Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts

Sunday, January 20, 2013

'Quadruple helix' DNA seen in human cells


'Quadruple helix' DNA seen in human cells


A representation of the four-stranded structure (L) and fluorescent markers reveal its presence inside cells (R) A representation of the four-stranded structure (L) with fluorescent markers revealing its presence inside cells (R)

Related Stories

Cambridge University scientists say they have seen four-stranded DNA at work in human cells for the first time.
The famous "molecule of life", which carries our genetic code, is more familiar to us as a double helix.
But researchers tell the journal Nature Chemistry that the "quadruple helix" is also present in our cells, and often in functions related to cancer.
They suggest that control of the structures could provide novel ways to fight the disease.
"The existence of these structures may be loaded when the cell has a certain genotype or a certain dysfunctional state," said Prof Shankar Balasubramanian from Cambridge's department of chemistry.
"We need to prove that; but if that is the case, targeting them with synthetic molecules could be an interesting way of selectively targeting those cells that have this dysfunction," he told BBC News.
Tag and track It will be exactly 60 years ago in February that James Watson and Francis Crick famously burst into the pub next to their Cambridge laboratory to announce the discovery of the "secret of life".
What they had actually done was describe the way in which two long chemical chains wound up around each other to encode the information cells need to build and maintain our bodies.
Today, the pair's modern counterparts in the university city continue to work on DNA's complexities.
Balasubramanian's group has been pursuing a four-stranded version of the molecule that scientists have produced in the test tube now for a number of years.
It is called the G-quadruplex. The "G" refers to guanine, one of the four chemical groups, or "bases", that hold DNA together and which encode our genetic information (the others being adenine, cytosine, and thymine).
The G-quadruplex seems to form in DNA where guanine exists in substantial quantities.
And although ciliates, relatively simply microscopic organisms, have displayed evidence for the incidence of such DNA, the new research is said to be the first to firmly pinpoint the quadruple helix in human cells.
'Funny target' The team, led by Giulia Biffi, a researcher in Balasubramaninan's lab, produced antibody proteins that were designed specifically to track down and bind to regions of human DNA that were rich in the quadruplex structure. The antibodies were tagged with a fluorescence marker so that the time and place of the structures' emergence in the cell cycle could be noted and imaged.
This revealed the four-stranded DNA arose most frequently during the so-called "s-phase" when a cell copies its DNA just prior to dividing.
Prof Balasubramaninan said that was of key interest in the study of cancers, which were usually driven by genes, or oncogenes, that had mutated to increase DNA replication.
If the G-quadruplex could be implicated firmly in the development of some cancers, it might be possible, he said, to make synthetic molecules that contained the structure and blocked the runaway cell proliferation at the root of tumours.
"We've come a long way in 10 years, from simple ideas to really seeing some substance in the existence and tractability of targeting these funny structures," he told the BBC.
"I'm hoping now that the pharmaceutical companies will bring this on to their radar and we can perhaps take a more serious look at whether quadruplexes are indeed therapeutically viable targets."
Prof Shankar Balasubramanian Prof Shankar Balasubramanian in front of a painting by artist Annie Newman that represents quadruplex DNA

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Immune system 'booster' may hit cancer


Immune system 'booster' may hit cancer

Two T-cells on the surface of a cancerous cell Two white blood cells attacking a cancer

Related Stories

Vast numbers of cells that can attack cancer and HIV have been grown in the lab, and could potentially be used to fight disease.
The cells naturally occur in small numbers, but it is hoped injecting huge quantities back into a patient could turbo-charge the immune system.
The Japanese research is published in the journal Cell Stem Cell.
Experts said the results had exciting potential, but any therapy would need to be shown to be safe.
The researchers concentrated on a type of white blood cell known as a cytotoxic T-cell, which can recognise telltale markings of infection or cancer on the surfaces of cells. If a marking is recognised, it launches an attack.
Teams at the University of Tokyo and the Riken Research Centre for Allergy and Immunology used advances in stem cell technology to make more T-cells.
One group extracted T-cells which targeted a patient's skin cancer. Another group did the same for HIV.

