header logo image


Page 34«..1020..33343536..40..»

Archive for the ‘Genetics’ Category

Biology for Kids: Genetics – ducksters.com

Saturday, March 23rd, 2019

");}

Genetics is the study of genes and heredity. It studies how living organisms, including people, inherit traits from their parents. Genetics is generally considered part of the science of biology. Scientists who study genetics are called geneticists.

What are genes?

Genes are the basic units of heredity. They consist of DNA and are part of a larger structure called the chromosome. Genes carry information that determine what characteristics are inherited from an organism's parents. They determine traits such as the color of your hair, how tall you are, and the color of your eyes.

What are chromosomes?

Chromosomes are tiny structures inside cells made from DNA and protein. The information inside chromosomes acts like a recipe that tells cells how to function. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes for a total of 46 chromosomes in each cell. Other plants and animals have different numbers of chromosomes. For example, a garden pea has 14 chromosomes and an elephant has 56.

What is DNA?

The actual instructions inside the chromosome is stored in a long molecule called DNA. DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid.

Gregor Mendel is considered the father of the science of genetics. Mendel was a scientist during the 1800s who studied inheritance by experimenting with pea plants in his garden. Through his experiments he was able to show patterns of inheritance and prove that traits were inherited from the parents.

See original here:
Biology for Kids: Genetics - ducksters.com

Read More...

Genetics | The Institute for Creation Research

Friday, January 25th, 2019

For over 150 years, Darwins hypothesis that all species share a common ancestor has dominated the creation-evolution debate. Surprisingly, when Darwin wrote his seminal work, he had no direct evidence for these genealogical relationships. Now, with online databases full of DNA-sequence information from thousands of species, the direct testing of Darwins hypothesis has finally commenced. More...

Authentic speciation is a process whereby organisms diversify within the boundaries of their gene pools, and this can result in variants with specific ecological adaptability. While it was once thought that this process was strictly facilitated by DNA sequence variability, Darwin's classic example of speciation in finches now includes a surprisingly strong epigenetic component as well. More...

One of the rapidly expanding and exciting research fields in molecular biology is the area of epigenetics. In the study of epigenetic modifications, scientists analyze DNA that has been modified in such a way that its chemistry is changed, but not the actual base pairs that make up the genetic code of the sequence. Its like a separate control code and system imposed upon and within the standard code of DNA sequence.

Because epigenetic modifications in the genome are related to gene expression, researchers have been using highly advanced technologies for comparing these differences in humans and chimps for regions of the genome that they both have in common. More... More...

Living things develop partly according to genetic instructions encoded on their DNA. The study of inheritance has widened the paradigms from genes to genomes, and now recent research indicates that critical biological information is carried from one generation to the next in systems additional to DNA, called epigenetic factors.

So, where did this information come from? More...

Genes could be thought of as brick molds, used to construct materials for building the physical structures of living organisms. They carry the codes to help make proteins, which then make up different cells that are combined together to form mega-structures called tissues.

New research has shed more light on how genes are used by cells to build the different tissues needed by complex living creatures. More...

Indiana University researchers discovered that certain genes used in developing horned beetle larvae are re-used later to make horns in their adult stage. The studys authors called the genes co-opted, indicating their belief that evolution decided to give them a secondary use. The authors suggestion that gene co-opting offers a possible explanation for the development of novel traits comes up short, however. More...

One of the past arguments for evidence of biological evolution in the genome has been the concept of pseudogenes. These DNA sequences were once thought to be the defunct remnants of genes, representing nothing but genomic fossils in the genomes of plants and animals. More...

Amazingly, scientists documented the activity of 2,082 distinct pseudogenes in the human genome whose aberrant levels of activity were directly associated with cancer-specific pathologies. More...

Proteins do most of the required metabolic tasks within each of the trillions of cells in the human body. However, only about four percent of human DNA contains coded instructions that specify proteins.

So what is the purpose of the remaining 96 or so percent? More...

A research team recently characterized a group of genes in humans and other mammals that not only defies evolutionary models but vindicates the Bibles prediction of the uniqueness of created kinds with distinct genetic features. More...

Read more from the original source:
Genetics | The Institute for Creation Research

Read More...

Human Genetics – medschool.ucla.edu

Friday, January 11th, 2019

A hub of deep expertise, the Department of Human Genetics helps partners across UCLA interpret data and leverage genomic technology to improve study design and solve medical problems.

We demystify genetic complexities to provide vital insights for a range of clinical and research applications. We strive to improve the care of as many patients as possible by pushing our capabilities, developing novel ways to address unanswered questions.

Your next collaboration is right down the street.

Our enviable proximity to the worlds brightest scientific minds enables both thriving scheduled events and impromptu sidewalk powwows. A casual conversation during your coffee run could lead to your next big publication.

Come find out why innovation lives here.

LEARN MORE

Julian Martinez-Agosto, MD, PhDGenetic sequencing unravels rare disease mysteries; among the first medical centers to use exome sequencing.Learn More

Jingyi "Jessica" Li, PhDStatistics professor honored as a leading woman in STEM at the intersection of statistics and biology.Learn More

Aldons J. Lusis, PhDScientists identify 2 hormones that burn fat faster, prevent and reverse diabetes in mice.Learn More

Daniel Geschwind, MD, PhDAutism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder share molecular traits, study finds.Learn More

Here is the original post:
Human Genetics - medschool.ucla.edu

Read More...

My genetics – How I Recovered

Wednesday, September 19th, 2018

CYP1A1*2C A4889Grs1048943CTT-/-CYP1A1*4 C2453Ars1799814TGG-/-CYP1A2 C164Ars762551CAC+/-CYP1B1 L432Vrs1056836CCG+/-CYP1B1 N453Srs1800440CTT-/-CYP1B1 R48Grs10012CGG-/-CYP2A6*2 A1799Trs1801272TAA-/-CYP2C19*17rs12248560TCC-/-CYP2C9*2 C430Trs1799853TCC-/-CYP2C9*3 A1075Crs1057910CAA-/-CYP2D6 S486Trs1135840GGG+/+CYP2D6 T100Crs1065852AGG-/-CYP2D6 T2850Crs16947AAA+/+CYP2E1*1B G9896Crs2070676GCC-/-CYP2E1*4 A4768Grs6413419AGG-/-CYP3A4*1Brs2740574CTT-/-CYP3A4*3 M445Trs4986910GAA-/-CYPs are primarily membrane-associatedproteins located either in the inner membrane ofmitochondriaor in theendoplasmic reticulumof cells. CYPs metabolize thousands ofendogenousandexogenouschemicals. Some CYPs metabolize only one (or a very few) substrates, such asCYP19(aromatase), while others may metabolize multiple substrates. Both of these characteristics account for their central importance inmedicine. Cytochrome P450 enzymes are present in most tissues of the body, and play important roles inhormonesynthesis and breakdown includingestrogenandtestosteronesynthesis and metabolism,cholesterolsynthesis, andvitamin Dmetabolism. Cytochrome P450 enzymes also function to metabolize potentially toxic compounds, includingdrugsand products of endogenous metabolism such asbilirubin, principally in theliver.rs762551 (C) allele is a slow metabolizer or of certain substrates including caffeine which means Im more stimulated by it than most people.rs1056836 increases susceptibility to lung and breast cancer, blocks testosterone and inhibits mitochondrial function.rs1135840 is involved in the metabolism of approximately 25% of all medications and most psych meds including antipsychotics and antidepressants.GPX3rs8177412CTT-/-GSTM1rs12068997TCC-/-GSTM1rs4147565AGG-/-GSTM1rs4147567GAA-/-GSTM1rs4147568ATT-/-GSTM1rs1056806TCC-/-GSTM1rs12562055ATT-/-GSTM1rs2239892GAA-/-GSTP I105Vrs1695GAG+/-GSTP1 A114Vrs1138272TCC-/-GSTP genes encode the Glutathione S-transferase P enzyme. Glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) are a family of enzymes that play an important role in detoxification by catalyzing the conjugation of manyhydrophobic and electrophilic compounds with reducedglutathione. Mutations here will increase your need for glutathione and importance of chelating out mercury.rs1695 influences asthma risk.NAT1 A560G(?) (R187Q)rs4986782AGG-/-NAT2 A803G (K268R)rs1208GGG+/+NAT2 C190T (R64W)rs1805158TCC-/-NAT2 G590A (R197Q)rs1799930AGG-/-NAT2 G857A (G286E)rs1799931AGG-/-NAT2 T341C (I114T)rs1801280CCC+/+NAT2 encodes N-acetyltransferases which are enzymes acting primarily in the liver to detoxify a large number of chemicals, includingcaffeineand several prescribed drugs. The NAT2 acetylation polymorphism is important because of its primary role in the activation and/or deactivation of many chemicals in the bodys environment, including those produced by cigarettes as well as aromatic amine and hydrazine drugs used medicinally. In turn, this can affect an individualscancerrisk.I have a particular combination of NAT2 polymorphisms rs1801280 (C) +rs1208 (G) which makes me a slow metabolizer. In general, slow metabolizers have higher rates of certain types ofcancerand are more susceptible to side effects from chemicals (known as MCS) metabolized by NAT2.SOD2rs2758331AAA+/+SOD2rs2855262TCT+/-SOD2 A16Vrs4880GGG+/+SOD2 gene is a member of the iron/manganesesuperoxide dismutasefamily and may be one of the key sources of my troubles. This protein transforms toxic superoxide, a byproduct of the mitochondrial electron transport chain, intohydrogen peroxideand diatomicoxygen. In simpler terms, the more energy your mitochondria produce, the more byproducts (also called free radicals) get produced. These toxic byproducts tear up cell membranes and walls through a process called oxidative stress.Mutations in the SOD2 gene diminish your ability to transform these toxic byproducts into harmless components. People with SOD2 polymorphisms may not tolerate nitrates or fish oil well. Mutations in this gene have been associated withidiopathic cardiomyopathy(IDC), sporadic motor neuron disease, and cancer.

Now what about SOD1 & 3? I dont know why it doesnt appear on this report but I was able to get some information on it from Livewello and it looks like I am much better off there. Heres my SOD1 and SOD3 status. Just for kicks, I decided to run SOD2 and I find it shows a much different picture than sterlings app: my SOD 2 on Livewello. Notice how it shows that I do have some working SOD2 genes!

Here is the original post:
My genetics - How I Recovered

Read More...

Genetics | Definition of Genetics by Merriam-Webster

Saturday, August 25th, 2018

Suddenly, Soo-Kyung, 42, and her husband Jae Lee, 57, another genetics specialist at O.H.S.U., had to transform from dispassionate scientists into parents of a patient, desperate for answers.

Among the brightest of those homegrown stars is Zhao Bowen, a Chinese science prodigy who dropped out of high school to start running a genetics lab.

Among the brightest of those homegrown stars is Zhao Bowen, a Chinese science prodigy who dropped out of high school to start running a genetics lab.

Krainer, a molecular genetics professor at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, N.Y., had worked on the scientific underpinnings of the medicine for more than 15 years.

Since these discoveries, the field of genetics has expanded even furtherall the way to our own front doors, in fact, thanks to at-home genetic tests such as 23andMe.

Coral genetics is a field of increasing interest to scientists.

Krainer, a molecular genetics professor at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, N.Y., had worked on the scientific underpinnings of the medicine for more than 15 years.

His father retired as a genetics professor at Northern Illinois University, also in DeKalb.

Read the rest here:
Genetics | Definition of Genetics by Merriam-Webster

Read More...

Hundreds of Thousands of Species in a Few Thousand Years?

Sunday, July 29th, 2018

A recent1 review paper proposed a controversial claimthat the vast majority of animal species arose contemporary with modern humans. Not surprisingly, this claim was met with backlash from the evolutionary community. On what basis did the authors make this wide-reaching claim? Is their assertion true? Furthermore, what ramifications do their data have for the creationist explanation of the origin of species from the originally created min or kinds?

The main focus of Stoeckle and Thalers paper is genetics. Specifically, they focus on a subset of DNA in human and animal cells, termed mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Their analysis of mtDNA is clear, straightforward, and carefully justifiedso much so that I will summarize their arguments by liberally quoting from their paper.

About 15 years ago, DNA barcoding was first proposed as a tool for practical taxonomy.2 Taxonomy is the field of science concerned with the classification of life, and scientists thought that taking small subsets of DNA would aid in identifying and classifying species. The particular mitochondrial sequence that has become the most widely used is the 648 base pair (bp) [think of base pairs as DNA letters] segment of the gene [a subsection of DNA sequence] encoding mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI).3

With a subset of a subset of DNA, Skeptics of COI barcoding raised a number of objections about its power and/or generality as a single simple metric applicable to the entire animal kingdom, including: the small fraction of the genome (about 5% of the mitochondrial genome and less than one millionth of the total organisms genome [total DNA in an organism]) might not be sensitive or representative.4

A simple example from humans illustrates this concern. For instance, on average any two humans differ at 0.2%0.5% of their mtDNA base pairs. Theoretically, if all mtDNA differences are evenly distributed around the human mtDNA genome, you would expect 12 mtDNA differences in each individuals 648 bp COI barcode. With numbers this low, one generation of an extra mutation or two in the COI barcode sequence might throw a real classification pattern (i.e., one based on comparisons of hundreds of anatomical and physiological features) into confusion.

However, since the early days of DNA barcoding, such objections have been mostly mollified. I can attest to this from my own experience in handling thousands of mtDNA sequences. As a representative of the mtDNA diversity among species and individuals, a subset of mtDNA sequence is a good first approximation. Though subsets arent always perfect representations of the whole sequence, they are good initial data points.

Furthermore, over several decades of mtDNA barcoding, scientists have discovered a specific clustering pattern among mtDNA barcodes from individuals across diverse species: a general observation is that barcode clusters correspond best to species in well-studied animal groups, where taxonomists have mostly decided and agreed upon what species are. Thus there is good support in several major phyla, including Chordata [e.g., vertebrates and a handful of other species], Arthropoda [e.g., insects, arachnids, and crustaceans], Mollusca [e.g., shellfish, octopi], Echinodermata [e.g., starfish]. We note that these phyla are estimated to contain about 34 of named animal species.5

This fact has two major ramifications: First, the cluster structure of the animal world found in COI barcode analysis is independent of any definition(s) of species. Second, domain experts judgments of species tend to agree with barcode clusters and many apparent deviations turn out to be exceptions that prove the rule.6 In other words, the initial fears of those skeptical of DNA barcoding have not been met. Instead, barcoding has been very successful.

