Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

入得谷来,祸福自求。
Post Reply
Isabella2009
Posts: 100
Joined: 2009-04-14 14:37

Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by Isabella2009 » 2011-04-22 7:25

Cell
Volume 145, Issue 2, 15 April 2011, Pages 167, 169
Royal Wedding

Available online 14 April 2011.

On Friday the 29th of April, 2011, England's Prince William will marry the graceful and poised Miss Catherine Middleton in London's hallowed Westminster Abbey. As the world tunes in to watch the “wedding of the century,” Cell Culture explores the more biological aspects of this historic union, including the neurocircuits that strengthen a marriage, the epigenetic changes that transform a “commoner” into a queen, and the search process for finding a high-affinity partner in a sea of weak interactions.

Finding “The One”
A decade ago, when Prince William announced that he was enrolling at the University of St. Andrews, its number of female applicants rose by 85%, reflecting his status at the time as the world's most eligible bachelor. Although few can relate to William's particular challenge of searching for a future bride amidst such an overwhelming number of would-be princesses, his problem was reminiscent of a dilemma that confronts transcription factors, which must scan extraordinarily long stretches of DNA to find appropriate targets at which to initiate gene expression.

Using-single molecule imaging, Tafvizi et al. (2011) have recently revealed the intricacies of how the tumor suppressor p53 optimizes its search for sequence-specific binding sites. They examine the movement of recombinant proteins along DNA and tease apart the distinct roles of p53's two DNA-binding regions: a core domain that mediates sequence-specific binding and a C-terminal domain that binds DNA nonspecifically. They show that a recombinant protein that consists of only the C-terminal domain slides along DNA very quickly—much faster than full-length p53—and then show that a protein consisting of just the core DNA-binding domain does not slide at all. Given these results, the authors propose that p53 might alternate between different conformational modes, a fast “search” mode (to quickly scan many candidates) and a stalled “recognition” mode (reserved for the most promising sites). They also show that, even though the core domain does not slide, it can still move between different sites via a “hopping” mechanism, meaning that it becomes fully disengaged from the DNA before finding another binding site. They propose a model, consistent with prior theoretical work, in which p53 optimizes its quest for sequence-specific binding sites by spending part of its time scanning linear DNA segments and part of its time hopping in three-dimensional space between different regions of the genome.

Tafvizi, A., et al. (2011). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 563–568.


My Fair Larvae
Kate Middleton's middle-class upbringing in Berkshire has been much talked about, and in many circles, it is celebrated as a sign of increasing harmony between the social classes. By choosing their future queen from amongst the commoners, the Britons are taking a cue from another successful eusocial group: the honeybees (Apis mellifera). When honeybees need a new queen, they select larvae, which would otherwise become ordinary worker bees, and feed them a sustained diet of “royal jelly,” which transforms the larvae into queens. Characterizing the molecular mechanisms underlying this transformation has provided surprising new insight into how dietary factors impact the epigenome.

To learn about the reprogramming magic of royal jelly, Kucharski et al. (2008) used RNA interference to reduce expression of known epigenetic regulators. Remarkably, the loss of a single factor, the DNA cytosine-5-methyltransferase 3 (Dnmt3) initiates queen development. Among the effects of Dnmt3 downregulation is a massive expansion of ovarian tissue, which allows a queen to fulfill its role as mother to the hive. In a subsequent study, Lyko et al. (2010) examined the genomic distribution of methylcytosine in brain tissue from queens and workers. They found a correlation between changes in methylcytosine near splice sites, suggesting that alternative splicing could be one consequence of altered methyltransferase activity (Lyko et al., 2010).

Although it is still unclear what compound in royal jelly might affect the activity of methyltransferases, Sphannhoff et al. (2011) recently reported that one of its major constituents, the fatty acid (E)-10-hydroxy-2-decenoic acid (10HDA), might be a histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor. In an in vitro assay, the authors show that 10HDA recapitulates the effect of royal jelly on the expression of an epigenetically silenced Fas locus. Further work may explore the impact of 10DHA genome-wide on histone acetylation, including comparisons of acetylation patterns in workers and queens.