“Start Quote

The next step will be to test whether these T-cells can selectively kill tumour cells, but not other cells in the body”
Dr Hiroshi Kawamoto Researcher
These T-cells were converted into stem cells, which could dramatically increase in number when grown in the laboratory. These were converted back into T-cells which should also have the ability to target the cancer or HIV.
New weapon? The groups have proved only that they can make these cells, not that they can be safely put back into patients or that if would make a difference to their disease if they did.
Dr Hiroshi Kawamoto, who worked on the cancer immune cells at Riken, said: "The next step will be to test whether these T-cells can selectively kill tumour cells, but not other cells in the body.
"If they do, these cells might be directly injected into patients for therapy. This could be realized in the not-so-distant future."
Dr Hiromitsu Nakauchi from the University of Tokyo said it was "unclear" whether this technique would help in treating HIV and that other infections and cancer may be a better place to start.
'Very exciting' Experts in the field said the findings were encouraging.
Prof Alan Clarke, the director of the European Cancer Stem Cell Research Institute at Cardiff University, said: "This is a potentially very exciting development which extends our capacity to develop novel cell therapies."
He said it was important that cells could be tailored for each patient so there would be no risk of rejection.
Other experts said the findings were still at an early stage, but were still very promising and represented a strong foundation for future research. However, Cancer Research UK said it was still too early to know if any therapy would be safe.
Prof Sir John Burn, from the Institute of Genetic Medicine at Newcastle University, said: "This is a very appealing concept and the research team are to be congratulated on demonstrating the feasibility of expanding these killer cells.
However he added: "Even if these T cells are effective, it could prove very challenging to produce large quantities safely and economically.
"Nevertheless, there is real promise of this becoming an alternative when conventional therapies have failed."

Source

Totally blind mice get sight back


Totally blind mice get sight back

Eye

Related Stories

Totally blind mice have had their sight restored by injections of light-sensing cells into the eye, UK researchers report.
The team in Oxford said their studies closely resemble the treatments that would be needed in people with degenerative eye disease.
Similar results have already been achieved with night-blind mice.
Experts said the field was advancing rapidly, but there were still questions about the quality of vision restored.
Patients with retinitis pigmentosa gradually lose light-sensing cells from the retina and can become blind.

“Start Quote

It's the first proof that you can take a completely blind mouse, put the cells in and reconstruct the entire light-sensitive layer”
Prof Robert MacLaren University of Oxford
The research team, at the University of Oxford, used mice with a complete lack of light-sensing photoreceptor cells in their retinas. The mice were unable to tell the difference between light and dark.
Reconstruction They injected "precursor" cells which will develop into the building blocks of a retina once inside the eye. Two weeks after the injections a retina had formed, according to the findings presented in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.
Prof Robert MacLaren said: "We have recreated the whole structure, basically it's the first proof that you can take a completely blind mouse, put the cells in and reconstruct the entire light-sensitive layer."
Previous studies have achieved similar results with mice that had a partially degenerated retina. Prof MacLaren said this was like "restoring a whole computer screen rather than repairing individual pixels".
The mice were tested to see if they fled being in a bright area, if their pupils constricted in response to light and had their brain scanned to see if visual information was being processed by the mind.
Vision Prof Pete Coffee, from the Institute of Ophthalmology at University College London, said the findings were important as they looked at the "most clinically relevant and severe case" of blindness.

“Start Quote

This is probably what you would need to do to restore sight in a patient that has lost their vision”
Prof Pete Coffee University College London
"This is probably what you would need to do to restore sight in a patient that has lost their vision," he said.
However, he said this and similar studies needed to show how good the recovered vision was as brain scans and tests of light sensitivity were not enough.
He said: "Can they tell the difference between a nasty animal and something to eat?"
Prof Robin Ali published research in the journal Nature showing that transplanting cells could restore vision in night-blind mice and then showed the same technique worked in a range of mice with degenerated retinas.
He said: "These papers demonstrate that it is possible to transplant photoreceptor cells into a range of mice even with a severe level of degeneration.
"I think it's great that another group is showing the utility of photoreceptor transplantation."
Researchers are already trialling human embryonic stem cells, at Moorfields Eye Hospital, in patients with Stargardt's disease. Early results suggest the technique is safe but reliable results will take several years.
Retinal chips or bionic eyes are also being trailed in patients with retinitis pigmentosa.

Source

Monday, December 3, 2012

Plastic bulb development promises better quality light


Plastic bulb development promises better quality light

Wake forest university researchers

Related Stories

US researchers say they have developed a new type of lighting that could replace fluorescent bulbs.
The new source is made from layers of plastic and is said to be more efficient while producing a better quality of flicker-free light.
The scientists behind it say they believe the first units will be produced in 2013.
Details of the new development have been published in the journal Organic Electronics.

“Start Quote

What we've found is a way of creating light rather than heat”
Prof David Carroll Wake Forest University
Brighter white
The new light source is called field-induced polymer electroluminescent (Fipel) technology. It is made from three layers of white-emitting polymer that contain a small volume of nanomaterials that glow when electric current is passed through them.
The inventor of the device is Dr David Carroll, professor of physics at Wake Forest University in North Carolina. He says the new plastic lighting source can be made into any shape, and it produces a better quality of light than compact fluorescent bulbs which have become very popular in recent years.
Wake university researcher with light The new light source is said to be twice as efficient as fluorescent bulbs
"They have a bluish, harsh tint to them, " he told BBC News, "it is not really accommodating to the human eye; people complain of headaches and the reason is the spectral content of that light doesn't match the Sun - our device can match the solar spectrum perfectly.
"I'm saying we are brighter than one of these curly cube bulbs and I can give you any tint to that white light that you want."