In light of these successes, the authors acknowledge the unexpected implications for explanations for the origin of species: At its origin DNA barcoding made no claim of contributing to evolutionary theory,7 yet the pattern of DNA barcode variance is the central fact of animal life that needs to be explained by evolutionary theory.8

Expanding our scope beyond the narrow evolutionary focus of the authors, we can generalize their statement: These mtDNA barcode patterns need to be explained by any model purporting to account for the origin of species.

The barcode patterns take a very specific form: the clustering structure of COI barcodessmall variance within species and often but not always sequence gaps among nearest neighbor species is the primary fact that a model of evolution and speciation must explain. Furthermore, the average pairwise difference among individuals (APD; equivalent to population genetics parameter ) within animal species is between 0.0% and 0.5%. The most data are available for modern humans, who have an APD of 0.1% calculated in the same way as for other animals.9

Stoeckle and Thaler recognize the sweeping potential in these patterns: The agreement of barcodes and domain experts implies that explaining the origin of the pattern of DNA barcodes would be in large part explaining the origin of species. Understanding the mechanism by which the near-universal pattern of DNA barcodes comes about would be tantamount to understanding the mechanism of speciation.10

In their evolutionary model, Stoeckle and Thaler invoke two hypotheses account for the barcode cluster patterns: Either 1) COI barcode clusters represent species-specific adaptations, OR 2) extant populations have recently passed through diversity-reducing regimes whose consequences for sequence diversity are indistinguishable from clonal bottlenecks.11

Their conclusion? Modern human mitochondria and Y chromosome [another subset of DNA, but inherited paternally] originated from conditions that imposed a single sequence on these genetic elements between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.12 In other words, to account for human CO barcode patterns, they favor the second hypothesissome sort of population dynamic (contraction) that reduced the genetic diversity of the population.

Stoeckle and Thaler then extrapolate their conclusions to controversial heights. To justify their extrapolation, they caution that one should not as a first impulse seek a complex and multifaceted explanation for one of the clearest, most data rich and general facts in all of evolution. Then they draw a parallel: The simple hypothesis is that the same explanation offered for the sequence variation found among modern humans applies equally to the modern populations of essentially all other animal species. Namely that the extant population, no matter what its current size or similarity to fossils of any age, has expanded from mitochondrial uniformity within the past 200,000 years.13 In other words, based on mtDNA barcodes, Stoeckle and Thaler claim that the vast majority of species have originated contemporary with modern humans.

Though Stoeckle and Thaler dont perform this step, lets revisit their data and take their results to the next logical conclusion. We can do this because creationists have no problems with the observations that Stoeckle and Thaler describe. Ive already mentioned that my own experience with mtDNA matches theirsbarcodes are a useful first approximation and should be treated as such. Yet this first approximation has revealed a consistent patternlow numbers of mtDNA differences within species and higher numbers of mtDNA differences between species.

Furthermore, since Stoeckle and Thaler explore the origin of individual speciesrather than the origin of whole classification groups, like mammalstheir reasoning applies almost seamlessly to the creationist explanation for the origin of species. Their claim that species arose recently is one that focuses on species within kindsnot one that explores changes from one kind into another. In other words, for Stoeckle and Thalers particular question, evolutionists and creationists agree on the question of common ancestry.

Nevertheless, they differ sharply on the question of timewhen these individual species arose. Unlike Stoeckle and Thaler, creationists invoke not two, but three potential explanations for low numbers of mtDNA sequence differences within species: (1) species-specific adaptations; (2) changing population sizes or past bottlenecks (see especially the discussion of American bison (Bison bison) mtDNA and African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) mtDNA in this paper; (3) time recent origin (e.g., within the last 4,5006,000 years).

We now have two decades worth of direct measurements of the rate at which human mtDNA mutates, and it matches exactly the 6,000-year timescale and rejects the evolutionary timescale (see Genetics Confirms the Recent, Supernatural Creation of Adam and Eve and references therein). Thus, taking Stoeckle and Thalers results to their logical conclusion, we can revise their statement to Modern human [mitochondrial DNA] originated from conditions that imposed a single sequence on these genetic elements14 about 6,000 years ago.

Lets now re-extrapolate these results to other species. The simple hypothesis is that the same explanation offered for the sequence variation found among modern humans applies equally to the modern populations of essentially all other animal species. Namely that the extant population, no matter what its current size or similarity to fossils of any age, has expanded from mitochondrial uniformity within the past 6,000 years.

We can refine this conclusion even more, with more spectacular implications for the creationist model: In the last two decades, the mtDNA mutation rate in a handful of invertebrate species has also been directly measured, and these rates14 are around 10 times higher (or more!) than the human mtDNA mutation rate (again, see this article and references therein). This would imply that multiple species within a genus (or perhaps even a family) have originated within the last 6,000 years.

In other words, these broad mtDNA barcode results suggest that, in general, the predictions15 I made for mtDNA mutation rates in diverse species are likely to be fulfilled. This is good evidence that Darwins ideas are well on their way to being replaced.

As this article was going to press, the theistic evolutionary organization BioLogos posted a critique of Stoeckle and Thalers paper. More specifically, BioLogos posted a critique of creationist responses to Stoeckle and Thaler. BioLogos took strong exception to the type of thesis that I advanced above. For example, consider the following quote from BioLogos: "Did Stoeckel [sic] and Thaler conclude that 90% of animal species appeared at same time as humans? The answer is No [emphasis theirs].

Did I miss a key element of the Stoeckle and Thaler paper?

Lets take a look at the BioLogos article, which was written by PhD biologist and professor Joel Duff. Duff clearly desired to minimize the implications of Stoeckle and Thalers paper. For example, Duff characterized the journal in which it was published as a low-profile Italian journal. He also downplayed the impact, saying that the extended press release didnt generate much reaction inside or outside of the scientific community. More strongly, Duff denounced claims like the one I made above as mischaracterization of the original research. He said it was an incorrect claim that most species originated about the same time.

Why?

To support his assertion, Duff proposed an examination of the original intent of the authors of this paper. Since an authors intent is invisible unless the author clearly states it, Duffs suggested methodology to justify his strong critique is a creative way to tackle a scientific controversy.

After examining Stoeckle and Thalers intent to Duffs satisfaction, Duffs journalism gets more questionable. Weve already examined his emphatic assertion: Did Stoeckel [sic] and Thaler conclude that 90% of animal species appeared at same time as humans? The answer is No. Duff justifies his forceful condemnation with a quote from Stoeckle and Thalers paper: the extant population, no matter what its current size or similarity to fossils of any age, has expanded from mitochondrial uniformity within the past 200,000 years.16 In light of this quote, Duff concludes, In other words, the genetic diversity observed in mitochondrial genomes of most species alive today can be attributed to the accumulation of mutations from an ancestral genome within the past 200,000 years, and Duff asserts that the authors never claim that most species came into existence within the past 200,000 years.

For a critique that began with a proposal to examine intent, Duff seems to have missed the actual intent of the authors. The title of their paper is, Why should mitochondria define species? After discussing and justifying at length the observation that mtDNA differences do, in fact, delineate species, the authors then make a startling statement: The pattern of DNA barcode variance is the central fact of animal life that needs to be explained by evolutionary theory17 [emphasis theirs]. In case the intent of their statement wasnt transparent, the authors make it explicit: The agreement of barcodes and domain experts implies that explaining the origin of the pattern of DNA barcodes would be in large part explaining the origin of species. Understanding the mechanism by which the near-universal pattern of DNA barcodes comes about would be tantamount to understanding the mechanism of speciation.18 They then spend the next chunk of their paper discussing what mtDNA barcodes imply about the mechanism of speciation. Clearly, Stoeckle and Thaler are concerned with much more than just the accumulation of mutations from an ancestral genome within the past 200,000 years. Instead, they have a strong focus on the origin of species.

But did the authors never claim that most species came into existence within the past 200,000 years? In one sense, if we split hairs, Duff is technically correct: In their paper, Stoeckle and Thaler never say so explicitly. Yet as weve just observed, the conclusion about the timing of the origin of species is implied. Furthermore, Thaler makes the conclusion explicit in the press releasethe very one that Duff cited:

Our paper strengthens the argument that the low variation in the mitochondrial DNA of modern humans also explains the similar low variation found in over 90% of living animal specieswe all likely originated by similar processes and most animal species are likely young19. [emphasis added]

How did Biologos miss this?

Duff advances a second argument in his critique of the implications of Stoeckle and Thalers paper. He says that the mtDNA results at best, [tell] us the minimum age of the species. It tells us little to nothing about the maximum age of a species [emphasis his]. For the maximum age, Duff thinks the fossil record is essential. Furthermore, he states that an examination of the mitochondrial genome of any species will only tell us when the common ancestor of all modern members of this species existed, which will almost invariably occur after the evolutionary origin of the species.

But how does Duff know that this is true? Ive already documented that fossils do not directly record genealogical relationships; only DNA does. Why would Duff defer the genealogical question of ancestry (a.k.a. the question of the origin of species) to an indirect field of science (paleontology) when a direct field (geneticsmtDNA) gives a clear answer?

Ive also documented that the process of speciation involves several stepsat a minimum, (1) the formation of one or more distinct individuals, (2) the multiplication of these distinct individuals into a population, and (3) the isolation of this distinct population from the parent species. How does Duff know that the supposed ancestors (recorded by fossils) of modern species were isolated enough from the other populations alive at the time to be called a new species? Duff is trying to win a scientific argument, not by data and by experimentation, but by assertion. This is not a scientific way to resolve the controversy.

BioLogos response is sad, if not ironic. Weve already documented the fact that our evolutionary opponents dont read our literature (Duff included , despite BioLogos professed commitment to dialogue with those who hold other views); yet they call us liars. Sometimes I wonder if they carefully read even the evolutionary literature. Either way, BioLogos main critique (of the implications of Stoeckle and Thalers paper) amounts to misrepresentation and speculation even approaching outright denial. If this is the best that the evolutionary community can do, then perhaps my scientific conclusions (above) are even stronger than they first appear.

See more here:
Hundreds of Thousands of Species in a Few Thousand Years?

Read More...

New hybrid whale-dolphin discovered in Hawaii

Sunday, July 29th, 2018

Last year, a team of scientists spotted what they believed was a hybrid animal off the coast of Kauai, Hawaii.A new report from Cascadia Research Collectiveconfirms they did and the new sea creature is the result of a whale and a dolphin mating, the teams head researcher told CBS News.

What the researchers discovered was a hybrid of a melon-headed whale and a rough-toothed dolphin. In an interview with local newspaperThe Garden Island,the head of the project said the discovery is their most unusual finding. We had the photos and suspected it was a hybrid from morphological characteristics intermediate between species, Robin Baird said.

During their two-week project, scientists were able to get a biopsy sample from the creature and study its genetics. They were able to confirm that the animal was a hybrid. Based on the genetics, the father was a rough-toothed dolphin and the mother a melon-headed whale, Baird told CBS News via email.

One of the species that makes up this hybrid is very rare in Hawaii. Melon-headed whales usually dont swim in these waters, so when scientists spotted the whale, they put satellite tags on the animal. During this two-week study, scientists also spotted another rare species in the water, pantropical spotted dolphins, which they also tagged.

Bairds research team is going to be back in Kauais waters next month, when they hope to get more photos of the new hybrid whale-dolphin and water samples. They also hope to do testing on other species in the area.

Were hoping that just by talking to some tour operators and fishermen we might get tips and encounter something like pilot whales, Baird said.

See the article here:
New hybrid whale-dolphin discovered in Hawaii

Read More...

LR hospital hires cancer institute chief – arkansasonline.com

Sunday, July 29th, 2018

The outgoing director of the Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences has accepted a job at CHI St. Vincent.

Dr. Peter Emanuel turned in his resignation letter on May 4. His last day at UAMS is Tuesday.

Emanuel, 59, will join CHI St. Vincent on Sept. 1, according to a statement from the hospital. His position was not specified.

At the time of his resignation, he declined to give the reason for his departure, only citing unspecified challenges. He could not be reached for comment Friday afternoon.

UAMS is conducting a national search for a new cancer institute director, said Leslie Taylor, vice chancellor of communications and marketing. Dr. Laura Hutchins was appointed interim director in June. Hutchins is a professor in the College of Medicine Division of Hematology/Oncology, where she was division director from 1998 until September 2013.

Emanuel is a widely recognized expert in leukemia and lymphoma, a UAMS website states. He joined UAMS in 2007 after leaving the University of Alabama at Birmingham, where he was a professor of medicine, genetics and biochemistry.

From 2004 to 2006 he was the acting director of the National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Alabama university.

During his time at UAMS, he oversaw the addition of the cancer institute's 12-story research and treatment tower, which opened in 2010. His annual salary was $500,000.

His resignation in May followed UAMS' decision to temporarily suspend its cardiac surgery program due to lead surgeon Dr. Gareth Tobler's retirement. That program restarted at the beginning of July, with the hospital contracting with four new physicians.

UAMS also laid off almost 260 employees in January to curb an anticipated $72.3 million deficit. Those layoffs included one full-time physician -- a general ear, nose and throat doctor who did not work at the cancer institute.

News of Emanuel's new role comes one day after an invoice that his wife, Carla Emanuel, sent seeking reimbursement from the Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute became public.

The $4,000 bill lists events that she attended, phone calls she made and work she did to resolve problems with donors. Taylor said UAMS was not going to pay the bill because state procedures regarding vendors and invoices were not followed.

Taylor added that the invoice was the first one she was aware of from a spouse, and the institution does not normally reimburse people for attending fundraising events.

The Arkansas Times first reported on the invoice on Thursday.

Metro on 07/28/2018

Originally posted here:
LR hospital hires cancer institute chief - arkansasonline.com

Read More...

TOday’s Movers: Seattle Genetics (NASDAQ:SGEN) Stock …

Sunday, July 29th, 2018

July 27, 2018 - By Vernon Prom

Investors sentiment increased to 1.61 in Q1 2018. Its up 0.38, from 1.23 in 2017Q4. It is positive, as 24 investors sold Seattle Genetics, Inc. shares while 53 reduced holdings. 31 funds opened positions while 93 raised stakes. 159.52 million shares or 12.47% more from 141.83 million shares in 2017Q4 were reported.

