{"id":27418,"date":"2015-03-21T18:05:34","date_gmt":"2015-03-21T17:05:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it\/?p=27418"},"modified":"2021-11-13T20:03:33","modified_gmt":"2021-11-13T19:03:33","slug":"i-resti-os-digest","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/2015\/03\/21\/i-resti-os-digest\/","title":{"rendered":"I resti – O's digest"},"content":{"rendered":"

Su Science<\/strong>, <\/em>oltre ai due paper (spettacolari) che segnalavo ieri, quello di Asvany et al. che usano una spettroscopia recente per cominciare a determinare la\u00a0conformazione del CH5<\/a>+\u00a0o “metano protonato” dovrebbe interessare il presidente Nazarbayev, Andrea Rampado e altri credenti nella CO2 che genera CH4 che genera CO2 e quindi energia infinita.
\nC’\u00e8 anche un commento <\/a>di Oka (giuro), intitolato “Domare il CH5+, ‘l’enfant terrible’ delle strutture dinamiche”, sul moto perpetuo (1) di una molecola con ben “2 \u00d7 5! = 240 stati quantistici (!!!):
\nAs in Olah’s chemistry on Earth, CH5<\/sub>+<\/sup> is pivotal for producing hydrocarbons in space. … I anticipate that this enfant terrible will be caught in interstellar space far ahead of its theoretical understanding, which will take at least a few more decades.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

(Olah \u00e8 il chimico dei carbocationi che ha scoperto il metano protonato e l’ha stabilizzato con l'”Acido Magico” – no, lisergico! Questo qui<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

*<\/p>\n

L’articolo di Kelly Servick<\/a> sull’irisina (vantata<\/a> da 3 anni su media<\/a> e blog<\/a> italiani, smentiranno?) da un’impressione di d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu:<\/p>\n

The hormone, dubbed irisin after a Greek goddess, appeared<\/a> to amp up energy expenditure in mice after exercise, opening up potential treatments for diabetes and obesity. But inconsistent follow-up studies caused some scientists to doubt that it plays any role in human metabolism. Now, a study<\/a> questioning the reliability of the antibody-based test kits often used to detect irisin has raised further doubts about the hormone\u2014and the use of such tests in general.<\/em><\/p>\n

Link ai papers aggiunti, altri qui<\/a>. I test usati da\u00a0Bruce Spiegelman<\/a> et al. per determinare la presenza di irisina nel sangue erano imprecisi. Embers Therapeutics<\/a>, la start-up fondata per produrre il miracoloso “farmaco dimagrante”, ha chiuso.<\/p>\n

*<\/p>\n

\"\"
\nAnche Jeffery Leek e Roger Peng auspicano<\/a><\/strong> un uso pi\u00f9 serio della statistica:<\/p>\n

Once an analysis is reproducible, the key question we want to answer is, \u201cIs this data analysis correct?\u201d We have found that the most frequent failure in data analysis is mistaking the type of question being considered…<\/em><\/p>\n

Determining which question is being asked can be even more complicated when multiple analyses are performed in the same study or on the same data set. A key danger is causal creep\u2014for example, when a randomized trial is used to infer causation for a primary analysis and data from secondary analyses are given the same weight. To accurately represent a data analysis, each step in the analysis should be labeled according to its original intent.<\/em>
\nBello chiaro e semplice, forse troppo, con le slides gi\u00e0 pronte per i docenti (e per i giornalisti).
\nMeno male, continua la discussione sulla tecnologia CRISPR che consente di fare “l’editing” genetico dei gameti. Gretchen Vogel chiarisce le voci alle quali faceva allusione di Edward Lanphier<\/a>\u00a0(h\/t shine) su\u00a0Nature<\/a><\/em><\/strong>, la settimana scorsa:
\nRumors are rife, presumably from anonymous peer reviewers, that scientists in China have already used CRISPR on human embryos and have submitted papers on their results. They have apparently not tried to establish any pregnancies, but the rumors alarm researchers who fear that such papers, published before broad discussions of the risks and benefits of genome editing, could trigger a public backlash that would block legitimate uses of the technology.<\/em>
\nGli usi legittimi sono quelli in vitro – \u00a0presumono la creazione di ovuli fecondati e gi\u00e0 questo rischia di essere un boomerang – perch\u00e9
\nscientists don’t yet understand all the possible side effects of tinkering with germ cells or embryos. Monkeys have been born from CRISPR-edited embryos, but at least half of the 10 pregnancies in the monkey experiments ended in miscarriage. In the monkeys that were born, not all cells carried the desired changes, so attempts to eliminate a disease gene might not work. The editing can also damage off-target sites in the genome.<\/em>
\nI geni attivi sono tutti pleiotropici, correggerne uno e sperare che non ne influenzi altri mi sembra da irresponsabili. Science<\/em> pubblica anche il manifesto<\/a><\/strong> di David Baltimore et al. Non chiedono una moratoria, ma<\/p>\n

In the near term, we recommend that steps be taken to:<\/em><\/p>\n

1) Strongly discourage, even in those countries with lax jurisdictions where it might be permitted, any attempts at germline genome modification for clinical application in humans, while societal, environmental, and ethical implications of such activity are discussed among scientific and governmental organizations. … This will enable pathways to responsible uses of this technology, if any, to be identified.<\/em><\/p>\n

2) Create forums in which experts from the scientific and bioethics communities can provide information and education about this new era of human biology, the issues accompanying the risks and rewards of using such powerful technology for a wide variety of applications including the potential to treat or cure human genetic disease, and the attendant ethical, social, and legal implications of genome modification.<\/em><\/p>\n

3) Encourage and support transparent research to evaluate the efficacy and specificity of CRISPR-Cas9 genome engineering technology in human and nonhuman model systems relevant to its potential applications for germline gene therapy. Such research is essential to inform deliberations about what clinical applications, if any, might in the future be deemed permissible.<\/em><\/p>\n

4) Convene a globally representative group of developers and users of genome engineering technology and experts in genetics, law, and bioethics, as well as members of the scientific community, the public, and relevant government agencies and interest groups\u2014to further consider these important issues, and where appropriate, recommend policies.<\/em><\/p>\n

Come per la clonazione, insomma. Poi guardo se i media ne parlano anche in Italia.
\nAgg. 22\/3<\/strong>
\nSolo\u00a0Il Foglio<\/a><\/em>\u00a0<\/strong>riprendeva ieri il manifesto uscito su\u00a0Science\u00a0<\/em>in un editoriale, non sono abbonata quindi non so di chi sia la citazione nel titolo “Giocare a fare Dio \u00e8 pericoloso”. Mini bibliografia sulla tecnologia CRISPR-Cas9 creata da Jennifer Doudna<\/a><\/strong> nel 2012<\/a><\/strong>:<\/p>\n