of Excellence

The Human Genome Project (HGP) is regarded by many as one of the major scientific achievements in recent science history, a large-scale endeavour that is changing the way in which biomedical research is done and expected, moreover, to yield considerable benefit for society. Thus, since the completion of the human genome sequencing effort, a debate has emerged over the question whether this effort merits to be awarded a Nobel Prize and if so, who should be the one(s) to receive it, as (according to current procedures) no more than three individuals can be selected. In this article, the HGP is taken as a case study to consider the ethical question to what extent it is still possible, in an era of big science, of large-scale consortia and global team work, to acknowledge and reward individual contributions to important breakthroughs in biomedical fields. Is it still viable to single out individuals for their decisive contributions in order to reward them in a fair and convincing way? Whereas the concept of the Nobel prize as such seems to reflect an archetypical view of scientists as solitary researchers who, at a certain point in their careers, make their one decisive discovery, this vision has proven to be problematic from the very outset. Already during the first decade of the Nobel era, Ivan Pavlov was denied the Prize several times before finally receiving it, on the basis of the argument that he had been active as a research manager (a designer and supervisor of research projects) rather than as a researcher himself. The question then is whether, in the case of the HGP, a research effort that involved the contributions of hundreds or even thousands of researchers worldwide, it is still possible to “individualise” the Prize? The “HGP Nobel Prize problem” is regarded as an exemplary issue in current research ethics, highlighting a number of quandaries and trends involved in contemporary life science research practices more broadly.     

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...     

Ottawa researchers enter home stretch in race to produce artificial heart

An Ottawa team is in a fierce race to produce an artificial heart. If it wins, the prize will be huge: a worldwide market worth billions of dollars. The team, led by Dr. Tofy Mussivand, brings together scientists and entrepreneurs. The goal is to produce a heart that improves patients'' quality of life and doesn''t leave them tethered to a machine in hospital. Current plans are to complete clinical tests by 2000 and to have a commercial product ready for market in 2001-2. Several other groups are also racing the clock.     

Natural products discovery from micro-organisms in the post-genome era†

With the decision to award the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to Drs. S. ōmura, W.C. Campbell, and Y. Tu, the importance and usefulness of natural drug discovery and development have been revalidated. Since the end of the twentieth century, many genome analyses of organisms have been conducted, and accordingly, numerous microbial genomes have been decoded. In particular, genomic studies of actinomycetes, micro-organisms that readily produce natural products, led to the discovery of biosynthetic gene clusters responsible for producing natural products. New explorations for natural products through a comprehensive approach combining genomic information with conventional methods show great promise for the discovery of new natural products and even systematic generation of unnaturally occurring compounds.     

1／4世纪的艾滋病毒研究——艾滋病毒的发现获得2008年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖

法国科学家弗朗索瓦丝·巴尔·西诺西和吕克·蒙塔尼因发现艾滋病毒而获得2008年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。本文简述了艾滋病毒的发现及25年来在HIV起源、致病、治疗和预防领域取得的研究进展。     

Diffusive insights: on the disagreement of Christian Bohr and August Krogh at the Centennial of the Seven Little Devils

The year 2010 is the centennial of the publication of the "Seven Little Devils" in the predecessor of Acta Physiologica. In these seven papers, August and Marie Krogh sought to refute Christian Bohr's theory that oxygen diffusion from the lungs to the circulation is not entirely passive but rather facilitated by a specific cellular activity substitute to secretion. The subjects of the present reevaluation of this controversy are Christian Bohr, Professor and Doctor of Medicine (1855-1911), nominated three times for the Nobel Prize; August Krogh, Doctor of Philosophy (1874-1949), Christian Bohr's assistant and later Nobel Prize laureate (1920); and Marie Krogh, née J?rgensen, Doctor of Medicine and wife of August Krogh (1874-1943). The controversy concerned is the transport of oxygen from the lungs into the bloodstream: are passive transport and diffusion capacity together sufficient to secure the oxygen supply in all circumstances or is there an additional specific ("energy consuming" or "active") mechanism responsible for the transport of oxygen from the alveoli into the bloodstream? The present discussion purports to show that the contestants' views were closer than the parties themselves and posterity recognized. Posterity has judged the dispute unilaterally from the Nobel laureate's point of view, but it is evident that August Krogh's Nobel Prize was awarded for the discovery of a cellular activity (Christian Bohr's expression), represented by Krogh's discovery of capillary recruitment. Christian Bohr appears to have been correct in the narrower sense that the diffusion capacity at rest is not great enough to explain the transport during work; a special mechanism intervenes and optimizes the conditions under which diffusion acts. August Krogh, of course, was right in the wider sense that the transport mechanism itself is always entirely passive.     

RNA interference: unraveling a mystery

Andrew Fire and Craig Mello have won the Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology for their discovery of RNA interference. Mary K. Montgomery, then a postdoc in the Fire laboratory, participated in some of the key experiments.