California State Teachers Retirement System reported 165,312 shares. 13,084 are held by Bluecrest Cap Ltd. Pictet Asset invested in 0.1% or 786,323 shares. Swiss Bankshares owns 0.02% invested in Seattle Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SGEN) for 349,100 shares. Keybank National Association Oh invested in 0% or 8,414 shares. 4,998 were accumulated by Shell Asset Mngmt Company. Pnc Financial holds 6,727 shares. Utah Retirement Sys holds 0.02% of its portfolio in Seattle Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SGEN) for 19,600 shares. Wells Fargo And Co Mn, a California-based fund reported 306,681 shares. The Connecticut-based Bridgewater Associate L P has invested 0.01% in Seattle Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SGEN). Amundi Pioneer Asset Management has 21,523 shares. National Bank Of America Corp De accumulated 496,573 shares. Daiwa Securities accumulated 4,395 shares. Zurcher Kantonalbank (Zurich Cantonalbank), Switzerland-based fund reported 23,953 shares. Pub Employees Retirement Association Of Colorado invested in 20,183 shares or 0.01% of the stock.

Since February 1, 2018, it had 3 buys, and 12 sales for $266.62 million activity. Cline Darren S also sold $497,983 worth of Seattle Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SGEN) shares. The insider SIEGALL CLAY B sold 18,832 shares worth $951,393. The insider HIMES VAUGHN B sold 5,000 shares worth $290,604. 10,457 shares were sold by DRACHMAN JONATHAN G, worth $552,452.

JP Morgan now has a $77 target on the $11.55 billion market cap company or 5.51 % upside potential. In analysts note issued to clients on Friday, 27 July, Seattle Genetics (NASDAQ:SGEN) shares have had their Overweight Rating kept by professional analysts at JP Morgan.

Among 8 analysts covering Seattle Genetics (NASDAQ:SGEN), 7 have Buy rating, 0 Sell and 1 Hold. Therefore 88% are positive. Seattle Genetics has $77.0 highest and $60.0 lowest target. $68.13s average target is -6.65% below currents $72.98 stock price. Seattle Genetics had 12 analyst reports since January 31, 2018 according to SRatingsIntel. SunTrust maintained it with Hold rating and $60.0 target in Wednesday, February 7 report. The stock of Seattle Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SGEN) earned Buy rating by Needham on Wednesday, February 7. J.P. Morgan upgraded the shares of SGEN in report on Wednesday, February 14 to Buy rating. The rating was maintained by Morgan Stanley on Wednesday, March 21 with Overweight. The firm has Buy rating by RBC Capital Markets given on Tuesday, March 20. The firm has Buy rating given on Monday, June 11 by SunTrust. The company was maintained on Wednesday, February 7 by H.C. Wainwright. On Thursday, February 1 the stock rating was maintained by H.C. Wainwright with Buy. The stock of Seattle Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SGEN) has Neutral rating given on Wednesday, February 7 by Bank of America. The firm has Overweight rating by JP Morgan given on Wednesday, February 14.

The stock increased 2.43% or $1.73 during the last trading session, reaching $72.98. About 1.60M shares traded or 72.55% up from the average. Seattle Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SGEN) has declined 15.50% since July 28, 2017 and is downtrending. It has underperformed by 28.07% the S&P500.

Seattle Genetics, Inc., a biotechnology company, develops and commercializes targeted therapies to treat cancer worldwide. The company has market cap of $11.55 billion. It markets ADCETRIS, an antibody-drug conjugate for relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma and relapsed systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma. It currently has negative earnings. The firm also develops SGN-CD33A that is in Phase III clinical trial to evaluate SGN-CD33A in combination with hypomethylating agents in previously untreated older patients, as well as in Phase 1/2 clinical trial for patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia ; ASG-22ME, which is in Phase I clinical trial for Nectin-4-positive solid tumors, including bladder cancer; SGN-LIV1A that is in Phase 1 clinical trial for patients with LIV-1-positive metastatic breast cancer; and SGN-CD19A, which is in Phase II clinical trial for patients with relapsed DLBCL, as well as in Phase II trial for patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL.

More notable recent Seattle Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SGEN) news were published by: Streetinsider.com which released: Seattle Genetics (SGEN) Adcetris On-going Launch in 1L cHL is Positive Says SunTrust. on July 02, 2018, also Benzinga.com with their article: Benzingas Daily Biotech Pulse: Biogen, AC Immune Slip Despite Positive Trials, Sarepta Slapped With Clinical Hold published on July 26, 2018, Seekingalpha.com published: Mid-stage study underway for Seattle Genetics tisotumab vedotin in solid tumors; shares up 1% premarket on July 12, 2018. More interesting news about Seattle Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SGEN) were released by: Seekingalpha.com and their article: Dont Sell Axon Enterprise Cramers Lightning Round (7/11/18) published on July 12, 2018 as well as Benzinga.coms news article titled: Benzingas Daily Biotech Pulse: Achaogen To Trim Workforce By 28%, Amgens Beat-And-Raise Quarter with publication date: July 27, 2018.

Receive News & Ratings Via Email - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings with our FREE daily email newsletter.

See the original post here:
TOday's Movers: Seattle Genetics (NASDAQ:SGEN) Stock ...

Read More...

Seattle Genetics (SGEN) "Buy" Rating Reaffirmed Today By H …

Sunday, July 29th, 2018

July 27, 2018 - By Mona Holcomb

Investors sentiment increased to 1.61 in Q1 2018. Its up 0.38, from 1.23 in 2017Q4. It is positive, as 24 investors sold Seattle Genetics, Inc. shares while 53 reduced holdings. 31 funds opened positions while 93 raised stakes. 159.52 million shares or 12.47% more from 141.83 million shares in 2017Q4 were reported.

Pub Employees Retirement Association Of Colorado holds 20,183 shares. Jgp Global Gestao De Recursos Ltda reported 22,334 shares or 0.47% of all its holdings. Jane Street Gru Limited Company invested in 3,903 shares or 0% of the stock. Prudential Fincl, New Jersey-based fund reported 6,451 shares. 7,900 were reported by Ellington Management Grp. Caisse De Depot Et Placement Du Quebec reported 5,300 shares or 0% of all its holdings. D E Shaw & stated it has 168,554 shares. Td Asset owns 0.01% invested in Seattle Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SGEN) for 154,016 shares. Virtu Fincl Ltd Liability Corporation reported 10,922 shares stake. Stratos Wealth Limited holds 0% of its portfolio in Seattle Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SGEN) for 1,213 shares. World Asset Inc stated it has 3,870 shares. State Of Alaska Department Of Revenue reported 9,710 shares stake. Franklin Res has 108,400 shares for 0% of their portfolio. Zurcher Kantonalbank (Zurich Cantonalbank) owns 23,953 shares. 205,300 are owned by California Pub Employees Retirement.

Since February 1, 2018, it had 3 insider buys, and 12 insider sales for $266.62 million activity. $936,818 worth of stock was sold by SIEGALL CLAY B on Friday, February 9. On Thursday, March 15 HIMES VAUGHN B sold $290,604 worth of Seattle Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SGEN) or 5,000 shares. On Wednesday, May 9 the insider Cline Darren S sold $497,983. DRACHMAN JONATHAN G sold $552,452 worth of stock or 10,457 shares.

EU: In an analyst report issued to investors and clients on 27 July, H.C. Wainwright reiterated their Buy rating on Seattle Genetics (SGEN) shares. They now have a $98.0 target price on the firm. H.C. Wainwrights target indicates a potential upside of 37.54 % from the companys last price.

The stock increased 2.04% or $1.45 during the last trading session, reaching $72.7. About 995,861 shares traded or 7.56% up from the average. Seattle Genetics, Inc. (SGEN) has declined 15.50% since July 27, 2017 and is downtrending. It has underperformed by 28.07% the S&P500.

Seattle Genetics, Inc., a biotechnology company, develops and commercializes targeted therapies to treat cancer worldwide. The company has market cap of $11.50 billion. It markets ADCETRIS, an antibody-drug conjugate for relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma and relapsed systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma. It currently has negative earnings. The firm also develops SGN-CD33A that is in Phase III clinical trial to evaluate SGN-CD33A in combination with hypomethylating agents in previously untreated older patients, as well as in Phase 1/2 clinical trial for patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia ; ASG-22ME, which is in Phase I clinical trial for Nectin-4-positive solid tumors, including bladder cancer; SGN-LIV1A that is in Phase 1 clinical trial for patients with LIV-1-positive metastatic breast cancer; and SGN-CD19A, which is in Phase II clinical trial for patients with relapsed DLBCL, as well as in Phase II trial for patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL.

More notable recent Seattle Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SGEN) news were published by: Streetinsider.com which released: Seattle Genetics (SGEN) Adcetris On-going Launch in 1L cHL is Positive Says SunTrust. on July 02, 2018, also Seekingalpha.com with their article: Dont Sell Axon Enterprise Cramers Lightning Round (7/11/18) published on July 12, 2018, Seekingalpha.com published: Mid-stage study underway for Seattle Genetics tisotumab vedotin in solid tumors; shares up 1% premarket on July 12, 2018. More interesting news about Seattle Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SGEN) were released by: Benzinga.com and their article: Benzingas Daily Biotech Pulse: Biogen, AC Immune Slip Despite Positive Trials, Sarepta Slapped With Clinical Hold published on July 26, 2018 as well as Benzinga.coms news article titled: Benzingas Daily Biotech Pulse: Achaogen To Trim Workforce By 28%, Amgens Beat-And-Raise Quarter with publication date: July 27, 2018.

Receive News & Ratings Via Email - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings with our FREE daily email newsletter.

More here:
Seattle Genetics (SGEN) "Buy" Rating Reaffirmed Today By H ...

Read More...

Gregor Mendel – Wikipedia

Wednesday, June 27th, 2018

Gregor Johann Mendel (Czech: eho Jan Mendel;[1] 20 July 1822[2] 6 January 1884) (English: ) was a scientist, Augustinian friar and abbot of St. Thomas' Abbey in Brno, Margraviate of Moravia. Mendel was born in a German-speaking family[3] in the Silesian part of the Austrian Empire (today's Czech Republic) and gained posthumous recognition as the founder of the modern science of genetics. Though farmers had known for millennia that crossbreeding of animals and plants could favor certain desirable traits, Mendel's pea plant experiments conducted between 1856 and 1863 established many of the rules of heredity, now referred to as the laws of Mendelian inheritance.[4]

Mendel worked with seven characteristics of pea plants: plant height, pod shape and color, seed shape and color, and flower position and color. Taking seed color as an example, Mendel showed that when a true-breeding yellow pea and a true-breeding green pea were cross-bred their offspring always produced yellow seeds. However, in the next generation, the green peas reappeared at a ratio of 1 green to 3 yellow. To explain this phenomenon, Mendel coined the terms recessive and dominant in reference to certain traits. (In the preceding example, the green trait, which seems to have vanished in the first filial generation, is recessive and the yellow is dominant.) He published his work in 1866, demonstrating the actions of invisible factorsnow called genesin predictably determining the traits of an organism.

The profound significance of Mendel's work was not recognized until the turn of the 20th century (more than three decades later) with the rediscovery of his laws.[5] Erich von Tschermak, Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns and William Jasper Spillman independently verified several of Mendel's experimental findings, ushering in the modern age of genetics.[4]

Mendel was born into a German-speaking family in Hynice (Heinzendorf bei Odrau in German), at the Moravian-Silesian border, Austrian Empire (now a part of the Czech Republic).[3] He was the son of Anton and Rosine (Schwirtlich) Mendel and had one older sister, Veronika, and one younger, Theresia. They lived and worked on a farm which had been owned by the Mendel family for at least 130 years.[6] During his childhood, Mendel worked as a gardener and studied beekeeping. As a young man, he attended gymnasium in Opava (called Troppau in German). He had to take four months off during his gymnasium studies due to illness. From 1840 to 1843, he studied practical and theoretical philosophy and physics at the Philosophical Institute of the University of Olomouc, taking another year off because of illness. He also struggled financially to pay for his studies, and Theresia gave him her dowry. Later he helped support her three sons, two of whom became doctors.

He became a friar in part because it enabled him to obtain an education without having to pay for it himself. As the son of a struggling farmer, the monastic life, in his words, spared him the "perpetual anxiety about a means of livelihood."[8] He was given the name Gregor (eho in Czech)[1] when he joined the Augustinian friars.

When Mendel entered the Faculty of Philosophy, the Department of Natural History and Agriculture was headed by Johann Karl Nestler who conducted extensive research of hereditary traits of plants and animals, especially sheep. Upon recommendation of his physics teacher Friedrich Franz,[10] Mendel entered the Augustinian St Thomas's Abbey in Brno (called Brnn in German) and began his training as a priest. Born Johann Mendel, he took the name Gregor upon entering religious life. Mendel worked as a substitute high school teacher. In 1850, he failed the oral part, the last of three parts, of his exams to become a certified high school teacher. In 1851, he was sent to the University of Vienna to study under the sponsorship of Abbot C. F. Napp so that he could get more formal education. At Vienna, his professor of physics was Christian Doppler.[12] Mendel returned to his abbey in 1853 as a teacher, principally of physics. In 1856, he took the exam to become a certified teacher and again failed the oral part. In 1867, he replaced Napp as abbot of the monastery.[13]

After he was elevated as abbot in 1868, his scientific work largely ended, as Mendel became overburdened with administrative responsibilities, especially a dispute with the civil government over its attempt to impose special taxes on religious institutions.[14] Mendel died on 6 January 1884, at the age of 61, in Brno, Moravia, Austria-Hungary (now Czech Republic), from chronic nephritis. Czech composer Leo Janek played the organ at his funeral. After his death, the succeeding abbot burned all papers in Mendel's collection, to mark an end to the disputes over taxation.[15]

Gregor Mendel, who is known as the "father of modern genetics", was inspired by both his professors at the Palack University, Olomouc (Friedrich Franz and Johann Karl Nestler), and his colleagues at the monastery (such as Franz Diebl) to study variation in plants. In 1854, Napp authorized Mendel to carry out a study in the monastery's 2 hectares (4.9 acres) experimental garden,[16] which was originally planted by Napp in 1830.[13] Unlike Nestler, who studied hereditary traits in sheep, Mendel used the common edible pea and started his experiments in 1856.