Lighting up the world

  • Lighting accounts for around 19% of global electricity use
  • A worldwide switch to low-energy bulbs could save the output of around 600 power plants
There have been several attempts to develop new light-bulbs in recent years - Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) have come a long way since they were best known for being indicator lights in electronic devices. Over the past decade, they have become much more widely used as a light source as they are both bright and efficient. They are now often used on large buildings.
Light not heat Another step forward has been organic LEDs (OLEDs) which also promise greater efficiency and better light than older, incandescent bulbs. Their big advantage over LEDs is that they can be transformed into many different shapes including the screens for high-definition televisions.
But Prof Carroll believes OLED lights haven't lived up to the hype.
"They don't last very long and they're not very bright," he said. "There's a limit to how much brightness you can get out of them. If you run too much current through them they melt."
The Fipel bulb, he says, overcomes all these problems.
"What we've found is a way of creating light rather than heat. Our devices contain no mercury, they contain no caustic chemicals and they don't break as they are not made of glass."
Prof Carroll says his new bulb is cheap to make and he has a "corporate partner" interested in manufacturing the device. He believes the first production runs will take place in 2013.
He also has great faith in the ability of the new bulbs to last. He says he has one in his lab that has been working for about a decade.

Source 

Monday, November 12, 2012

Vegetative patient Scott Routley says 'I'm not in pain'


Vegetative patient Scott Routley says 'I'm not in pain'



Scott Routley

Related Stories

A Canadian man who was believed to have been in a vegetative state for more than a decade, has been able to tell scientists that he is not in any pain.
It's the first time an uncommunicative, severely brain-injured patient has been able to give answers clinically relevant to their care.
Scott Routley, 39, was asked questions while having his brain activity scanned in an fMRI machine.
His doctor says the discovery means medical textbooks will need rewriting.
Vegetative patients emerge from a coma into a condition where they have periods awake, with their eyes open, but have no perception of themselves or the outside world.
Mr Routley suffered a severe brain injury in a car accident 12 years ago.
None of his physical assessments since then have shown any sign of awareness, or ability to communicate.
But the British neuroscientist Prof Adrian Owen - who led the team at the Brain and Mind Institute, University of Western Ontario - said Mr Routley was clearly not vegetative.

Panorama: Find out more

  • Fergus Walsh presents The Mind Reader: Unlocking My Voice - a Panorama Special
  • BBC One, Tuesday 13 November at 22:35 GMT
"Scott has been able to show he has a conscious, thinking mind. We have scanned him several times and his pattern of brain activity shows he is clearly choosing to answer our questions. We believe he knows who and where he is."
Prof Owen said it was a groundbreaking moment.
"Asking a patient something important to them has been our aim for many years. In future we could ask what we could do to improve their quality of life. It could be simple things like the entertainment we provide or the times of day they are washed and fed."
Scott Routley's parents say they always thought he was conscious and could communicate by lifting a thumb or moving his eyes. But this has never been accepted by medical staff.
Prof Bryan Young at University Hospital, London - Mr Routley's neurologist for a decade - said the scan results overturned all the behavioural assessments that had been made over the years.

FMRI SCANNING

Prof Adrian Owen and team with patient at scanner
  • Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging measures the real-time activity of the brain by tracking the flow of oxygen-rich blood
  • The patients were repeatedly asked to imagine playing tennis or walking around their home
  • In healthy volunteers each produces a distinct pattern of activity, in the premotor cortex for the first task and the parahippocampal gyrus for the second
  • It allowed the researchers to put a series of yes or no questions to severely brain-injured patients. A minority were able to answer by using the power of thought
  • In 2010 Prof Owen published research showing that nearly one in five of the vegetative patients were able to communicate using brain activity
"I was impressed and amazed that he was able to show these cognitive responses. He had the clinical picture of a typical vegetative patient and showed no spontaneous movements that looked meaningful."
Observational assessments of Mr Routley since he responded in the scanner have continued to suggest he is vegetative. Prof Young said medical textbooks would need to be updated to include Prof Owen's techniques.
The BBC's Panorama programme followed several vegetative and minimally-conscious patients in Britain and Canada for more than a year.
Another Canadian patient, Steven Graham, was able to demonstrate that he had laid down new memories since his brain injury. Mr Graham answers yes when asked whether his sister has a daughter. His niece was born after his car accident five years ago.
The Panorama team also followed three patients at the Royal Hospital for Neuro-disability (RHN) in Putney, which specialises in the rehabilitation of brain-injured patients.
It collaborates with a team of Cambridge University neuroscientists at the Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre at Addenbrooke's hospital, Cambridge.
Panorama's Fergus Walsh meets Professor Adrian Owen to learn what the brain is like when in a vegetative state
One of the patients is diagnosed as vegetative by the RHN, and he is also unable to show awareness in an fMRI machine.
A second patient, who had not been fully assessed by the RHN, is shown to have some limited awareness in brain scans.
The Mind Reader: Unlocking My Voice - a Panorama Special - will be broadcast on Tuesday 13 November at 22:35 on BBC One. Or catch up later on the BBC iPlayer using the link above.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