Kucharski, R., et al. (2008). Science 319, 1827–1830.

Lyko, F., et al. (2010). PLoS Biology 8, e1000506.

Spannhoff, A., et al. (2011). EMBO Reports 12, 238-243.


‘Til Vasopressin Do Us Part
The royal wedding may become the most watched television event in history, with some estimates suggesting that the worldwide audience could reach 2 billion viewers. But when you strip away all of the pageantry and attention, the wedding is in essence like all others: a public announcement of commitment and a vow to foster a lifelong bond.

Although the biochemical factors underlying monogamous courtships in humans are still quite mysterious, studies in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) point to vasopressin signaling as a critical player in nuptial harmony.

Prairie voles engage in a lifelong monogamous relationship after mating. But when vasopressin signaling in the brain is blocked, male voles eschew their preference for a single partner (Winslow et al., 1993). More recently, Gobrogge et al. (2009) uncovered one way in which vasopressin signaling translates into “good” spousal behavior. They demonstrated that increasing the expression of vasopressin receptors in the anterior hypothalamus of male voles promotes aggression towards females who are not their chosen partners. Furthermore, activating these receptors in virgin males causes them to act as though they had already mated, increasing their aggression against new females.

Might the vasopressin system be contributing to the durability of Kate and William's bond? Genetic evidence in humans suggests that it could. Walum et al. (2008) report an association between a polymorphic repeat sequence upstream of the gene encoding the vasopressin receptor 1a (AVPR1A) and pair-bonding behavior in humans. In particular, men with the RS3 334 allele are significantly more likely to score lower on measures of commitment and relationship stability. This includes a higher incidence of self-reported relationship conflict and a lower likelihood of being married as opposed to cohabitating. Although these findings raise the intriguing possibility that monogamy in voles and humans could have similar molecular and neural underpinnings, what effects the human RS3 334 allele might have on the expression or regulation of AVPR1A is a topic for ongoing study.

Gobrogge, K.L., et al. (2009). PNAS 106, 19144–19149.

Walum, H. et al. (2008). PNAS 105, 14153–14156.

Winslow, J.T., et al. (1993). Nature 365, 545–548.


The Sovereign Head
In joining the royal family, Kate will stand in line to become England's sixth Queen Catherine, a duty for which she will undoubtedly be well suited. However, her namesakes that reigned in darker days have often not fared well, perhaps most famously Catherine Howard, fifth wife of Henry VIII, who was beheaded after being caught in an adulterous affair with one of the king's courtiers.

Although we reflexively recoil at the thought of beheading, for some species, it is only an unfortunate mishap. The freshwater polyp Hydra, for example, can regenerate head structures after being cut in half (midgastric bisection). Chera et al. (2009) show that this remarkable ability relies on the upregulation of the secreted morphogen Wnt3 at the wound site, which triggers proliferation of neighboring cells that then initiate the head regeneration program. Surprisingly, Wnt3 comes from cells that are undergoing apoptosis. Apoptosis does not, however, occur at the other side of the wound (that is, the one that regrows a foot), and their evidence suggests that apoptosis is a critical cue for the process of head regeneration. Remarkably, if apoptosis is experimentally induced on the other side of the wound, Wnt signaling is initiated, leading to the growth of an ectopic head where a foot should be. It remains an interesting unanswered question why apoptosis is selectively trigged only on the side of the wound that regenerates the head.