After initial experiments with pea plants, Mendel settled on studying seven traits that seemed to be inherited independently of other traits: seed shape, flower color, seed coat tint, pod shape, unripe pod color, flower location, and plant height. He first focused on seed shape, which was either angular or round. Between 1856 and 1863 Mendel cultivated and tested some 28,000 plants, the majority of which were pea plants (Pisum sativum).[18][19][20] This study showed that, when true-breeding different varieties were crossed to each other (e.g., tall plants fertilized by short plants), in the second generation, one in four pea plants had purebred recessive traits, two out of four were hybrids, and one out of four were purebred dominant. His experiments led him to make two generalizations, the Law of Segregation and the Law of Independent Assortment, which later came to be known as Mendel's Laws of Inheritance.[21]

Mendel presented his paper, "Versuche ber Pflanzenhybriden" ("Experiments on Plant Hybridization"), at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brno in Moravia on 8 February and 8 March 1865. It generated a few favorable reports in local newspapers,[23] but was ignored by the scientific community. When Mendel's paper was published in 1866 in Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereines in Brnn,[24] it was seen as essentially about hybridization rather than inheritance, had little impact, and was only cited about three times over the next thirty-five years. His paper was criticized at the time, but is now considered a seminal work.[25] Notably, Charles Darwin was unaware of Mendel's paper, and it is envisaged that if he had, genetics as we know it now might have taken hold much earlier.[26][27] Mendel's scientific biography thus provides an example of the failure of obscure, highly original, innovators to receive the attention they deserve.[28]

Mendel began his studies on heredity using mice. He was at St. Thomas's Abbey but his bishop did not like one of his friars studying animal sex, so Mendel switched to plants. Mendel also bred bees in a bee house that was built for him, using bee hives that he designed.[30] He also studied astronomy and meteorology,[13] founding the 'Austrian Meteorological Society' in 1865.[12] The majority of his published works was related to meteorology.[12]

Mendel also experimented with hawkweed (Hieracium)[31] and honeybees. He published a report on his work with hawkweed,[32] a group of plants of great interest to scientists at the time because of their diversity. However, the results of Mendel's inheritance study in hawkweeds was unlike his results for peas; the first generation was very variable and many of their offspring were identical to the maternal parent. In his correspondence with Carl Ngeli he discussed his results but was unable to explain them.[31] It was not appreciated until the end of the nineteen century that many hawkweed species were apomictic, producing most of their seeds through an asexual process.

None of his results on bees survived, except for a passing mention in the reports of Moravian Apiculture Society.[33] All that is known definitely is that he used Cyprian and Carniolan bees,[34] which were particularly aggressive to the annoyance of other monks and visitors of the monastery such that he was asked to get rid of them.[35] Mendel, on the other hand, was fond of his bees, and referred to them as "my dearest little animals".[36]

He also described novel plant species, and these are denoted with the botanical author abbreviation "Mendel".[37]

It would appear that the forty odd scientists who listened to Mendel's two path-breaking lectures failed to understand his work. Later, he also carried a correspondence with Carl Naegeli, one of the leading biologists of the time, but Naegli too failed to appreciate Mendel's discoveries. At times, Mendel must have entertained doubts about his work, but not always: "My time will come," he reportedly told a friend.[8]

During Mendel's lifetime, most biologists held the idea that all characteristics were passed to the next generation through blending inheritance, in which the traits from each parent are averaged. Instances of this phenomenon are now explained by the action of multiple genes with quantitative effects. Charles Darwin tried unsuccessfully to explain inheritance through a theory of pangenesis. It was not until the early twentieth century that the importance of Mendel's ideas was realized.

By 1900, research aimed at finding a successful theory of discontinuous inheritance rather than blending inheritance led to independent duplication of his work by Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns, and the rediscovery of Mendel's writings and laws. Both acknowledged Mendel's priority, and it is thought probable that de Vries did not understand the results he had found until after reading Mendel.[5] Though Erich von Tschermak was originally also credited with rediscovery, this is no longer accepted because he did not understand Mendel's laws.[38] Though de Vries later lost interest in Mendelism, other biologists started to establish modern genetics as a science.[5] All three of these researchers, each from a different country, published their rediscovery of Mendel's work within a two-month span in the Spring of 1900.

Mendel's results were quickly replicated, and genetic linkage quickly worked out. Biologists flocked to the theory; even though it was not yet applicable to many phenomena, it sought to give a genotypic understanding of heredity which they felt was lacking in previous studies of heredity which focused on phenotypic approaches.[40] Most prominent of these previous approaches was the biometric school of Karl Pearson and W. F. R. Weldon, which was based heavily on statistical studies of phenotype variation. The strongest opposition to this school came from William Bateson, who perhaps did the most in the early days of publicising the benefits of Mendel's theory (the word "genetics", and much of the discipline's other terminology, originated with Bateson). This debate between the biometricians and the Mendelians was extremely vigorous in the first two decades of the twentieth century, with the biometricians claiming statistical and mathematical rigor,[41] whereas the Mendelians claimed a better understanding of biology.[42][43] (Modern genetics shows that Mendelian heredity is in fact an inherently biological process, though not all genes of Mendel's experiments are yet understood.)[44][45]

In the end, the two approaches were combined, especially by work conducted by R. A. Fisher as early as 1918. The combination, in the 1930s and 1940s, of Mendelian genetics with Darwin's theory of natural selection resulted in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology.[46][47]

In 1936, R.A. Fisher, a prominent statistician and population geneticist, reconstructed Mendel's experiments, analyzed results from the F2 (second filial) generation and found the ratio of dominant to recessive phenotypes (e.g. green versus yellow peas; round versus wrinkled peas) to be implausibly and consistently too close to the expected ratio of 3 to 1.[48][49][50] Fisher asserted that "the data of most, if not all, of the experiments have been falsified so as to agree closely with Mendel's expectations,"[48] Mendel's alleged observations, according to Fisher, were "abominable", "shocking",[51] and "cooked".[52]

Other scholars agree with Fisher that Mendel's various observations come uncomfortably close to Mendel's expectations. Dr. Edwards,[53] for instance, remarks: "One can applaud the lucky gambler; but when he is lucky again tomorrow, and the next day, and the following day, one is entitled to become a little suspicious". Three other lines of evidence likewise lend support to the assertion that Mendels results are indeed too good to be true.[54]

Fisher's analysis gave rise to the Mendelian Paradox, a paradox that remains unsolved to this very day. Thus, on the one hand, Mendel's reported data are, statistically speaking, too good to be true; on the other, "everything we know about Mendel suggests that he was unlikely to engage in either deliberate fraud or in unconscious adjustment of his observations."[54] A number of writers have attempted to resolve this paradox.

One attempted explanation invokes confirmation bias.[55] Fisher accused Mendel's experiments as "biased strongly in the direction of agreement with expectation... to give the theory the benefit of doubt".[48] This might arise if he detected an approximate 3 to 1 ratio early in his experiments with a small sample size, and, in cases where the ratio appeared to deviate slightly from this, continued collecting more data until the results conformed more nearly to an exact ratio.

In his 2004, J.W. Porteous concluded that Mendel's observations were indeed implausible.[56] However, reproduction of the experiments has demonstrated that there is no real bias towards Mendel's data.[57]

Another attempt[54] to resolve the Mendelian Paradox notes that a conflict may sometimes arise between the moral imperative of a bias-free recounting of one's factual observations and the even more important imperative of advancing scientific knowledge. Mendel might have felt compelled to simplify his data in order to meet real, or feared, editorial objections.[53] Such an action could be justified on moral grounds (and hence provide a resolution to the Mendelian Paradox), since the alternativerefusing to complymight have retarded the growth of scientific knowledge. Similarly, like so many other obscure innovators of science,[53][28] Mendel, a little known innovator of working-class background, had to break through the cognitive paradigms and social prejudices of his audience.[53] If such a breakthrough could be best achieved by deliberately omitting some observations from his report and adjusting others to make them more palatable to his audience, such actions could be justified on moral grounds.[54]

Daniel L. Hartl and Daniel J. Fairbanks reject outright Fisher's statistical argument, suggesting that Fisher incorrectly interpreted Mendel's experiments. They find it likely that Mendel scored more than 10 progeny, and that the results matched the expectation. They conclude: "Fisher's allegation of deliberate falsification can finally be put to rest, because on closer analysis it has proved to be unsupported by convincing evidence."[51][58] In 2008 Hartl and Fairbanks (with Allan Franklin and AWF Edwards) wrote a comprehensive book in which they concluded that there were no reasons to assert Mendel fabricated his results, nor that Fisher deliberately tried to diminish Mendel's legacy.[59] Reassessment of Fisher's statistical analysis, according to these authors, also disprove the notion of confirmation bias in Mendel's results.[60][61]

More here:
Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia

Read More...

Plant genetics – Wikipedia

Tuesday, June 26th, 2018

Plant genetics is the study of genes, genetic variation, and heredity specifically in Plants.[1][2] It is generally considered a field of biology and botany, but intersects frequently with many other life sciences and is strongly linked with the study of information systems. Plant genetics is similar in many ways to animal genetics but differs in a few key areas.

The discoverer of genetics is Gregor Mendel, a late 19th-century scientist and Augustinian friar. Mendel studied "trait inheritance", patterns in the way traits are handed down from parents to offspring. He observed that organisms (pea plants) inherit traits by way of discrete "units of inheritance". This term, still used today, is a somewhat ambiguous definition of what is referred to as a gene. Much of Mendel's work with plants still forms the basis for modern plant genetics.

Plants, like all known organisms, use DNA to pass on their traits. Animal genetics often focuses on parentage and lineage, but this can sometimes be difficult in plant genetics due to the fact that plants can, unlike most animals, can self-fertilize. Speciation can be easier in many plants due to unique genetic abilities, such as being well adapted to polyploidy. Plants are unique in that they are able to make their own food via photosynthesis, a process which is achieved by use of a structure mostly exclusive to plants: chloroplasts. Chloroplasts, like the superficially similar mitochondria, possess their own DNA. Chloroplasts thus provide an additional reservoir for genes and genetic diversity, and an extra layer of genetic complexity not found in animals.

The study of plant genetics has major economic impacts: many staple crops are genetically modified to increase yields, confer pest and disease resistance, provide resistance to herbicides, or to increase their nutritional value.

The field of plant genetics began with the work of Gregor Mendel, who is often called the "father of genetics". He was an Augustinian priest and scientist born on 20 July 1822 in Austria-Hungary. He worked at the Abbey of St. Thomas in Brno , where his organism of choice for studying inheritance and traits was the pea plant. Mendel's work tracked many phenotypic traits of pea plants, such as their height, flower color, and seed characteristics. Mendel showed that the inheritance of these traits follows particular laws, which were later named after him. His seminal work on genetics was published in 1866, but went almost entirely unnoticed until 1900. Mendel died in 1884. The significance of Mendel's work was not recognized until the turn of the 20th century. Its rediscovery prompted the foundation of modern genetics.

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints or a recipe, or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the use of this genetic information. Geneticists, including plant geneticists, use this sequencing of DNA to their advantage as they splice and delete certain genes and regions of the DNA molecule to produce a different or desired genotype and thus, also producing a different phenotype.

Plants, like all other known living organisms, pass on their traits using DNA. Plants however are unique from other living organisms in the fact that they have Chloroplasts. Like mitochondria, chloroplasts have their own DNA. Like animals, plants experience somatic mutations regularly, but these mutations can contribute to the germ line with ease, since flowers develop at the ends of branches composed of somatic cells. People have known of this for centuries, and mutant branches are called "sports". If the fruit on the sport is economically desirable, a new cultivar may be obtained.

Some plant species are capable of self-fertilization, and some are nearly exclusively self-fertilizers. This means that a plant can be both mother and father to its offspring, a rare occurrence in animals. Scientists and hobbyists attempting to make crosses between different plants must take special measures to prevent the plants from self-fertilizing. In plant breeding, people create hybrids between plant species for economic and aesthetic reasons. For example, the yield of Corn has increased nearly five-fold in the past century due in part to the discovery and proliferation of hybrid corn varieties.[3] Plant genetics can be used to predict which combination of plants may produce a plant with Hybrid vigor, or conversely many discoveries in Plant genetics have come from studying the effects of hybridization.

Plants are generally more capable of surviving, and indeed flourishing, as polyploids. Polyploid organisms have more than two sets of homologous chromosomes. For example, humans have two sets of homologous chromosomes, meaning that a typical human will have 2 copies each of 23 different chromosomes, for a total of 46. Wheat on the other hand, while having only 7 distinct chromosomes, is considered a hexaploid and has 6 copies of each chromosome, for a total of 42.[4] In animals, inheritable germline polyploidy is less common, and spontaneous chromosome increases may not even survive past fertilization. In plants however this is no such problem, polyploid individuals are created frequently by a variety of processes, however once created usually cannot cross back to the parental type. Polyploid individuals, if capable of self-fertilizing, can give rise to a new genetically distinct lineage, which can be the start of a new species. This is often called "instant speciation". Polyploids generally have larger fruit, an economically desirable trait, and many human food crops, including wheat, maize, potatoes, peanuts,[5] strawberries and tobacco, are either accidentally or deliberately created polyploids.

Arabidopsis thaliana, also known as thale cress, has been the model organism for the study of plant genetics. As Drosphila, a species of fruit fly, was to the understanding of early genetics, so has been arabidopsis to the understanding of plant genetics.

Genetically modified (GM) foods are produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering techniques allow for the introduction of new traits as well as greater control over traits than previous methods such as selective breeding and mutation breeding.[6]

Genetically modifying plants is an important economic activity: in 2017, 89% of corn, 94% of soybeans, and 91% of cotton produced in the US were from genetically modified strains[7]. Since the introduction of GM crops, yields have increased by 22%, and profits have increased to farmers, especially in the developing world, by 68%. An important side effect of GM crops has been decreased land requirements, [8]

Commercial sale of genetically modified foods began in 1994, when Calgene first marketed its unsuccessful Flavr Savr delayed-ripening tomato.[9][10] Most food modifications have primarily focused on cash crops in high demand by farmers such as soybean, corn, canola, and cotton. Genetically modified crops have been engineered for resistance to pathogens and herbicides and for better nutrient profiles.[11] Other such crops include the economically important GM papaya which are resistant to the highly destructive Papaya ringspot virus, and the nutritionally improved golden rice (it is however still in development).[12]

There is a scientific consensus[13][14][15][16] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[17][18][19][20][21] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[22][23] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[24][25][26][27] The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[28][29][30][31] There are still ongoing public concerns related to food safety, regulation, labeling, environmental impact, research methods, and the fact that some GM seeds are subject to intellectual property rights owned by corporations.[32]

Genetic modification has been the cause for much research into modern plant genetics, and has also lead to the sequencing of many plant genomes. Today there are two predominant procedures of transforming genes in organisms: the "Gene gun" method and the Agrobacterium method.

The gene gun method is also referred to as "biolistics" (ballistics using biological components). This technique is used for in vivo (within a living organism) transformation and has been especially useful in monocot species like corn and rice.This approach literally shoots genes into plant cells and plant cell chloroplasts. DNA is coated onto small particles of gold or tungsten approximately two micrometres in diameter. The particles are placed in a vacuum chamber and the plant tissue to be engineered is placed below the chamber. The particles are propelled at high velocity using a short pulse of high pressure helium gas, and hit a fine mesh baffle placed above the tissue while the DNA coating continues into any target cell or tissue.