The maths that made Voyager possible


The maths that made Voyager possible

In 1961, mathematics graduate Michael Minovitch decided to take on the hardest problem in celestial mechanics - the "three body problem".

Related Stories

Nasa's Voyager spacecraft have enthralled everyone with their exploits at the edge of the Solar System, but their launch in 1977 was only possible because of some clever maths and the persistence of a PhD student who worked out how to slingshot probes into deep space.
On the 3 October, 1942, the nose cone of an early V2 test rocket soared high above the north German coast before falling back to a crash-landing in the Baltic Sea.
For the first time in history, an object built by humans had crossed the invisible Karman line, which marks the edge of space.
Astonishingly, within 70 years - just one human lifespan - we'd hurled another spacecraft right to the edge of the Solar System.
Today, 35 years after leaving Earth, Voyager 1 is 18.4 billion km (11.4 billion miles) from Earth and about to cross over the boundary marking the extent of the Sun's influence, where the solar wind meets interstellar space.
Sometime in the next five years, it will likely break through this so called "bowshock" and head out into the galaxy beyond. Its twin, Voyager 2, having flown past all the outer giant planets, should pass over into interstellar not long after.

Nasa's Voyager probes

  • Voyager 2 launched on 20 August 1977; Voyager 1 lifted off on 5 September the same year
  • Their official missions were to study Jupiter and Saturn, but the probes were able to continue on
  • The Voyager 1 probe is now the furthest human-built object from Earth
  • Both probes carry discs with recordings designed to portray the diversity of culture on Earth
It's easy to take this monumental achievement for granted, but the gateway to the outer Solar System remained shut for the first 20 years of the space age.
In 1957, as Sputnik 1 became the first engineered object to orbit our home planet, mission planners started to look towards other worlds to propel their probes.
Spacecraft were quickly dispatched to the Moon, Venus and Mars. But there was one major limiting factor to reaching more distant destinations.
For a voyage to the outer planets, you must escape the gravitational pull of the Sun, and that demands a very large rocket indeed. And given what an "uphill" gravitational struggle it would be to reach them, such a journey to the furthest planet - Neptune, more than four billion km (2.5 billion miles) away - could easily take 30 or 40 years.
At the time, Nasa couldn't guarantee a spacecraft for more than a few months of operational life, and so the outer planets were considered out of reach.
That was until a 25-year-old mathematics graduate called Michael Minovitch came along in 1961.
Excited by UCLA's new IBM 7090 computer, the fastest on Earth at the time, Minovitch decided to take on the hardest problem in celestial mechanics: the "three body problem".
Jupiter, Nasa The issue was being able to reach the outer planets in practical timeframe
The three bodies it refers to are the Sun, a planet and a third object such as an asteroid or comet all travelling through space with their gravities acting on each other. The problem is predicting exactly how the gravity of the Sun and the planet will influence the third object's trajectory.
Astronomers had been pondering the three-body problem for at least 300 years, ever since they'd started plotting the path that comets took as they fell through the inner Solar System towards the Sun.
Undeterred by the fact that some of the finest minds in history, including Isaac Newton hadn't solved the three-body problem, Minovitch became focused on cracking it. He intended to use the IBM 7090 computer to home in on a solution using a method of iteration.
In his spare time, whilst studying for his PhD during the summer of 1961, he set about coding a series of equations to apply to the problem.
Feeding data on planetary orbits into his model, Minovitch had made progress by the autumn, but was anxious to check his data. So in the summer of the following year, during an internship at Nasa's Jet Propulsion Lab he persuaded his boss to give him more accurate data on planetary positions to re-test his model.
To his delight, he ran the simulations again and found his solution still worked. What he had achieved made possible an extraordinary breakthrough in spacecraft propulsion.