Chera, S., et al. (2009). Dev. Cell 17, 279–289.
Image

Image

Isabella2009
Posts: 100
Joined: 2009-04-14 14:37

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by Isabella2009 » 2011-04-22 7:26

介绍一下背景,Cell是生物界顶尖三大杂志之一,另两是Science和Nature。实际上我对Cell的尊敬更多些。Science和Nature 还发表其它自然科学的论文,也会有一些政策啊社会环境啊之类的讨论,有点儿Magazine的味道。而Cell一惯走的是journal路线,发的是正经扎实的生物学文章,每一篇都跟砖头似的不带一点儿水份。所以看到Cell也来恶搞特别好玩儿。

如果留心看引用文章的发表日期,不少是几年前的而不是最新研究成果, 所以根本不是什么leading edge。

还有那个cell culture 也很好笑,cell culture 是体外细胞培养,和下面几个论题一毛钱关系也没有,肯定是看上了culture这个词儿。

Jun
Posts: 27816
Joined: 2003-12-15 11:43

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by Jun » 2011-04-22 7:56

这些短篇把基础生物学研究和现实生活结合起来,说明科学跟普通人的生活息息相关,虽然幽默但也有科普的作用,我喜欢。

之前就听说过八卦,vasopressin 的作用在男性体内似乎对应 oxytocin 在女性体内的作用 --- 当然不是催产,而是产生爱恋的感觉。以后情人节不必买花买巧克力了,而是互相注射vasopressin(男)和 oxytocin(女)。 :love011:
此喵已死,有事烧纸

Isabella2009
Posts: 100
Joined: 2009-04-14 14:37

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by Isabella2009 » 2011-04-22 8:02

我只看到八卦看不到科--一定是我太八卦了 :monkey001:

Jun
Posts: 27816
Joined: 2003-12-15 11:43

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by Jun » 2011-04-22 8:56

我觉得我更八,对我来说所有的东西都是八卦的材料,prairie voles(野豚鼠乎?蚕博?)就又可爱又可八。 :lol: 改天大肠杆菌说不定又闹出啥诽闻上报了涅。

Image
此喵已死,有事烧纸

Isabella2009
Posts: 100
Joined: 2009-04-14 14:37

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by Isabella2009 » 2011-04-22 9:16

Jun wrote:这些短篇把基础生物学研究和现实生活结合起来,说明科学跟普通人的生活息息相关,
什么息息相关,其实八竿子打不着,但总得绕来绕去拉上点儿关系大众才有兴趣看。 :cat88:

Jun
Posts: 27816
Joined: 2003-12-15 11:43

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by Jun » 2011-04-22 9:31

Tumor suppression 的机制跟癌症有关,vasopressin 跟恋爱和人际关系有关,怎么能说毫无关系呢?

很多人不一定有兴趣知道自己的身体是怎样工作以及为何出毛病,但无知不等于无关,我认为。
此喵已死,有事烧纸

tiffany
Posts: 24708
Joined: 2003-11-22 20:59

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by tiffany » 2011-04-22 9:46

知道了其实也没用,咳咳。
说真的,这个自身免疫系统出了问题,自己跟自己过意不去,真是最无解的事情啊。
乡音无改鬓毛衰

Isabella2009
Posts: 100
Joined: 2009-04-14 14:37

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by Isabella2009 » 2011-04-22 9:58

说起来虽然是基本原理,到实际应用其实非常复杂,最后和原理相去甚远。
这篇里的什么蜂后呀豚鼠呀和人体机制实在可以说没嘛关系, 到真能用到人身上得牛年马月。
我不是说科普没用,而是科普得带上个面具才能吸引人看。

Jun
Posts: 27816
Joined: 2003-12-15 11:43

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by Jun » 2011-04-22 12:23

tiffany wrote:知道了其实也没用,咳咳。
说真的,这个自身免疫系统出了问题,自己跟自己过意不去,真是最无解的事情啊。
有用有解,在实验室里克隆出人造抗体,专门"吸掉"体内敌我不分的抗体,就可以有很好的治疗效果,早就被成千上万的病人用了。懂一点免疫生理化学帮助了解用什么药有什么效果和副作用。

没有基础研究哪来的应用,世界上有大把纳德(例如我)对基础科学的 incremental knowledge 有兴趣。今天两眼一擦黑的事情,慢慢研究可以知道更多又更多。试验室里的老鼠蜜蜂细菌乃至半死半活的病毒,都是跟人类的福祸直接联系在一起的,远的不说,没有霉菌就没有青霉素。
此喵已死,有事烧纸