Transformation via Agrobacterium has been successfully practiced in dicots, i.e. broadleaf plants, such as soybeans and tomatoes, for many years. Recently it has been adapted and is now effective in monocots like grasses, including corn and rice. In general, the Agrobacterium method is considered preferable to the gene gun, because of a greater frequency of single-site insertions of the foreign DNA, which allows for easier monitoring. In this method, the tumor inducing (Ti) region is removed from the T-DNA (transfer DNA) and replaced with the desired gene and a marker, which is then inserted into the organism. This may involve direct inoculation of the tissue with a culture of transformed Agrobacterium, or inoculation following treatment with micro-projectile bombardment, which wounds the tissue.[33] Wounding of the target tissue causes the release of phenolic compounds by the plant, which induces invasion of the tissue by Agrobacterium. Because of this, microprojectile bombardment often increases the efficiency of infection with Agrobacterium. The marker is used to find the organism which has successfully taken up the desired gene. Tissues of the organism are then transferred to a medium containing an antibiotic or herbicide, depending on which marker was used. The Agrobacterium present is also killed by the antibiotic. Only tissues expressing the marker will survive and possess the gene of interest. Thus, subsequent steps in the process will only use these surviving plants. In order to obtain whole plants from these tissues, they are grown under controlled environmental conditions in tissue culture. This is a process of a series of media, each containing nutrients and hormones. Once the plants are grown and produce seed, the process of evaluating the progeny begins. This process entails selection of the seeds with the desired traits and then retesting and growing to make sure that the entire process has been completed successfully with the desired results.

Domingo, Jos L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Gin (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants" (PDF). Environment International. 37: 734742. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID21296423.

Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40: 132. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381.

And contrast:

Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (January 14, 2016). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology: 15. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. PMID26767435.

and

Yang, Y.T.; Chen, B. (2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96: 18511855. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID26536836.

Pinholster, Ginger (October 25, 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"". American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved February 8, 2016.

Go here to read the rest:
Plant genetics - Wikipedia

Read More...

Analysts Set $4.35 Price Target for Fulgent Genetics Inc …

Tuesday, June 26th, 2018

Fulgent Genetics Inc (NASDAQ:FLGT) has been assigned a consensus broker rating score of 3.00 (Hold) from the one brokers that provide coverage for the stock, Zacks Investment Research reports. One research analyst has rated the stock with a hold rating.

Brokers have set a 1 year consensus price objective of $4.35 for the company and are anticipating that the company will post ($0.05) EPS for the current quarter, according to Zacks. Zacks has also given Fulgent Genetics an industry rank of 70 out of 255 based on the ratings given to related companies.

Several equities analysts have recently weighed in on FLGT shares. Credit Suisse Group decreased their price target on shares of Fulgent Genetics from $6.50 to $6.00 and set an outperform rating on the stock in a research note on Thursday, March 1st. Piper Jaffray Companies downgraded shares of Fulgent Genetics from an overweight rating to a neutral rating in a research note on Thursday, March 1st. Finally, ValuEngine raised shares of Fulgent Genetics from a sell rating to a hold rating in a research note on Wednesday, May 2nd.

Shares of Fulgent Genetics traded down $0.27, hitting $4.19, during midday trading on Friday, MarketBeat.com reports. The companys stock had a trading volume of 11,472 shares, compared to its average volume of 12,262. The company has a market cap of $79.79 million, a P/E ratio of -38.09 and a beta of 0.28. Fulgent Genetics has a 12-month low of $2.72 and a 12-month high of $7.04.

Fulgent Genetics (NASDAQ:FLGT) last posted its quarterly earnings results on Monday, May 7th. The company reported ($0.06) earnings per share for the quarter, missing the Thomson Reuters consensus estimate of ($0.04) by ($0.02). The business had revenue of $4.65 million during the quarter. Fulgent Genetics had a negative return on equity of 7.62% and a negative net margin of 26.57%. analysts expect that Fulgent Genetics will post -0.29 earnings per share for the current year.

Fulgent Genetics Company Profile

Fulgent Genetics, Inc, together with its subsidiaries, provides genetic testing services to physicians with clinically actionable diagnostic information. Its technology platform integrates data comparison and suppression algorithms, learning software, and genetic diagnostics tools and integrated laboratory processes.

Get a free copy of the Zacks research report on Fulgent Genetics (FLGT)

For more information about research offerings from Zacks Investment Research, visit Zacks.com

Receive News & Ratings for Fulgent Genetics Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Fulgent Genetics and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter.

Continued here:
Analysts Set $4.35 Price Target for Fulgent Genetics Inc ...

Read More...

Myriad Genetics (MYGN) versus Quotient (QTNT) Head-To-Head …

Tuesday, June 26th, 2018

Myriad Genetics (NASDAQ: MYGN) and Quotient (NASDAQ:QTNT) are both medical companies, but which is the superior stock? We will contrast the two businesses based on the strength of their profitability, dividends, analyst recommendations, earnings, institutional ownership, risk and valuation.

Risk & Volatility

Myriad Genetics has a beta of 0.55, meaning that its stock price is 45% less volatile than the S&P 500. Comparatively, Quotient has a beta of 0.25, meaning that its stock price is 75% less volatile than the S&P 500.

This table compares Myriad Genetics and Quotients net margins, return on equity and return on assets.

Insider & Institutional Ownership

61.5% of Quotient shares are owned by institutional investors. 6.7% of Myriad Genetics shares are owned by company insiders. Comparatively, 29.0% of Quotient shares are owned by company insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that endowments, large money managers and hedge funds believe a stock is poised for long-term growth.

Analyst Recommendations

This is a summary of current ratings and price targets for Myriad Genetics and Quotient, as reported by MarketBeat.

Myriad Genetics currently has a consensus price target of $30.91, suggesting a potential downside of 20.48%. Quotient has a consensus price target of $11.50, suggesting a potential upside of 30.68%. Given Quotients stronger consensus rating and higher probable upside, analysts plainly believe Quotient is more favorable than Myriad Genetics.

Earnings and Valuation

This table compares Myriad Genetics and Quotients gross revenue, earnings per share and valuation.

Myriad Genetics has higher revenue and earnings than Quotient. Quotient is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than Myriad Genetics, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

Summary

Myriad Genetics beats Quotient on 8 of the 13 factors compared between the two stocks.

About Myriad Genetics

Myriad Genetics, Inc., a molecular diagnostic company, focuses on developing and marketing novel predictive medicine, personalized medicine, and prognostic medicine tests worldwide. The company offers molecular diagnostic tests, including myRisk Hereditary Cancer, a DNA sequencing test for hereditary cancers; BRACAnalysis, a DNA sequencing test to assess the risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer; BART, a DNA sequencing test for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer; BRACAnalysis CDx, a DNA sequencing test for use as a companion diagnostic with the platinum based chemotherapy agents and poly ADP ribose inhibitor Lynparza; and Tumor BRACAnalysis CDx, a DNA sequencing test that is designed to be utilized to predict response to DNA damaging agents. It also provides COLARIS, a DNA sequencing test for colorectal and uterine cancer; COLARIS AP, a DNA sequencing test for colorectal cancer; Vectra DA, a protein quantification test for assessing the disease activity of rheumatoid arthritis; Prolaris, a RNA expression test for assessing the aggressiveness of prostate cancer; and EndoPredict, a RNA expression test for assessing the aggressiveness of breast cancer. In addition, the company offers myPath Melanoma, a RNA expression test for diagnosing melanoma; myChoice HRD, a companion diagnostic to measure three modes of homologous recombination deficiency; and GeneSight, a DNA genotyping test to optimize psychotropic drug selection for neuroscience patients. Further, it provides biomarker discovery, and pharmaceutical and clinical services to the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical research industries; and operates an internal medicine emergency hospital primarily for internal medicine and hemodialysis. The company has collaboration with AstraZeneca for the development of an indication for BRACAnalysis CDx. Myriad Genetics, Inc. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.

About Quotient

Quotient Limited, a commercial-stage diagnostics company, develops, manufactures, and commercializes conventional reagent products used for blood grouping in the transfusion diagnostics market worldwide. The company is developing MosaiQ, a proprietary technology platform, which provides tests for blood grouping and serological disease screening. It also develops, manufactures, and commercializes conventional reagent products for blood grouping, including antisera products that are used to identify blood-group antigens; reagent red blood cells, which enable the identification of blood-group antibodies; whole blood control products for use as daily quality assurance tests; and ancillary products that are used to support blood grouping. The company sells its products to donor collection agencies and testing laboratories, hospitals, independent patient testing laboratories, reference laboratories, blood banking operations, and other diagnostic companies, as well as to original equipment manufacturers. Quotient Limited was founded in 2007 and is based in Penicuik, the United Kingdom.

Receive News & Ratings for Myriad Genetics Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Myriad Genetics and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter.

See the original post:
Myriad Genetics (MYGN) versus Quotient (QTNT) Head-To-Head ...

Read More...

genetics | History, Biology, Timeline, & Facts …

Thursday, June 21st, 2018

Genetics, study of heredity in general and of genes in particular. Genetics forms one of the central pillars of biology and overlaps with many other areas, such as agriculture, medicine, and biotechnology.

Since the dawn of civilization, humankind has recognized the influence of heredity and applied its principles to the improvement of cultivated crops and domestic animals. A Babylonian tablet more than 6,000 years old, for example, shows pedigrees of horses and indicates possible inherited characteristics. Other old carvings show cross-pollination of date palm trees. Most of the mechanisms of heredity, however, remained a mystery until the 19th century, when genetics as a systematic science began.

Genetics arose out of the identification of genes, the fundamental units responsible for heredity. Genetics may be defined as the study of genes at all levels, including the ways in which they act in the cell and the ways in which they are transmitted from parents to offspring. Modern genetics focuses on the chemical substance that genes are made of, called deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, and the ways in which it affects the chemical reactions that constitute the living processes within the cell. Gene action depends on interaction with the environment. Green plants, for example, have genes containing the information necessary to synthesize the photosynthetic pigment chlorophyll that gives them their green colour. Chlorophyll is synthesized in an environment containing light because the gene for chlorophyll is expressed only when it interacts with light. If a plant is placed in a dark environment, chlorophyll synthesis stops because the gene is no longer expressed.

Genetics as a scientific discipline stemmed from the work of Gregor Mendel in the middle of the 19th century. Mendel suspected that traits were inherited as discrete units, and, although he knew nothing of the physical or chemical nature of genes at the time, his units became the basis for the development of the present understanding of heredity. All present research in genetics can be traced back to Mendels discovery of the laws governing the inheritance of traits. The word genetics was introduced in 1905 by English biologist William Bateson, who was one of the discoverers of Mendels work and who became a champion of Mendels principles of inheritance.

Read More on This Topic

heredity

clear in the study of genetics. Both aspects of heredity can be explained by genes, the functional units of heritable material that are found within all living cells. Every member of a species has a set of genes specific to that species. It is this set of genes that provides

Although scientific evidence for patterns of genetic inheritance did not appear until Mendels work, history shows that humankind must have been interested in heredity long before the dawn of civilization. Curiosity must first have been based on human family resemblances, such as similarity in body structure, voice, gait, and gestures. Such notions were instrumental in the establishment of family and royal dynasties. Early nomadic tribes were interested in the qualities of the animals that they herded and domesticated and, undoubtedly, bred selectively. The first human settlements that practiced farming appear to have selected crop plants with favourable qualities. Ancient tomb paintings show racehorse breeding pedigrees containing clear depictions of the inheritance of several distinct physical traits in the horses. Despite this interest, the first recorded speculations on heredity did not exist until the time of the ancient Greeks; some aspects of their ideas are still considered relevant today.

Hippocrates (c. 460c. 375 bce), known as the father of medicine, believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, and, to account for this, he devised the hypothesis known as pangenesis. He postulated that all organs of the body of a parent gave off invisible seeds, which were like miniaturized building components and were transmitted during sexual intercourse, reassembling themselves in the mothers womb to form a baby.

Aristotle (384322 bce) emphasized the importance of blood in heredity. He thought that the blood supplied generative material for building all parts of the adult body, and he reasoned that blood was the basis for passing on this generative power to the next generation. In fact, he believed that the males semen was purified blood and that a womans menstrual blood was her equivalent of semen. These male and female contributions united in the womb to produce a baby. The blood contained some type of hereditary essences, but he believed that the baby would develop under the influence of these essences, rather than being built from the essences themselves.

Aristotles ideas about the role of blood in procreation were probably the origin of the still prevalent notion that somehow the blood is involved in heredity. Today people still speak of certain traits as being in the blood and of blood lines and blood ties. The Greek model of inheritance, in which a teeming multitude of substances was invoked, differed from that of the Mendelian model. Mendels idea was that distinct differences between individuals are determined by differences in single yet powerful hereditary factors. These single hereditary factors were identified as genes. Copies of genes are transmitted through sperm and egg and guide the development of the offspring. Genes are also responsible for reproducing the distinct features of both parents that are visible in their children.

In the two millennia between the lives of Aristotle and Mendel, few new ideas were recorded on the nature of heredity. In the 17th and 18th centuries the idea of preformation was introduced. Scientists using the newly developed microscopes imagined that they could see miniature replicas of human beings inside sperm heads. French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck invoked the idea of the inheritance of acquired characters, not as an explanation for heredity but as a model for evolution. He lived at a time when the fixity of species was taken for granted, yet he maintained that this fixity was only found in a constant environment. He enunciated the law of use and disuse, which states that when certain organs become specially developed as a result of some environmental need, then that state of development is hereditary and can be passed on to progeny. He believed that in this way, over many generations, giraffes could arise from deerlike animals that had to keep stretching their necks to reach high leaves on trees.

British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace originally postulated the theory of evolution by natural selection. However, Charles Darwins observations during his circumnavigation of the globe aboard the HMS Beagle (183136) provided evidence for natural selection and his suggestion that humans and animals shared a common ancestry. Many scientists at the time believed in a hereditary mechanism that was a version of the ancient Greek idea of pangenesis, and Darwins ideas did not appear to fit with the theory of heredity that sprang from the experiments of Mendel.