Minovitch had shown that as a craft flew close to a planet orbiting the Sun, it would steal some of the planet's orbital speed, and be accelerated away from the Sun. Such acceleration, without using a single drop of rocket propellant seemed too good to be true, and Minovitch's critics were quick to try to discredit him.
Voyager One, Nasa The domain of the Sun's influence is called the heliosphere: The Voyagers are approaching the edge of this enormous balloon of charged particles thrown out into space by our star
Without funds for further computer time, and in a bid to persuade Nasa to embrace his discovery, he drew up by hand hundreds of theoretical mission trajectories to the outer planets. Among them was one very special flight path that would become the Voyagers' trajectory.
But in 1962 the Jet Propulsion Lab was preoccupied with supporting Project Apollo, and no-one spotted Minovitch's breakthrough.
It would take another summer intern called Gary Flandro to identify the opportunity.
A spacecraft engineer, grounded in the hard realities of spaceflight, Flandro knew that any mission to the outer planets would have to be flown as fast as possible, otherwise the craft might not last long enough to reach its destination.
So in the summer of 1965, he began to look at whether the solution to the three-body problem could be put to practical use in exploring the outer planets. He started by drawing graphs of where these planets were going to be in the coming years.
And to his surprise, the plots revealed that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune would all be on the same side of the Solar System in the late 1970s.
Using a solution to the three-body problem, a single mission, launching from Earth in 1977, could sling a spacecraft past all four planets within 12 years. Such an opportunity would not present itself again for another 176 years.
With further lobbying from Minovitch and high level intervention from Maxwell Hunter, who advised the president on US space policy, Nasa eventually embraced Minovitch's slingshot propulsion and Flandro's idea for a "grand tour" of the planets.
IBM computer The solution came through using the most powerful computer of the day
Initially named "Mariner-Jupiter-Saturn", or MJS, funding to build two spacecraft was released in the early 1970s. The twin craft would eventually become known as the Voyagers.
To reach Neptune they would have to last for over a decade in space, operating in the darkest reaches of the Solar System billions of km from the Sun.
They would require radiation-hardened electronics to survive their encounters with the magnetosphere of Jupiter, and an artificial intelligence autonomous enough to make independent decisions when too far away from Earth for help.
Although still lacking funding to extend its mission beyond Saturn, Nasa's optimistic engineers loaded enough control propellant on board to keep the probes' dishes orientated towards the Earth for decades after passing Saturn.
They'd also built the Voyager power supply system to last until at least the year 2020. But most visionary of all, they'd included five experiments on board that were capable of analyzing space beyond the Solar System.
In 1977, as the duo launched from Earth, no-one dared imagine that they would survive long enough to make such measurements. But in 2012, they're still going strong - their pitifully weak signals just a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a watt of power by the time they reach the Earth. New discoveries are still being made.
Today, in a darkened lecture theatre at JPL - named after the same Theodore von Karman whose boundary to space our machines first crossed 70 years ago - sits a model of the Voyagers.
These great machines are now carrying our spirit of exploration across a boundary the Hungarian-American engineer could only dream of - into interstellar space.
Chris Riley next to the Voyager model at JPL The author Christopher Riley stands in front of the Voyager exhibition at JPL

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Is Human Nature Fundamentally Selfish or Altruistic?


Is Human Nature Fundamentally Selfish or Altruistic?

Human inclinations are not primarily selfish: kindness and altruism have been evolutionarily valued in mates, and even the youngest children often try to be helpful

