“We have no assay for a soul.” Nicely put, but Irving Weissman’s still wrong about adult stem cells.
Tag Archives: science
High-end animated illustrations of animations of nanobots attacking Staphylococcus aureus and platelet aggregation
Hybrid Medical Technologies makes high-end animated illustrations of animations of things such as nanobots attacking Staphylococcus aureus bacteria and platelet aggregation. I wonder if they’d let me use some of their sample images in my presentations. They’re beautiful.
Thanks to The Eyes Have It!
Fusion versus differentiation
EDIT:His blog has apparently been hacked.
Murtaugh has a nice post on the fusion versus differentiation stem cell debate.
Filtration of sensory input occurs at the organ level?
While browsing, I came across these three articles independently of each other. Perhaps it’s the new issue of Japanese Journal of Taste and Smell Research?
Here’s an interesting bit from the MSNBC article:
Wysocki, a study co-author, said the research could point to a “chemical communication” subtext between the sexes that enables men and women to coordinate their reproductive efforts subliminally.
Compare that with the BBC article:
Jeannette Haviland, who also worked on the research, suggested that hormones in the body odour of the young might act as a signal of aggression. Hormonal changes in old age, she said, were likely to make the odour of the elderly, particularly women, signal approachability.
So it’s clear: During “that time of the month” women are feeling bad, so they pick a fight with their man or men in general to enhance his agressive smell, thereby cheering themselves up a little. I smell a conspiracy!
More seriously, and especially interesting since I will be starting to do some work in stem cell research is something I read here:
With further study it became clear that growth factors in saliva and nasal mucus influenced stem cell development in both taste and smell systems. Dr. Henkin discovered, isolated, and sequenced growth factors responsible for development and maintenance of stem cells in the taste and smell systems and, thereby responsible for taste and smell function since these stem cells were the progenitor cells for all taste bud and olfactory epithelial cell anatomy, respectively. He discovered that the parotid glands in the mouth and the nasal serous glands in the nose secrete these growth factors into saliva and nasal mucus, respectively. These growth factors act on stem cells in the taste and smell systems through paracrine effects similar in some ways that hormones secreted from various glands in the body into blood influence metabolism through endocrine effects.
So endocrine and paracrine signalling is important for smell and taste function and development. I don’t know if any of the cited research addresses whether the signalling affects smell and taste function in the differentiated epithelia, or if the functions are limited to development, acting only on the stem cells. I am reminded of some research that suggested a role for new cell synthesis in memory formation, and of the way your house smells different when you come back from a long vacation. I’ve realized that cat owners often don’t realize that their houses quite frankly stink, and perhaps they don’t, to them, because of changes in the olfactory epithelia. This is mostly ignorant speculation since I don’t know much about how smell works on the molecular level, but there has to be something for smell that allows us to weed out extraneous input to focus on the ones most important to us, and it doesn’t all have to be done in the brain. Aside, I speculate that it’s because smell nerves don’t go through the thalamus on the way to the brain that smell has such powerful ability to evoke memory. Check out what cognitive psychology has to say about processing of input information. I’ll sum this up with the following hypothesis: All senses are filtered of repetitive input at the organ level, as well as the brain level.
Any comments?
The Nine Warning Signs of Bogus Science
Secular Blasphemy, which has several other great articles, has a summary of the seven warning signs of bogus science. I’ve added two of my own. For laypeople trying to sort through some of the difficult issues today, these are good to keep in mind:
The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. The discoverer has worked in isolation. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. The discoverer refuses to show his data.(I’m not linking to the R-elians here, but you know what I mean) The discoverer claims only he or she can do the technique
The foundation of scientific integrity is peer-review and reproducibility. One scientist making a claim doesn’t make the claim true. See rhetorical strategies. Getting an article published in a major scientific journal doesn’t even mean that it is an eternal truth, but if someone is making a big claim by himself, and no colleagues nor journals are backing him up, then check your bogometer.
Peter Schultz makes mRNA cry.
I recently heard a presentation on this crazy guy, Peter Schultz, who has engineered bacteria to use para-aminophenylalanine instead of amber codons. The bacteria synthesize para-phenylalanine, have a para-phenylalanine tRNA synthetase, and and insert it with very high fidelity whenever the amber codon is found. The amber codon, which causes the ribosome to stop reading the mRNA when it’s found, is apparently quite rare, and because bacterial mRNAs aren’t as processed as eukaryotic ones, the bacteria get along quite well. I was thinking it would be really keen to make a series of mutants, each of which incorporated a different D-amino acid instead of the L version. Then, analysis of the structures of the D tRNA synthetases, of the ribosome translating the codon, and of the resulting protein could contribute a little information towards answering why we use all L amino acids.
Coincidentally, while I was googling a good link for this story, I found Lagniappe, who just blogged this story about the same time I heard the presentation.
Here’s Schultz’s PDF in JACS.
Derek, if you’re reading this, you’re the number one link at google for para-aminophenylalanine. Kinda funny that I find a blogspot blog as the number one search result for something right after google buys pyra. However, there were only 2 results total, so I only mention this to be funny, not to suggest anything conspiratorial.
Amazing Science – Mind Control Edition
Sometimes an article comes out with a title that makes me think, “Wait a second. It’s not even April 1st yet.”
Joe Tsien’s NR2B overexpression experiment and John Chapin’s “Rats control robots with minds” were pretty amazing articles, and now Dalle Molle Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence comes out with a technique that can detect “whether you are thinking about a calculation, a place, a colour or even what you want to eat for dinner…but it’s not good enough yet to detect exactly what colour you’re thinking of.” I believe they’re using Bayesian analysis, a great statistical learning technique which I’ve seen being used more and more often, to look for “EEG patterns embedded in the continuous EEG signal associated with different mental states.” Here’s a summary .pdf describing the technique.