Before Gregor Mendel, theories for a hereditary mechanism were based largely on logic and speculation, not on experimentation. In his monastery garden, Mendel carried out a large number of cross-pollination experiments between variants of the garden pea, which he obtained as pure-breeding lines. He crossed peas with yellow seeds to those with green seeds and observed that the progeny seeds (the first generation, F1) were all yellow. When the F1 individuals were self-pollinated or crossed among themselves, their progeny (F2) showed a ratio of 3:1 (3/4 yellow and 1/4 green). He deduced that, since the F2 generation contained some green individuals, the determinants of greenness must have been present in the F1 generation, although they were not expressed because yellow is dominant over green. From the precise mathematical 3:1 ratio (of which he found several other examples), he deduced not only the existence of discrete hereditary units (genes) but also that the units were present in pairs in the pea plant and that the pairs separated during gamete formation. Hence, the two original lines of pea plants were proposed to be YY (yellow) and yy (green). The gametes from these were Y and y, thereby producing an F1 generation of Yy that were yellow in colour because of the dominance of Y. In the F1 generation, half the gametes were Y and the other half were y, making the F2 generation produced from random mating 1/4 Yy, 1/2 YY, and 1/4 yy, thus explaining the 3:1 ratio. The forms of the pea colour genes, Y and y, are called alleles.

Mendel also analyzed pure lines that differed in pairs of characters, such as seed colour (yellow versus green) and seed shape (round versus wrinkled). The cross of yellow round seeds with green wrinkled seeds resulted in an F1 generation that were all yellow and round, revealing the dominance of the yellow and round traits. However, the F2 generation produced by self-pollination of F1 plants showed a ratio of 9:3:3:1 (9/16 yellow round, 3/16 yellow wrinkled, 3/16 green round, and 1/16 green wrinkled; note that a 9:3:3:1 ratio is simply two 3:1 ratios combined). From this result and others like it, he deduced the independent assortment of separate gene pairs at gamete formation.

Mendels success can be attributed in part to his classic experimental approach. He chose his experimental organism well and performed many controlled experiments to collect data. From his results, he developed brilliant explanatory hypotheses and went on to test these hypotheses experimentally. Mendels methodology established a prototype for genetics that is still used today for gene discovery and understanding the genetic properties of inheritance.

Mendels genes were only hypothetical entities, factors that could be inferred to exist in order to explain his results. The 20th century saw tremendous strides in the development of the understanding of the nature of genes and how they function. Mendels publications lay unmentioned in the research literature until 1900, when the same conclusions were reached by several other investigators. Then there followed hundreds of papers showing Mendelian inheritance in a wide array of plants and animals, including humans. It seemed that Mendels ideas were of general validity. Many biologists noted that the inheritance of genes closely paralleled the inheritance of chromosomes during nuclear divisions, called meiosis, that occur in the cell divisions just prior to gamete formation.

It seemed that genes were parts of chromosomes. In 1910 this idea was strengthened through the demonstration of parallel inheritance of certain Drosophila (a type of fruit fly) genes on sex-determining chromosomes by American zoologist and geneticist Thomas Hunt Morgan. Morgan and one of his students, Alfred Henry Sturtevant, showed not only that certain genes seemed to be linked on the same chromosome but that the distance between genes on the same chromosome could be calculated by measuring the frequency at which new chromosomal combinations arose (these were proposed to be caused by chromosomal breakage and reunion, also known as crossing over). In 1916 another student of Morgans, Calvin Bridges, used fruit flies with an extra chromosome to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the only way to explain the abnormal inheritance of certain genes was if they were part of the extra chromosome. American geneticist Hermann Joseph Mller showed that new alleles (called mutations) could be produced at high frequencies by treating cells with X-rays, the first demonstration of an environmental mutagenic agent (mutations can also arise spontaneously). In 1931 American botanist Harriet Creighton and American scientist Barbara McClintock demonstrated that new allelic combinations of linked genes were correlated with physically exchanged chromosome parts.

In 1908 British physician Archibald Garrod proposed the important idea that the human disease alkaptonuria, and certain other hereditary diseases, were caused by inborn errors of metabolism, suggesting for the first time that linked genes had molecular action at the cell level. Molecular genetics did not begin in earnest until 1941 when American geneticist George Beadle and American biochemist Edward Tatum showed that the genes they were studying in the fungus Neurospora crassa acted by coding for catalytic proteins called enzymes. Subsequent studies in other organisms extended this idea to show that genes generally code for proteins. Soon afterward, American bacteriologist Oswald Avery, Canadian American geneticist Colin M. MacLeod, and American biologist Maclyn McCarty showed that bacterial genes are made of DNA, a finding that was later extended to all organisms.

A major landmark was attained in 1953 when American geneticist and biophysicist James D. Watson and British biophysicists Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins devised a double helix model for DNA structure. This model showed that DNA was capable of self-replication by separating its complementary strands and using them as templates for the synthesis of new DNA molecules. Each of the intertwined strands of DNA was proposed to be a chain of chemical groups called nucleotides, of which there were known to be four types. Because proteins are strings of amino acids, it was proposed that a specific nucleotide sequence of DNA could contain a code for an amino acid sequence and hence protein structure. In 1955 American molecular biologist Seymour Benzer, extending earlier studies in Drosophila, showed that the mutant sites within a gene could be mapped in relation to each other. His linear map indicated that the gene itself is a linear structure.

In 1958 the strand-separation method for DNA replication (called the semiconservative method) was demonstrated experimentally for the first time by American molecular biologist Matthew Meselson and American geneticist Franklin W. Stahl. In 1961 Crick and South African biologist Sydney Brenner showed that the genetic code must be read in triplets of nucleotides, called codons. American geneticist Charles Yanofsky showed that the positions of mutant sites within a gene matched perfectly the positions of altered amino acids in the amino acid sequence of the corresponding protein. In 1966 the complete genetic code of all 64 possible triplet coding units (codons), and the specific amino acids they code for, was deduced by American biochemists Marshall Nirenberg and Har Gobind Khorana. Subsequent studies in many organisms showed that the double helical structure of DNA, the mode of its replication, and the genetic code are the same in virtually all organisms, including plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, and viruses. In 1961 French biologist Franois Jacob and French biochemist Jacques Monod established the prototypical model for gene regulation by showing that bacterial genes can be turned on (initiating transcription into RNA and protein synthesis) and off through the binding action of regulatory proteins to a region just upstream of the coding region of the gene.

Technical advances have played an important role in the advance of genetic understanding. In 1970 American microbiologists Daniel Nathans and Hamilton Othanel Smith discovered a specialized class of enzymes (called restriction enzymes) that cut DNA at specific nucleotide target sequences. That discovery allowed American biochemist Paul Berg in 1972 to make the first artificial recombinant DNA molecule by isolating DNA molecules from different sources, cutting them, and joining them together in a test tube. These advances allowed individual genes to be cloned (amplified to a high copy number) by splicing them into self-replicating DNA molecules, such as plasmids (extragenomic circular DNA elements) or viruses, and inserting these into living bacterial cells. From these methodologies arose the field of recombinant DNA technology that presently dominates molecular genetics. In 1977 two different methods were invented for determining the nucleotide sequence of DNA: one by American molecular biologists Allan Maxam and Walter Gilbert and the other by English biochemist Fred Sanger. Such technologies made it possible to examine the structure of genes directly by nucleotide sequencing, resulting in the confirmation of many of the inferences about genes originally made indirectly.

In the 1970s Canadian biochemist Michael Smith revolutionized the art of redesigning genes by devising a method for inducing specifically tailored mutations at defined sites within a gene, creating a technique known as site-directed mutagenesis. In 1983 American biochemist Kary B. Mullis invented the polymerase chain reaction, a method for rapidly detecting and amplifying a specific DNA sequence without cloning it. In the last decade of the 20th century, progress in recombinant DNA technology and in the development of automated sequencing machines led to the elucidation of complete DNA sequences of several viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals. In 2001 the complete sequence of human DNA, approximately three billion nucleotide pairs, was made public.

A time line of important milestones in the history of genetics is provided in the table.

Classical genetics, which remains the foundation for all other areas in genetics, is concerned primarily with the method by which genetic traitsclassified as dominant (always expressed), recessive (subordinate to a dominant trait), intermediate (partially expressed), or polygenic (due to multiple genes)are transmitted in plants and animals. These traits may be sex-linked (resulting from the action of a gene on the sex, or X, chromosome) or autosomal (resulting from the action of a gene on a chromosome other than a sex chromosome). Classical genetics began with Mendels study of inheritance in garden peas and continues with studies of inheritance in many different plants and animals. Today a prime reason for performing classical genetics is for gene discoverythe finding and assembling of a set of genes that affects a biological property of interest.

Cytogenetics, the microscopic study of chromosomes, blends the skills of cytologists, who study the structure and activities of cells, with those of geneticists, who study genes. Cytologists discovered chromosomes and the way in which they duplicate and separate during cell division at about the same time that geneticists began to understand the behaviour of genes at the cellular level. The close correlation between the two disciplines led to their combination.

Plant cytogenetics early became an important subdivision of cytogenetics because, as a general rule, plant chromosomes are larger than those of animals. Animal cytogenetics became important after the development of the so-called squash technique, in which entire cells are pressed flat on a piece of glass and observed through a microscope; the human chromosomes were numbered using this technique.

Today there are multiple ways to attach molecular labels to specific genes and chromosomes, as well as to specific RNAs and proteins, that make these molecules easily discernible from other components of cells, thereby greatly facilitating cytogenetics research.

Microorganisms were generally ignored by the early geneticists because they are small in size and were thought to lack variable traits and the sexual reproduction necessary for a mixing of genes from different organisms. After it was discovered that microorganisms have many different physical and physiological characteristics that are amenable to study, they became objects of great interest to geneticists because of their small size and the fact that they reproduce much more rapidly than larger organisms. Bacteria became important model organisms in genetic analysis, and many discoveries of general interest in genetics arose from their study. Bacterial genetics is the centre of cloning technology.

Viral genetics is another key part of microbial genetics. The genetics of viruses that attack bacteria were the first to be elucidated. Since then, studies and findings of viral genetics have been applied to viruses pathogenic on plants and animals, including humans. Viruses are also used as vectors (agents that carry and introduce modified genetic material into an organism) in DNA technology.

Molecular genetics is the study of the molecular structure of DNA, its cellular activities (including its replication), and its influence in determining the overall makeup of an organism. Molecular genetics relies heavily on genetic engineering (recombinant DNA technology), which can be used to modify organisms by adding foreign DNA, thereby forming transgenic organisms. Since the early 1980s, these techniques have been used extensively in basic biological research and are also fundamental to the biotechnology industry, which is devoted to the manufacture of agricultural and medical products. Transgenesis forms the basis of gene therapy, the attempt to cure genetic disease by addition of normally functioning genes from exogenous sources.

The development of the technology to sequence the DNA of whole genomes on a routine basis has given rise to the discipline of genomics, which dominates genetics research today. Genomics is the study of the structure, function, and evolutionary comparison of whole genomes. Genomics has made it possible to study gene function at a broader level, revealing sets of genes that interact to impinge on some biological property of interest to the researcher. Bioinformatics is the computer-based discipline that deals with the analysis of such large sets of biological information, especially as it applies to genomic information.

The study of genes in populations of animals, plants, and microbes provides information on past migrations, evolutionary relationships and extents of mixing among different varieties and species, and methods of adaptation to the environment. Statistical methods are used to analyze gene distributions and chromosomal variations in populations.

Population genetics is based on the mathematics of the frequencies of alleles and of genetic types in populations. For example, the Hardy-Weinberg formula, p2 + 2pq + q2 = 1, predicts the frequency of individuals with the respective homozygous dominant (AA), heterozygous (Aa), and homozygous recessive (aa) genotypes in a randomly mating population. Selection, mutation, and random changes can be incorporated into such mathematical models to explain and predict the course of evolutionary change at the population level. These methods can be used on alleles of known phenotypic effect, such as the recessive allele for albinism, or on DNA segments of any type of known or unknown function.

Human population geneticists have traced the origins and migration and invasion routes of modern humans, Homo sapiens. DNA comparisons between the present peoples on the planet have pointed to an African origin of Homo sapiens. Tracing specific forms of genes has allowed geneticists to deduce probable migration routes out of Africa to the areas colonized today. Similar studies show to what degree present populations have been mixed by recent patterns of travel.

Another aspect of genetics is the study of the influence of heredity on behaviour. Many aspects of animal behaviour are genetically determined and can therefore be treated as similar to other biological properties. This is the subject material of behaviour genetics, whose goal is to determine which genes control various aspects of behaviour in animals. Human behaviour is difficult to analyze because of the powerful effects of environmental factors, such as culture. Few cases of genetic determination of complex human behaviour are known. Genomics studies provide a useful way to explore the genetic factors involved in complex human traits such as behaviour.

Some geneticists specialize in the hereditary processes of human genetics. Most of the emphasis is on understanding and treating genetic disease and genetically influenced ill health, areas collectively known as medical genetics. One broad area of activity is laboratory research dealing with the mechanisms of human gene function and malfunction and investigating pharmaceutical and other types of treatments. Since there is a high degree of evolutionary conservation between organisms, research on model organismssuch as bacteria, fungi, and fruit flies (Drosophila)which are easier to study, often provides important insights into human gene function.

Many single-gene diseases, caused by mutant alleles of a single gene, have been discovered. Two well-characterized single-gene diseases include phenylketonuria (PKU) and Tay-Sachs disease. Other diseases, such as heart disease, schizophrenia, and depression, are thought to have more complex heredity components that involve a number of different genes. These diseases are the focus of a great deal of research that is being carried out today.

Another broad area of activity is clinical genetics, which centres on advising parents of the likelihood of their children being affected by genetic disease caused by mutant genes and abnormal chromosome structure and number. Such genetic counseling is based on examining individual and family medical records and on diagnostic procedures that can detect unexpressed, abnormal forms of genes. Counseling is carried out by physicians with a particular interest in this area or by specially trained nonphysicians.

See the rest here:
genetics | History, Biology, Timeline, & Facts ...

Read More...

Chimera (genetics) – Wikipedia

Wednesday, June 20th, 2018

This article is about genetic chimrism. For the cartilaginous fish, see Chimaera. For the mythological beast, see Chimera (mythology).

A genetic chimerism or chimera (also spelled chimaera) is a single organism composed of cells with distinct genotypes. In animals, this means an individual derived from two or more zygotes, which can include possessing blood cells of different blood types, subtle variations in form (phenotype), and if the zygotes were of differing sexes then even the possession of both female and male sex organs[1] (this is just one of many different ways that may result in intersexuality). Animal chimeras are produced by the merger of multiple fertilized eggs. In plant chimeras, however, the distinct types of tissue may originate from the same zygote, and the difference is often due to mutation during ordinary cell division. Normally, genetic chimerism is not visible on casual inspection; however, it has been detected in the course of proving parentage.[2]

Another way that chimerism can occur in animals is by organ transplantation, giving one individual tissues that developed from a different genome. For example, transplantation of bone marrow (an organ often not thought of as being such) often determines the recipient's ensuing blood type.

