Can you spot the error in the opening paragraph?
Splitting Heirs
Each of these boxes holds the early signs of new human life. The video shows blastomeres – the cells formed from a fertilized egg – dividing at first into two cells, then two into four. Cell division at this delicate stage must be precise: the DNA received just hours ago from mother and father must be split equally between dividing cells. Unequal division, known as aneuploidy, can lead to birth defects or diseases in later life. DNA inside some of these blastomeres is breaking off into unequal fragments (see the troubled blastomere in the centre of the bottom row). The overlaid coloured spots show a computer program scanning the blastomeres for such fragments – effectively screening for ‘faulty’ embryos. Knowing which embryos are likely to develop healthily prior to injection into the uterus could increase the success of future IVF treatments and decrease the risk of miscarriage during pregnancy.
Written by John Ankers
—
- Renee Reijo Pera
- Stanford University, USA
- Originally published under Creative Commons (CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0)
- Published in Nature Communications 3: 1251
Pee-Brain
When we’re born we have the potential to become anything from an astronaut to a zookeeper, but as we grow up our options narrow. The same is true of cells, with stem cells representing that time in our life when anything is possible. A stem cell can transform into any cell the body requires (such as neurons, pictured) - a trait that scientists are keen to harness to treat disease. The adult human body doesn’t have an ample supply of stem cells, so efforts are underway to convert mature, specialised cells into induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. Scientists have already succeeded using viral DNA that wheedles itself into the mature cell’s genome to reprogramme it. Now a potentially safer way has been developed. Cells from urine were infected with bacterial DNA, which didn’t disrupt the cells’ genome but still converted them into iPS cells. These were then nurtured into neurons.
Written by Lux Fatimathas
—
- Research published in Nature Methods 2012
- Image available under Creative Commons Licence (CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0), Courtesy Rakesh Karmacharya, Wellcome Images
It’s not magic but it’s pretty darn close.
How a molecular biologist proposes! So cute.
DNA amplified to different sized fragments via the polymerase chain reaction, and then seperated by size on a gel. I bet this isn’t that hard actually. I just got a Valentine’s Day idea for my lady :) Time to design some romantic DNA.
I think more people should get creative with their science, no?
(via a very awesome person who uploaded this to imgur and should be married forever)
Not very hard at all Joe but credit to them for thinking about it, aw nerds.
Plasmid Insertion Yeast
A solid piece of documentary/supplementary footage from the John Hopkins University iGEM team nicely illustrates the role a plasmid plays in genetically modifying this organism.
Also, check out their entry video. It’s notable for several things mainly it’s high production values and the teams use of a yeast rather than a bacterium.
Basically iGEM is where all the best nerds are at these days.
I’m not an angry man but a new analysis of the structure of DNA using electron microscopy made me cross yesterday. It wasn’t the fault of the scientists involved, but the sloppy way the result was reported that got my scientific goat. The structure of DNA was first determined almost 60 years ago by Watson’s and Crick’s famous analysis of the scattering patterns recorded by Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin as they fired beams of X-rays at narrow fibres of the stuff. We have had a long time to refine and digest this result so I was surprised to run across so much inaccurate information in the internet digests of the new finding, reported in the journal Nano Letters by an Italian group led by Enzo di Fabrizio. The web-site io9.com headlined George Dvorsky’s piece “Scientists snap a picture of DNA’s double helix for the very first time.” No, they hadn’t. The accompanying article interspersed fact with fancy before finally concluding that the new imaging technique would enable us to see “how it interacts with proteins and RNA”. No, it won’t. I’ll explain why in a minute but first let’s look at New Scientist’s coverage of the same paper. This was a more measured and more accurate account of the new result but the piece got off to a bad start. Roland Pease’s article claimed that “an electron microscope has captured the famous Watson-Crick double helix in all its glory.” But it clearly hadn’t. The accompanying image was fuzzy and did not show a double helix that resembled the one described by Watson and Crick. (via You can’t see DNA unless you look properly | Science | guardian.co.uk)
When Steven Benner set out to re-engineer genetic molecules, he didn’t think much of DNA. “The first thing you realize is that it is a stupid design,” says Benner, a biological chemist at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution in Gainesville, Florida…
Over the past few decades, they have tinkered with DNA’s basic building blocks and developed a menagerie of exotic letters beyond A, T, C and G that can partner up and be copied in similar ways. But the work has presented “one goddamn problem after another”, says Benner. So far, only a few of these unnatural base pairs can be inserted into DNA consecutively, and cells are still not able to fully adopt the foreign biochemistry…
For such a “stupid design”, it has worked wonders. This is a fantastic read.
Julia Galef, president and co-founder of the Center for Applied Rationality, describes humanity as slave to its own genes: that is, people exist solely to perpetuate their DNA. Furthermore, she argues, we have to contend with the fact that “the genes don’t care about us.”
It’s silly to claim that “our genes don’t care” or that “our genes don’t care about strangers on the other side of the world” or that genes don’t care “about the distant future of humanity.” I mean yes genes don’t care but this is because the simplistic, anachronistic, and contradictory conceptual frameworks provided by the favored child of the European Enlightenment, applied reason, lends itself to the aforementioned.
For example, what does it mean to assert that at the molecular lever our genes don’t care but that at an individual level we do care? Where does one stop and the other begin? In addition, how does one negotiate this conflict with Julia’s underlying notion that humanity is a slave to its genes?
The video features an interesting concluding quote from a book by Keith Stanovich that states, “If you don’t want to be the captive of your genes, then you had better be rational.” Not much of a thought to be quite honest. After all, how does one apply rationality to technologies address this “problem” while also addressing the expected complex, difficult and unpredictable social, economic and cultural conditions that arise from these technological “solutions”?
In my opinion, you can’t. At least not through traditional frameworks.