Getty Images
Getty Images

Did selfishness — or sharing — drive human evolution? Evolutionary theorists have traditionally focused on competition and the ruthlessness of natural selection, but often they have failed to consider a critical fact: that humans could not have survived in nature without the charity and social reciprocity of a group.
Last week on Slate, evolutionary anthropologist Eric Michael Johnson explored the question against the backdrop of two cultural events in 1957 — the consequences of the rogue, selfish activities of a pygmy hunter in a Congo forest, who used the group’s collective hunting efforts to benefit only himself, and in New York City, the publication of Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, whose protagonist champions the author’s notion that human nature is fundamentally selfish and that each man “exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose.”
Atlas Shrugged counts many politicians as admirers, perhaps most notably Republican vice presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, who cites the book as one of his main inspirations for entering politics and is known to give Rand’s books frequently to his interns.
(MORE: ‘Paradise Built in Hell:’ How Disaster Brings Out the Best in People)
So, does Rand’s theory comport with current evolutionary theory? The data is not exactly kind to her position. For example, Johnson describes an anthropologist’s account of the pygmy tribesman, Cephu, in the Congo who lived by the Randian ideal that selfishness is the highest morality. Cephu was part of the Mbuti tribe for whom “hunts were collective efforts in which each hunter’s success belonged to everybody else,” Johnson writes, detailing how the tribe “employed long nets of twined liana bark to catch their prey, sometimes stretching the nets for 300 feet. Once the nets were hung, women and children began shouting, yelling, and beating the ground to frighten animals toward the trap.”
It was a group effort, for most:
But one man, a rugged individualist named Cephu, had other ideas. When no one was looking, Cephu slipped away to set up his own net in front of the others.
Soon caught in this blatant attempt to steal meat, Cephu was brought in front of the whole tribe:
At an impromptu trial, Cephu defended himself with arguments for individual initiative and personal responsibility. “He felt he deserved a better place in the line of nets,” [the anthropologist Colin] Turnbull wrote. “After all, was he not an important man, a chief, in fact, of his own band?” But if that were the case, replied a respected member of the camp, Cephu should leave and never return. The Mbuti have no chiefs, they are a society of equals in which redistribution governs everyone’s livelihood. The rest of the camp sat in silent agreement.
Faced with banishment, a punishment nearly equivalent to a death sentence, Cephu relented.
He apologized, handed over his meat to the tribe and then, essentially, was sent to bed without dinner. As Johnson explains, selfishness is considered far from a virtue in such tribal groups, which still live in ways similar to our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Indeed, every such group ever studied has been found to idealize altruism and punish selfishness, in everything from their mythologies to their mating practices.
(MORE: How Economic Inequality Is (Literally) Making Us Sick)
Although Rand accepted that early human life was a collective effort, she failed to realize how this shaped our brains. In most societies, for example, a man like Cephu would be seen as the opposite of a good catch for a woman wanting a partner. A good mate — and one whose genes were likely selected for and passed on in our earliest evolutionary history — would have been a cooperative hunter, one who didn’t put his own goals ahead of those of the tribe. He would have been altruistic in battle too, particularly when warring with other groups. A selfish soldier, after all, is known as a coward, not a hero.
The evidence for altruism as a critical part of human nature isn’t limited to anthropology. Studies of 18-month-old toddlers show that they will almost always try to help an adult who is visibly struggling with a task, without being asked to do so: if the adult is reaching for something, the toddler will try to hand it to them, or if they see an adult drop something accidentally, they will pick it up.
However, if the same adult forcefully throws something to the ground, toddlers won’t try to retrieve it: they understand that the action was deliberate and that the object is unwanted. These very young children will even assist (or refrain from helping) with a book-stacking task depending on what they perceive to be the adult’s intention. If the adult clumsily knocks the last book off the top of the stack, the toddler will try to put it back; if the adult deliberately takes the last book off, however, toddlers won’t intervene. Even before kids are taught to chip in — perhaps especially before they are told it’s an obligation — children are less selfish than often presumed.
Another study found that 3- to 5-year-olds tend to give a greater share of a reward (stickers, in this case) to a partner who has done more work on a task — again, without being asked — even if it means they get to keep less for themselves. And those cries of “That’s not fair!” that plague sibling relationships: they’re not only selfish; they reflect children’s apparently innate desire for equity.
(MORE: The Upside of Gossip: Social and Psychological Benefits)
Fundamental tendencies toward altruism aren’t only seen in children, either. Worldwide, the aftermath of natural disasters are typically characterized by heroism and a sharing of resources — within the affected community and in others farther way — not selfish panics. During the terrorist attacks of 9/11, for example, there were no accounts of people being trampled rushing out of the World Trade Center towers; rather, those who needed assistance descending were cared for, and calm mainly prevailed. The same occurred after the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown in Japan in 2011. The cases in which people stampede or look out only for themselves tend to be rare and involve very specific circumstances that mitigate against helpfulness.
Moreover, our stress systems themselves seem to be designed to connect us to others. They calm down when we are feeling close to people we care about — whether related to us or not — and spike during isolation and loneliness. Even short periods of solitary confinement can derange the mind and damage the body because of the stress they create. And having no social support can be as destructive to health as cigarette smoking.
Of course, none of this is to say that humans are never selfish or that we don’t have a grasping, greedy part of our nature. But to claim, as Rand does, that “altruistic morality” is a “disease” is to misrepresent reality.
(Share the love and read the rest of Johnson’s fascinating feature here.)
MORE: An Evolutionary Explanation for Altruism: Girls Find It Sexy
Maia Szalavitz is a health writer at TIME.com. Find her on Twitter at @maiasz. You can also continue the discussion on TIME Healthland’s Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIMEHealthland.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Life created from eggs made from skin cells


Life created from eggs made from skin cells

Newborn mice 
  The resulting mice were fully fertile

Stem cells made from skin have become "grandparents" after generations of life were created in experiments by scientists in Japan.
The cells were used to create eggs, which were fertilised to produce baby mice. These later had their own babies.
If the technique could be adapted for people, it could help infertile couples have children and even allow women to overcome the menopause.
But experts say many scientific and ethical hurdles must be overcome.
Healthy and fertile Stem cells are able to become any other type of cell in the body from blood to bone, nerves to skin.
Last year the team at Kyoto University managed to make viable sperm from stem cells. Now they have performed a similar feat with eggs.
They used stem cells from two sources: those collected from an embryo and skin-like cells which were reprogrammed into becoming stem cells.