An animal chimera is a single organism that is composed of two or more different populations of genetically distinct cells that originated from different zygotes involved in sexual reproduction. If the different cells have emerged from the same zygote, the organism is called a mosaic. Chimeras are formed from at least four parent cells (two fertilised eggs or early embryos fused together). Each population of cells keeps its own character and the resulting organism is a mixture of tissues. Cases of human chimerism have been documented.[1]

This condition is either inherited or it is acquired through the infusion of allogeneic hematopoietic cells during transplantation or transfusion. In nonidentical twins, chimerism occurs by means of blood-vessel anastomoses. The likelihood of offspring being a chimera is increased if it is created via in vitro fertilisation.[3] Chimeras can often breed, but the fertility and type of offspring depends on which cell line gave rise to the ovaries or testes; varying degrees of intersex differences may result if one set of cells is genetically female and another genetically male.

Tetragametic chimerism is a form of congenital chimerism. This condition occurs through the fertilisation of two separate ova by two sperm, followed by aggregation of the two at the blastocyst or zygote stages. This results in the development of an organism with intermingled cell lines. Put another way, the chimera is formed from the merging of two nonidentical twins (a similar merging presumably occurs with identical twins, but as their genotypes are not significantly distinct, the resulting individual would not be considered a chimera). As such, they can be male, female, or have mixed intersex characteristics.[citation needed]

As the organism develops, it can come to possess organs that have different sets of chromosomes. For example, the chimera may have a liver composed of cells with one set of chromosomes and have a kidney composed of cells with a second set of chromosomes. This has occurred in humans, and at one time was thought to be extremely rare, though more recent evidence suggests that it is not the case.[1][4]

This is particularly true for the marmoset. Recent research shows most marmosets are chimeras, sharing DNA with their fraternal twins.[5] 95% of marmoset fraternal twins trade blood through chorionic fusions, making them hematopoietic chimeras.[6][7]

Most chimeras will go through life without realizing they are chimeras. The difference in phenotypes may be subtle (e.g., having a hitchhiker's thumb and a straight thumb, eyes of slightly different colors, differential hair growth on opposite sides of the body, etc.) or completely undetectable. Chimeras may also show, under a certain spectrum of UV light, distinctive marks on the back resembling that of arrow points pointing downwards from the shoulders down to the lower back; this is one expression of pigment unevenness called Blaschko's lines.[8]

Affected persons may be identified by the finding of two populations of red cells or, if the zygotes are of opposite sex, ambiguous genitalia and intersex alone or in combination; such persons sometimes also have patchy skin, hair, or eye pigmentation (heterochromia). If the blastocysts are of opposite sex, genitals of both sexes may be formed: either ovary and testis, or combined ovotestes, in one rare form of intersex, a condition previously known as true hermaphroditism.[citation needed]

Note that the frequency of this condition does not indicate the true prevalence of chimerism. Most chimeras composed of both male and female cells probably do not have an intersex condition, as might be expected if the two cell populations were evenly blended throughout the body. Often, most or all of the cells of a single cell type will be composed of a single cell line, i.e. the blood may be composed predominantly of one cell line, and the internal organs of the other cell line. Genitalia produce the hormones responsible for other sex characteristics.

Natural chimeras are almost never detected unless they exhibit abnormalities such as male/female or hermaphrodite characteristics or uneven skin pigmentation. The most noticeable are some male tortoiseshells and calicos (although most male tortoiseshells have an extra X chromosome responsible for the colouration) or animals with ambiguous sex organs.[citation needed]

The existence of chimerism is problematic for DNA testing, a fact with implications for family and criminal law. The Lydia Fairchild case, for example, was brought to court after DNA testing apparently showed that her children could not be hers. Fraud charges were filed against her and her custody of her children was challenged. The charge against her was dismissed when it became clear that Lydia was a chimera, with the matching DNA being found in her cervical tissue.[citation needed] Another case was that of Karen Keegan, who was also suspected (initially) of not being her children's biological mother, after DNA tests on her adult sons for a kidney transplant she needed seemed to show she wasn't their mother.[1][9]

The tetragametic state has important implications for organ or stem-cell transplantation. Chimeras typically have immunologic tolerance to both cell lines.[citation needed]

Microchimerism is the presence of a small number of cells that are genetically distinct from those of the host individual. Most people are born with a few cells genetically identical to their mothers' and the proportion of these cells goes down in healthy individuals as they get older. People who retain higher numbers of cells genetically identical to their mothers' have been observed to have higher rates of some autoimmune diseases, presumably because the immune system is responsible for destroying these cells and a common immune defect prevents it from doing so and also causes autoimmune problems. The higher rates of autoimmune diseases due to the presence of maternally-derived cells is why in a 2010 study of a 40-year-old man with scleroderma-like disease (an autoimmune rheumatic disease), the female cells detected in his blood stream via FISH (fluorescence in situ hybridization) were thought to be maternally-derived. However, his form of microchimerism was found to be due to a vanished twin, and whether or not microchimerism from a vanished twin might predispose individuals to autoimmune diseases as well is unknown.[10] Women often also have a few cells genetically identical to that of their children, and some people also have some cells genetically identical to that of their siblings (maternal siblings only, since these cells are passed to them because their mother retained them).[citation needed]

Chimerism occurs naturally in adult Ceratioid anglerfish and is in fact a natural and essential part of their life cycle. Once the male achieves adulthood, it begins its search for a female. Using strong olfactory (or smell) receptors, the male searches until it locates a female anglerfish. The male, less than an inch in length, bites into her skin and releases an enzyme that digests the skin of both his mouth and her body, fusing the pair down to the blood-vessel level. While this attachment has become necessary for the male's survival, it will eventually consume him, as both anglerfish fuse into a single hermaphroditic individual. Sometimes in this process more than one male will attach to a single female as a symbiote. They will all be consumed into the body of the larger female angler. Once fused to a female, the males will reach sexual maturity, developing large testicles as their other organs atrophy. This process allows for sperm to be in constant supply when the female produces an egg, so that the chimeric fish is able to have a greater number of offspring.[11]

Germline chimerism occurs when the germ cells (for example, sperm and egg cells) of an organism are not genetically identical to its own. It has recently been discovered that marmosets can carry the reproductive cells of their (fraternal) twin siblings, because of placental fusion during development. (Marmosets almost always give birth to fraternal twins.)[5][12][13]

In biological research, chimeras are artificially produced by selectively transplanting embryonic cells from one organism onto the embryo of another, and allowing the resultant blastocyst to develop. Chimeras are not hybrids, which form from the fusion of gametes from two species that form a single zygote with a combined genetic makeup. Nor are they Hybridomas which, as with hybrids, result from fusion of two species' cells into a single cell and artificial propagation of this cell in the laboratory. Essentially, in a chimera, each cell is from either of the parent species, whereas in a hybrid and hybridoma, each cell is derived from both parent species. "Chimera" is a broad term and is often applied to many different mechanisms of the mixing of cells from two different species.[citation needed]

As with cloning, the process of creating and implanting a chimera is imprecise, with the majority of embryos spontaneously terminating. Successes, however, have led to major advancements in the field of embryology, as creating chimeras of one species with different physical traits, such as colour, has allowed researchers to trace the differentiation of embryonic cells through the formation of organ systems in the adult individual.[citation needed]

The first known primate chimeras are the rhesus monkey twins, Roku and Hex, with each having six genomes. They were created by mixing cells from totipotent four cell blastocysts; although the cells never fused they worked together to form organs. It was discovered that one of these primates, Roku, was a sexual chimera; as four percent of Roku's blood cells contained two x chromosomes.[6]

A major milestone in chimera experimentation occurred in 1984, when a chimeric geep was produced by combining embryos from a goat and a sheep, and survived to adulthood.[21] The creation of the "geep" revealed several complexities to chimera development. In implanting a goat embryo for gestation in a sheep, the sheep's immune system would reject the developing goat embryo, whereas a "geep" embryo (sharing markers of immunity with both sheep and goats) was able to survive implantation in either of its parent species.[citation needed]

In August 2003, researchers at the Shanghai Second Medical University in China reported that they had successfully fused human skin cells and rabbit ova to create the first human chimeric embryos. The embryos were allowed to develop for several days in a laboratory setting, then destroyed to harvest the resulting stem cells.[22] In 2007, scientists at the University of Nevada School of Medicine created a sheep whose blood contained 15% human cells and 85% sheep cells.[23]

Chimeric mice are important animals in biological research, as they allow the investigation of a variety of biological questions in an animal that has two distinct genetic pools within it. These include insights into such problems as the tissue specific requirements of a gene, cell lineage, and cell potential. The general methods for creating chimeric mice can be summarized either by injection or aggregation of embryonic cells from different origins. The first chimeric mouse was made by Beatrice Mintz in the 1960s through the aggregation of eight-cell-stage embryos.[24] Injection on the other hand was pioneered by Richard Gardner and Ralph Brinster who injected cells into blastocysts to create chimeric mice with germ lines fully derived from injected embryonic stem cells (ES cells).[25] Chimeras can be derived from mouse embryos that have not yet implanted in the uterus as well as from implanted embryos. ES cells from the inner cell mass of an implanted blastocyst can contribute to all cell lineages of a mouse including the germ line. ES cells are a useful tool in chimeras because genes can be mutated in them through the use of homologous recombination, thus allowing gene targeting. Since this discovery occurred in 1988, ES cells have become a key tool in the generation of specific chimeric mice.[26]

The ability to make mouse chimeras comes from an understanding of early mouse development. Between the stages of fertilization of the egg and the implantation of a blastocyst into the uterus, different parts of the mouse embryo retain the ability to give rise to a variety of cell lineages. Once the embryo has reached the blastocyst stage, it is composed of several parts, mainly the trophectoderm, the inner cell mass, and the primitive endoderm. Each of these parts of the blastocyst gives rise to different parts of the embryo; the inner cell mass gives rise to the embryo proper, while the trophectoderm and primitive endoderm give rise to extra embryonic structures that support growth of the embryo.[27] Two- to eight-cell-stage embryos are competent for making chimeras, since at these stages of development, the cells in the embryos are not yet committed to give rise to any particular cell lineage, and could give rise to the inner cell mass or the trophectoderm. In the case where two diploid eight-cell-stage embryos are used to make a chimera, chimerism can be later found in the epiblast, primitive endoderm, and trophectoderm of the mouse blastocyst.[28][29]

It is possible to dissect the embryo at other stages so as to accordingly give rise to one lineage of cells from an embryo selectively and not the other. For example, subsets of blastomeres can be used to give rise to chimera with specified cell lineage from one embryo. The Inner Cell Mass of a diploid blastocyst for example can be used to make a chimera with another blastocyst of eight-cell diploid embryo; the cells taken from the inner cell mass will give rise to the primitive endoderm and to the epiblast in the chimera mouse.[30] From this knowledge, ES cell contributions to chimeras have been developed. ES cells can be used in combination with eight-cell-and two-cell-stage embryos to make chimeras and exclusively give rise to the embryo proper. Embryos that are to be used in chimeras can further be genetically altered in order to specifically contribute to only one part of chimera. An example is the chimera built off of ES cells and tetraploid embryos, tetraploid embryos which are artificially made by electrofusion of two two-cell diploid embryos. The tetraploid embryo will exclusively give rise to the trophectoderm and primitive endoderm in the chimera.[31][32]

There are a variety of combinations that can give rise to a successful chimera mouse and according to the goal of the experiment an appropriate cell and embryo combination can be picked; they are generally but not limited to diploid embryo and ES cells, diploid embryo and diploid embryo, ES cell and tetraploid embryo, diploid embryo and tetraploid embryo, ES cells and ES cells. The combination of embryonic stem cell and diploid embryo is a common technique used for the making of chimeric mice, since gene targeting can be done in the embryonic stem cell. These kinds of chimeras can be made through either aggregation of stem cells and the diploid embryo or injection of the stem cells into the diploid embryo. If embryonic stem cells are to be used for gene targeting to make a chimera, the following procedure is common: a construct for homologous recombination for the gene targeted will be introduced into cultured mouse embryonic stem cells from the donor mouse, by way of electroporation; cells positive for the recombination event will have antibiotic resistance, provided by the insertion cassette used in the gene targeting; and be able to be positively selected for.[33][34] ES cells with the correct targeted gene are then injected into a diploid host mouse blastocyst. These injected blastocysts are then implanted into a pseudo pregnant female surrogate mouse which will bring the embryos to term and give birth to a mouse whose germline is derived from the donor mouse's ES cells.[35] This same procedure can be achieved through aggregation of ES cells and diploid embryos, diploid embryos are cultured in aggregation plates in wells where single embryos can fit, to these wells ES cells are added the aggregates are cultured until a single embryo is formed and has progressed to the blastocyst stage, and can then be transferred to the surrogate mouse.[36]

The distinction between sectorial, mericlinal and periclinal plant chimeras are widely used.[37][38]

These are produced by grafting genetically different parents, different cultivars or different species (which may belong to different genera). The tissues may be partially fused together following grafting to form a single growing organism that preserves both types of tissue in a single shoot.[39] Just as the constituent species are likely to differ in a wide range of features, so the behavior of their periclinal chimeras is like to be highly variable.[40] The first such known chimera was probably the Bizzaria, which is a fusion of the Florentine citron and the sour orange. Well-known examples of a graft-chimera are Laburnocytisus 'Adamii', caused by a fusion of a Laburnum and a broom, and "Family" trees, where multiple varieties of apple or pear are grafted onto the same tree. Many fruit trees are cultivated by grafting the body of a sapling onto a rootstock.[citation needed]

These are chimeras in which the layers differ in their chromosome constitution. Occasionally chimeras arise from loss or gain of individual chromosomes or chromosome fragments owing to misdivision.[41] More commonly cytochimeras have simple multiple of the normal chromosome complement in the changed layer. There are various effects on cell size and growth characteristics.