Isabella2009
Posts: 100
Joined: 2009-04-14 14:37

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by Isabella2009 » 2011-04-22 12:30

这个以前讨论过,搞科学的其实看不上搞科普的,不够严谨,好的科普总得在简单明白和趣味性方面下点儿工夫--一旦加了佐料就不是正经科学了。

再说一遍,科普很重要,但你别指望内行的科学家认同科普的内容。

还有Jun你对"相关"两字和我的定义不同,你的是哲学社会学上的定义。

Isabella2009
Posts: 100
Joined: 2009-04-14 14:37

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by Isabella2009 » 2011-04-22 12:41

最后说明一点,这一篇发在顶级专业杂志上,恶搞寻开心的意思实在比科普的意思多。

silkworm
Posts: 4776
Joined: 2004-01-09 20:45

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by silkworm » 2011-04-22 13:05

科学和科普是俩东西,科普当然得建立在科学上,做的时候更要严格要求尽量严谨,但是内行搞科学的未见得会做好的科普,看不上科普只能说很遗憾。要是至于这么“端着”的科学家互相讲内行话,看不上科普这事儿,那也难怪非行内人容易信怪力乱神及其它了。

这种恶搞比科普有意思多了???内行的科学家会不会觉得顶级杂志这么恶搞太低级趣味呢?

Isabella2009
Posts: 100
Joined: 2009-04-14 14:37

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by Isabella2009 » 2011-04-22 13:11

...的意思多,不是有意思的多! :BloodyK: :BloodyK: :BloodyK:

Isabella2009
Posts: 100
Joined: 2009-04-14 14:37

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by Isabella2009 » 2011-04-22 13:31

我很有钻研精神地跑去看Cell的旧杂志,原来还真有个Leading Edge下的 Cell Culture专栏,每半年出一次发科普文章。好吧我错了。一个爱讲冷笑话的人总以为别人也在讲冷笑话。 :crying:

Image

Image

Image

Image

Jun
Posts: 27816
Joined: 2003-12-15 11:43

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by Jun » 2011-04-22 13:41

玩幽默Cell 的确比很多英国医学期刊差远了去了。我推荐过很多次BMJ的圣诞/新年特刊,又科学又实用又幽默,每一样都很高明。

科学家、研究人员,我认识过不少,大多数倒是一点也不缺乏幽默感,而且并不"端着"。有科普记者问他们问题,几乎每一个都很愿意接受采访,把自己的研究成果让大众理解甚至关心。一方面他们也想让自己的发现造福大众,另一方面他们心里很清楚自己的科研需要钱,而钱来自非科研者(taxpayers, consumers, donors)。很多顶尖的科学家自己写科普书,或者跟科学记者合写科普书籍,例如脑神经+行为科学家 Antonio Dimasio,颇为畅销且造福大众。瞧不起科普记者,不屑跟大众对话的科学家肯定有,但是高傲的态度是否能代表事业上的成就,嘿嘿,我持怀疑态度。

在跟医学研究者打交道的过程中我观察到一个现象,很多人自己钻研一件非常专门的东西,满嘴跑马,专用名词一串一串,能把外行听众唬得一愣一愣的,但是如果我刨根问底地详细询问之下,他们并不能讲清楚这件东西到底有什么用处,或者专门的发现如何fit into the big picture。这样的人怎么能筹集到 venture capital 投资或者大笔 grants?倒是行内楚翘大拿,名字如雷灌耳的,常常思路清晰深入浅出,把复杂的技术内容讲得清清楚楚,科普记者照抄下来都能让大众看懂。越是解释不清楚的学者,我发现,越是自己的思路就很糊涂。而思路非常清楚的学者往往能轻而易举地解释复杂的概念。

所谓科普并不是教育小学生科学原理,除了给大众提供尽量准确的科学发现之外,其实也是一个十分重要的交流工具。Can you explain what you do and why it matters? 现在的科学研究分类非常细致,但是对跨专业交流合作的要求又特别高,一个实验室在做的东西,很可能同行学者都未必很懂,但是同行学者在搞的东西很可能会侧面帮助你的研究突飞猛进,你能不能把你的想法和研究简略扼要但又准确地表达清楚,是事业发展的重要一环。这年头哪有人还关起门来自己秘密地搞出惊动世界的大发现,都是合作出来的。