“Start Quote

I just thought wow! The science is quite brilliant”
Dr Evelyn Telfer University of Edinburgh
The first step, reported in the journal Science, was to turn the stem cells into early versions of eggs.
A "reconstituted ovary" was then built by surrounding the early eggs with other types of supporting cells which are normally found in an ovary. This was transplanted into female mice.
Surrounding the eggs in this environment helped them to mature.
IVF techniques were used to collect the eggs, fertilise them with sperm from a male mouse and implant the fertilised egg into a surrogate mother.
Dr Katsuhiko Hayashi, from Kyoto University, told the BBC: "They develop to be healthy and fertile offspring."
Those babies then had babies of their own, whose "grandmother" was a cell in a laboratory dish.
Devastating blow The ultimate aim of the research is to help infertile couples have children. If the same methods could be used in people then cells in skin could be turned into an egg. Any resulting child would be genetically related to the mother.
However, Dr Hayashi said that was still a distant prospect: "I must say that it is impossible to adapt immediately this system to human stem cells, due to a number of not only scientific reasons, but also ethical reasons."
He said that the level of understanding of human egg development was still too limited. There would also be questions about the long-term consequences on the health of any resulting child.
Dr Evelyn Telfer, from the University of Edinburgh, said: "It's an absolutely brilliant paper - they made oocytes [eggs] from scratch and get live offspring. I just thought wow! The science is quite brilliant."
However, she warned that this had "no clinical relevance" as there were still too many gaps in understanding about how human eggs developed.
"If you can show it works in human cells it is like the Holy Grail of reproductive biology," she added.
Prof Robert Norman, from the University of Adelaide, said: "For many infertile couples, finding they have no sperm or eggs is a devastating blow.
"This paper offers light to those who want a child, who is genetically related to them, by using personalised stem cells to create eggs that can produce an offspring that appears to be healthy.
"It also offers the potential for women to have their own children well past menopause raising even more ethical issues.
"Application to humans is still a long way off, but for the first time the goal appears to be in sight."
Dr Allan Pacey, from the British Fertility Society and the University of Sheffield, said: "What is remarkable about this work is the fact that, although the process is still quite inefficient, the offspring appeared healthy and were themselves fertile as adults."

Source

'50-hour genome' test for babies with genetic diseases


'50-hour genome' test for babies with genetic diseases

Baby in intensive care 
  Faster results mean sick babies can be given the correct medication

Related Stories

Doctors in the US say they have taken a big step forward in the speed of analysing the DNA of seriously ill babies with genetic diseases.
The whole of a baby's genetic code - genome - was sequenced, analysed and the results given to doctors within 50 hours in intensive care units at Children's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City.
The process would normally take at least a month, they said.
Experts in the UK said it was an "impressive" technical achievement.
US doctors say up to a third of babies admitted to neonatal intensive care units are there because of genetic diseases caused by mutations in their DNA. However, there are more than 3,500 different genetic diseases meaning many are rare and difficult to diagnose.
The first copy of the blueprint of human life - the Human Genome Project - took years to accomplish and an incredible amount of money. Since then both the time and the cost have fallen dramatically.
Children's Mercy Hospital has been testing a new way of reading the genetic code which takes 50 hours from the moment a blood sample is taken.
They were able to make a diagnosis in three out of the four babies they tested, according to a study published in Science Translational Medicine.
Costly business Dr Stephen Kingsmore, director of the Center for Pediatric Genomic Medicine at the hospital, said: "We can now consider whole genome sequencing to be relevant for hospital medicine.
"It is now feasible to decode an entire genome and provide interim results back to the physician in two days.
"We think this is going to transform the world of neonataology."
The results could help doctors provide the best treatment and counsel families. However, at a cost of about £8,400 ($13,500) it is still expensive.
Prof David Bonthron, from the University of Leeds, said: "It's pretty impressive technically, they're pushing the envelope of how fast you can turn this stuff around - two days is pretty fast."
He said speed was also vital in analysing the genes of a foetus still in the womb if abnormalities have been identified.
However, he added: "The speed issue is maybe a bit restricted in its applicability as other areas are not that time pressured. In outpatients a few days is not that important."