These chimeras arise by spontaneous or induced mutation of a nuclear gene to a dominant or recessive allele. As a rule one character is affected at a time in the leaf, flower, fruit, or other parts.[citation needed]

These chimeras arise by spontaneous or induced mutation of a plastid gene, followed by the sorting-out of two kinds of plastid during vegetative growth. Alternatively, after selfing or nucleic acid thermodynamics, plastids may sort-out from a mixed egg or mixed zygote respectively. This type of chimera is recognized at the time of origin by the sorting-out pattern in the leaves. After sorting-out is complete, periclinal chimeras are distinguished from similar looking nuclear gene-differential chimeras by their non-mendelian inheritance. The majority of variegated-leaf chimeras are of this kind.[citation needed]

All plastid gene- and some nuclear gene-differential chimeras affect the color of the plasmids within the leaves, and these are grouped together as chlorophyll chimeras, or preferably as variegated leaf chimeras. For most variegation, the mutation involved is the loss of the chloroplasts in the mutated tissue, so that part of the plant tissue has no green pigment and no photosynthetic ability. This mutated tissue is unable to survive on its own but is kept alive by its partnership with normal photosynthetic tissue. Sometimes chimeras are also found with layers differing in respect of both their nuclear and their plastid genes.[citation needed]

There are multiple reasons to explain the occurrence of plant chimera during plant recovery stage:

(1) The process of shoot organogenesis starts form the multicellular origin.[42]

(2) The endogenous tolerance leads to the ineffectiveness of the weak selective agents.

(3) A self-protection mechanism (cross protection). Transformed cells serve as guards to protect the untransformed ones.[43]

(4) The observable characteristic of transgenic cells may be a transient expression of the marker gene. Or it may due to the presence of agrobacterium cells.[citation needed]

Untransformed cells should be easy to detect and remove to avoid chimeras. Because its extremely important to maintain the stable ability of the transgenic plants across different generations. Reporter genes such as GUS and Green Fluorescent Protein[44](GFP) are utilized in combination with plant selective markers (herbicide, antibody etc.) However, GUS expression depends on the plant development stage and GFP may be influenced by the green tissue autofluorescence. Quantitative PCR could be an alternative method for chimera detection.[45]

The US and Western Europe have strict codes of ethics and regulations in place that expressly forbid certain subsets of experimentation using human cells, though there is a vast difference in the regulatory framework.[46] Through the creation of human-chimera comes the question: where does society now draw the line of humanity? This question poses serious legal and moral issues, along with creating controversy. Chimpanzees, for example, are not offered any legal standing, and are put down if they pose a threat to humans. If a chimpanzee is genetically altered to be more similar to a human, it may blur the ethical line between animal and man. Legal debate would be the next step in the process to determine whether certain chimera should be granted legal rights.[47] Along with issues regarding the rights of chimera, individuals have expressed concern whether or not creating human-chimera diminishes the dignity of being human.[48]

In May 2008, a robust debate in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom on the ethics of creating chimeras with human stem cells led to the decision that embryos would be allowed to be made in laboratories, given that they would be destroyed within the first 14 days.[citation needed]

On 11 July 2005 a bill, The Human Chimera Prohibition Act, was introduced into the United States Congress by Senator Samuel Brownback, however it died in Congress sometime in the next year. The bill was introduced based on the findings that science has progressed to the point where the human and nonhuman species can be merged to create new forms of life. Because of this serious ethical issues arise as this blurs the line between humans and other animals, and according to the bill with this blurring of the lines comes a show of disrespect for human dignity. The final claim brought up in The Human Chimera Prohibition Act was that there is an increasing amount of zoonotic diseases and the creation of human-animal chimeras can allow these diseases to reach humans.[48] Since the bill's death in congress there has not been another attempt at setting regulations on chimera research in the United States.

See the rest here:
Chimera (genetics) - Wikipedia

Read More...

Artificial breeding bulls in demand as farmers improve genetics – Stuff.co.nz

Monday, September 4th, 2017

RURAL REPORTER

Last updated12:12, September 4 2017

LIC

A good looker, and the best performing bull at LIC is Sierra, a kiwicross bull. The 7-year-old bull might have 100,000 daughters in the next few years.

Father's Day was on Sunday, and many families got together,but there wasone super dad who foundit a struggle meeting all his offspring.

Sierra, one of LIC's top bulls, has fathered 1700 daughters (milking dairy cows).

"We expect that he will have 12,000 more daughters entering the national herd this year, and predict a further 100,000 over the next few years," said Simon Worth, LIC's livestock selection manager.

Farmers needed top quality genetics to get their cows producing top quality heifers in New Zealand and internationally.He said LIC owned24 of the top 30 artificial breeding (AB) bulls in the country, including Sierra - its top kiwicross bull.

READ MORE:

*Genetics company LIC cuts costs to turn annual loss into profit

*Genetics company LIC sells off its deer improvement business

"Bulls like Sierra are shaping the future of dairying in New Zealand. Our bulls provide three out of every four cows in the country, contributing $300 million towards the economy each year," said Dave Hale, LIC's national artificial breeding manager.

During the peak dairy cow mating season in spring LIC collectedsemen from its 73 elite bulls seven days a week, at itsNewstead farm near Hamilton.

Up to five million semen straws will be processed between now and Christmas, with the co-op's exclusive long last liquid semen diluent (LIC proprietary technology) enabling one bull ejaculate to average 7000 fresh semen straws for insemination.

Straws are sentfresh to a team of 775 AB technicians all over the country, for insemination into cows as early as that same afternoon. Top AB technicians inseminate up to 10,000 cows a year, or200-300 a day.

On the peak day in spring 120,000 semen straws are dispatched nationally, internationally the co-op exports one million frozen straws worldwide year-round.

"While only seven years old, Sierra is definitely one of our super dad bulls. Without them Kiwis probably wouldn't have their morning lattes," said Hale.

-Stuff

View post:
Artificial breeding bulls in demand as farmers improve genetics - Stuff.co.nz

Read More...

Weight Loss Tip: It Ain’t Just About Genetics! – HuffPost

Sunday, September 3rd, 2017

Its a beautiful, sunny, fall-esque day here on Long Island, and I have something personal to share with you. After a nuclear stress test taken earlier in the week, my dads cardiologist recommended he check himself into the hospital on Thursday to have an angiogram. My dads had a couple of heart attacks in the past, and while his doctor didnt think it was anything too too serious, he wanted to make sure.

The angiogram showed a 99% blockage in one of his arteries. Because of this, three stents were put in to open it up. An additional stent is being put in as we speak, and if all goes well, he should be out by tomorrow. My dad is in good spirits and looks pretty good, so Im very optimistic that this will be the last we hear of this for a while.

That being said, something I heard his doctor tell him disturbed me quite a bit. Somehow, the topic of genetics came up in the conversation. My father was essentially told that this was all genetic, there was nothing he could do to improve his condition, and that once he gets out and he rests for about a week, he can resume all regular life activities.

The cardiac wing of the hospital was also feeding him garbage for his heart, like bread (derived from grains, which are inflammatory) and margarine (a trans fat, which is bad for the heart) but we wont even get into that today

While I know genetics can play a role in the acquisition of several diseases, theres a new study called EPIGENETICS. The premise behind this field of study is that based upon your chosen environment and your personal lifestyle habits, you can manipulate your genetic code, and either keep a negative genetic trait like heart disease dormant, or you can completely REVERSE that genes expression, and thus, never develop a hereditary disease in the first place!

Ive heard plenty of would-be clients over the years use genetics as an excuse for their being overweight. My parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles were all fat, so this is just something I have to deal with!

Often, when somebody is overweight, its due to poor diet. Plain and simple. Theres a small percentage of the population that has hormonal imbalances, and thus, theres a bit more to it than that. That being said, most hormone issues can be regulated (and even corrected!) by certain dietary strategies that will get those levels back to normal, and then enable them to both function and lose weight normally.

When the folks who blame genetics review their nutrition with me, Ill tell you one thing: It aint just geneticsIf its even genetics, at all! Their diets tend to be comprised of excessive amounts of sugar, grains and processed foods, which, when ingested in large quantities as they were in these instances, are ALL linked to an increased risk of obesity, Type-2 Diabetes, heart disease, various forms of cancer, and even neurological diseases like Parkinsons and Alzheimers!!

Whether youre dealing with weight issues, whether youre diabetic, or whether youre even suffering from a heart condition like my dad is, youre rarely too far gone!!! There are healthy dietary changes you can make that will not only help you in regulating these conditions, but also help in the REVERSAL of many of these conditions.

Moral of the Story: I was highly DISTURBED to hear this explanation given to my dad. Its never too late to change and improve the quality of your life. The question is: Whatre you going to do to change your circumstances?

pete@weightlossbypete.com

P.S. If you feel you need more help on the nutritional side, then youre definitely going to want to invest in my Food Guide and Healthy Recipe Book!

The Food Guide lays out the three phases of nutrition I use with my Permanent Weight Loss clients. Phase 1 gets you in the habit of making healthier choices, while Phase 2 really cleans up the frequency with which you eat healthier. Phase 3 is a strict macronutrient breakdown that will help expedite the process of weight loss, all while improving your health and making your body a well-oiled machine!

My Healthy Recipe Book includes 72 recipes spanning breakfast,lunch, dinner, snacks, appetizers and desserts. Im constantly adding to it, but these recipes are easy to make, simple and enable you to have your cake and eat it, too!

Normally, I sell each of these books for $10 a piece, but because Im feeling generous today, you can get BOTH for just $13.99!:-)

Read the rest here:
Weight Loss Tip: It Ain't Just About Genetics! - HuffPost

Read More...

Ancient Gut Genetic Core Program Finding May Lead to New … – Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News

Sunday, September 3rd, 2017

Scientists from the Duke University School of Medicine say they have found a set of genes and regulatory elements in the intestinal lining that has stayed the same from fish to humans. They note that a good number of these genes are linked to human diseases, including inflammatory bowel disorders, diabetes, and obesity.

The research ("Genomic Dissection of Conserved Transcriptional Regulation in Intestinal Epithelial Cells"),which appears in PLOS Biology, marks fish as a model organism for studying how this old genetic information (covering over 420 million years of evolution) controls the development and dysfunction of the intestine.

"The intestinal epithelium serves critical physiologic functions that are shared among all vertebrates. However, it is unknown how the transcriptional regulatory mechanisms underlying these functions have changed over the course of vertebrate evolution. We generated genome-wide mRNA and accessible chromatin data from adult intestinal epithelial cells (IECs) in zebrafish, stickleback, mouse, and human species to determine if conserved IEC functions are achieved through common transcriptional regulation. We found evidence for substantial common regulation and conservation of gene expression regionally along the length of the intestine from fish to mammals and identified a core set of genes comprising a vertebrate IEC signature," write the investigators.

"We define an IEC transcriptional regulatory network that is shared between fish and mammals and establish an experimental platform for studying how evolutionarily distilled regulatory information commonly controls IEC development and physiology."

"Our research has uncovered aspects of intestinal biology that have been well conserved during vertebrate evolution, suggesting they are of central importance to intestinal health," said John F. Rawls, Ph.D., senior author of the study and associate professor of molecular genetics and microbiology. "By doing so, we have built a foundation for mechanistic studies of intestinal biology in nonhuman model systems like fish and mice that would be impossible to perform in humans alone."

According to Dr. Rawls, researchers for years have used animal models to collect information on intestinal epithelial cells that could help combat human diseases. But no one knew how alike these cells were across multiple species. Heand colleagues took a comparative biology approach to address this issue.

Research associate Colin R. Lickwar, Ph.D., and the team obtained genome-wide data from intestinal epithelial cells in four species: zebrafish, stickleback fish, mouse, and human. Dr. Lickwar then created maps for each of the species that showed both the activity level of all of the genes and the location of specific regulatory elements that turned the genes on and off.

The group found a surprising amount of similarity between the different vertebrate species. Dr. Lickwar identified a common set of geneslabeled an intestinal epithelial cell signaturesome of which had shared patterns of activity in specific regions along the length of the intestine. Many of these genes had previously been implicated in a variety of human diseases, and Drs. Lickwar and Rawls wanted to know if this conserved genetic signature was controlled by regulatory elements that might also be shared between species.

They took regulatory elements from fish, mice, and humans and put them into the zebrafish, which are transparent organisms. The scientists then looked under the microscope for color patterns to tell whether a green fluorescent protein or red fluorescent protein, which they had inserted along with the regulatory element, had been turned on in the intestine. They found that this was the case, indicating a very high level of conservation.

"Our findings suggest that intestinal epithelial cells use an ancient core program to do their job in the body of most vertebrates," said Dr. Lickwar, who is lead author of the study. "Now that we have identified this core program, we can more easily translate results back and forth between humans and zebrafish."

Go here to read the rest:
Ancient Gut Genetic Core Program Finding May Lead to New ... - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News

Read More...

Could genetics be the reason behind obesity? – SBS

Sunday, September 3rd, 2017

Twenty-five per cent of Australian adults are estimated to be clinically obese. The common view is that obesity is a self-inflicted condition. But one Melbourne clinic is challenging that perception.

Austin Health Obesity Physician, Professor Joe Proietto says he treats obesity as a chronic genetic disease.

"The view that obesity is genetic is controversial, however the evidence is very strong that there is a genetic predisposition to obesity," said Professor Proietto.

In a new SBS documentary Obesity Myth, doctors are trying to treat patients through a combination of diet, medication and surgery, tailored specifically for their genetic make-up.

Professor Proietto believes the environment has far less bearing on weight than genetics.

But Sydney University Obesity Research Director, Dr Nick Fuller says blaming genetics is only going to make the obesity crisis worse.

"We are finding more and more genes that contribute to obesity but genetics are not the reason for the increase in prevalence of obesity," said Dr Fuller.

Dr Fuller believes dieting is not the most effective solution.He believes weight loss should happen slowly, to trick the body into believing it is at a new set weight point.

"They need to lose a small amount of weight before the usual response to weight loss kicks in and maintain that weight so they can reprogram their set weight before going on to lose weight," said Dr Fuller.

Helene Jagdon has been trying to lose weight for 30 years. She has tried every fad diet and training regime in the book.

Only in the last few years under Dr Fuller's strategy has she been able to lose 14 kilograms and keep it off.

"He didn't make us feel like we were on a diet, he was just guiding us to what foods we can eat and not really saying what foods we can't eat.

"He was just saying if you feel like having a laksa, have a laksa, but maybe limit it to one takeaway treat in a week," said Ms Jagdon.

Now sitting at a comfortable 68 kilograms, Helene has maintained her passion for cooking and is inspiring people half her age to lose weight without dramatically changing their lives.

Preview: The Obesity Myth

The three-part documentary series The Obesity Myth starts September 4 on SBS at 7.30pm.

Link:
Could genetics be the reason behind obesity? - SBS

Read More...

Page 34«..1020..33343536..40..»


2025 © StemCell Therapy is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) Comments (RSS) | Violinesth by Patrick