最好的科普书是第一手专门搞命题的科学家跟科普作者合作写的东西,或者是文笔思路都很强的科学家自己来写。Richard Dawkins, Oliver Sacks, Dimasio 是后者的代表例子。但是科研者中有写作天赋和能力的人很少。
Last edited by Jun on 2011-04-22 13:59, edited 1 time in total.
此喵已死,有事烧纸

Isabella2009
Posts: 100
Joined: 2009-04-14 14:37

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by Isabella2009 » 2011-04-22 13:58

倒是行内楚翘大拿,名字如雷灌耳的,常常思路清晰深入浅出,把复杂的技术内容讲得清清楚楚,科普记者照抄下来都能让大众看懂。
惟手熟尔

silkworm
Posts: 4776
Joined: 2004-01-09 20:45

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by silkworm » 2011-04-22 14:01

嘴熟。

Jun
Posts: 27816
Joined: 2003-12-15 11:43

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by Jun » 2011-04-22 14:03

嘴熟倒是没错,因为脑子和说话不清楚的人搞不到钱,只能在别人的实验室里给人打下手。手熟---写不清楚的人发表不了文章或者找不到合作,也被淘汰了。从找钱的角度来看,科学家的第一生存技能其实就是发现你的研究跟社会大环境有什么关联,没有这个能力最好能勾搭上一个科普作家帮你。

这是个先有鸡还是先有蛋的问题。我发现很多人讲不清楚,其实是因为他们自己脑子里本来就想不清楚。
此喵已死,有事烧纸

silkworm
Posts: 4776
Joined: 2004-01-09 20:45

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by silkworm » 2011-04-22 14:08

大体是这样,但也有例外口才不好的,炸弹奖获得者把观众都给讲瞌睡了。

tiffany
Posts: 24708
Joined: 2003-11-22 20:59

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by tiffany » 2011-04-22 14:36

嗯,是,那个发现艾滋病毒的家伙讲座,我就睡得很香。
乡音无改鬓毛衰

silkworm
Posts: 4776
Joined: 2004-01-09 20:45

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by silkworm » 2011-04-22 14:45

我们那次是那位发现RNA能当酶用的。

笑嘻嘻
Posts: 23308
Joined: 2003-11-22 18:00

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by 笑嘻嘻 » 2011-04-22 14:51

我就是路过打酱油的。
云浆未饮结成冰

simonsun
Posts: 2663
Joined: 2006-12-24 4:41

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by simonsun » 2011-04-23 3:51

生物界的看重Science和Nature吗?我们这一块在国内,据说发一篇就有评院士的资本。(但看看真发出来的文章,只是新,价值并不一定大。好多都没人引。)

Science和Nature因为是跨学科的,第一要求是要简洁明了。受过一定专业训练的科学工作者,即使非本行的文章,也能大致看个明白。好多文章都还配一个新闻通俗版在前头,算是高级科普。

因为是跨学科的定位,要简洁,所以每句话都是点到为止,惜字如金。article撑死了六七页,都不带多少术语的。而letter都是三四页,睡前阅读正好。 :mrgreen: (要晓得三四页的文章都是十几个人,两三年,几十个米搞出来的! :shock:
Violent delights.

silkworm
Posts: 4776
Joined: 2004-01-09 20:45

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by silkworm » 2011-04-23 21:55

simonsun wrote:而letter都是三四页,睡前阅读正好。
睡前阅读材料是Science和Nature,西门同学我敬佩你。

simonsun
Posts: 2663
Joined: 2006-12-24 4:41

Re: Royal Wedding from a Biologist's viewpoint

Post by simonsun » 2011-04-23 23:28

我是看看图啦。N和S的图非常精美。
Violent delights.

Post Reply