Source

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Liquid air 'offers energy storage hope'


Liquid air 'offers energy storage hope'

Electricity pylon and wind turbines (Image: PA) 
  Renewable power generation, such as wind turbines, can produce electricity when it is not in demand

Related Stories

Turning air into liquid may offer a solution to one of the great challenges in engineering - how to store energy.
The Institution of Mechanical Engineers says liquid air can compete with batteries and hydrogen to store excess energy generated from renewables.
IMechE says "wrong-time" electricity generated by wind farms at night can be used to chill air to a cryogenic state at a distant location.
When demand increases, the air can be warmed to drive a turbine.
Engineers say the process to produce "right-time" electricity can achieve an efficiency of up to 70%.
IMechE is holding a conference today to discuss new ideas on how using "cryo-power" can benefit the low-carbon economy.
The technology was originally developed by Peter Dearman, a garage inventor in Hertfordshire, to power vehicles.
A new firm, Highview Power Storage, was created to transfer Mr Dearman's technology to a system that can store energy to be used on the power grid.
The process, part-funded by the government, has now been trialled for two years at the back of a power station in Slough, Buckinghamshire.
More than hot air The results have attracted the admiration of IMechE officials.
Highview Power Storage site (Image: Highview Power Storage) The energy storage technology has been tested for two years at a power station
"I get half a dozen people a week trying to persuade me they have a brilliant invention," head of energy Tim Fox told BBC News.
"In this case, it is a very clever application that really does look like a potential solution to a really great challenge that faces us as we increase the amount of intermittent power from renewables."
Dr Fox urged the government to provide incentives in its forthcoming electricity legislation for firms to store energy on a commercial scale with this and other technologies.
IMechE says the simplicity and elegance of the Highview process is appealing, especially as it addresses not just the problem of storage but also the separate problem of waste industrial heat.
The process follows a number of stages:
  1. "Wrong-time electricity" is used to take in air, remove the CO2 and water vapour (these would freeze otherwise)
  2. the remaining air, mostly nitrogen, is chilled to -190C (-310F) and turns to liquid (changing the state of the air from gas to liquid is what stores the energy)
  3. the liquid air is held in a giant vacuum flask until it is needed
  4. when demand for power rises, the liquid is warmed to ambient temperature. As it vaporizes, it drives a turbine to produce electricity - no combustion is involved
IMechE says this process is only 25% efficient but it is massively improved by co-siting the cryo-generator next to an industrial plant or power station producing low-grade heat that is currently vented and being released into the atmosphere.
The heat can be used to boost the thermal expansion of the liquid air.
More energy is saved by taking the waste cool air when the air has finished chilling, and passing it through three tanks containing gravel.
The chilled gravel stores the coolness until it is needed to restart the air-chilling process.
Delivering durability Highview believes that, produced at scale, their kits could be up to 70% efficient, and IMechE agrees this figure is realistic.
"Batteries can get 80% efficiency so this isn't as good in that respect," explains Dr Fox.
"But we do not have a battery industry in the UK and we do have plenty of respected engineers to produce a technology like this.
"What's more, it uses standard industrial components - which reduces commercial risk; it will last for decades and it can be fixed with a spanner."
In the future, it is expected that batteries currently used in electric cars may play a part in household energy storage.
But Richard Smith, head of energy strategy for National Grid, told BBC News that other sorts of storage would be increasingly important in coming decades and should be incentivised to commercial scale by government.
He said: "Storage is one of four tools we have to balance supply and demand, including thermal flexing (switching on and off gas-fired power stations); interconnections, and demand-side management. Ultimately it will be down to economics."
Mr Dearman, who also invented the MicroVent resuscitation device used in ambulances, told BBC News he was delighted at the success of his ideas.
He said he believed his liquid air engine would prevail against other storage technologies because it did not rely on potentially scarce materials for batteries. "I have been working on this off and on for close on 50 years," he told BBC News.
"I started when I was a teenager because I thought there wouldn't be enough raw materials in the world for everyone to have a car. There had to be a different way. Then somehow I came up with the idea of storing energy in cold.
"It's hard to put into words to see what's happening with my ideas today."
John Scott, from the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), added: "At present, pumped-hydro storage is the only practical bulk storage medium in the British grid.
"However, locations are very restricted," he told BBC News. "In the future, if new storage technologies can be deployed at a lower cost than alternatives, it would benefit the power system."
A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) said it would shortly launch a scheme to incentivise innovation in energy storage. Other grants are available from Ofgem.
Follow Roger Harrabin on Twitter: @RogerHarrabin

Source

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Painkillers 'are the cause' of millions of headaches


Painkillers 'are the cause' of millions of headaches

Woman in pain

Related Stories

Up to a million people in the UK have "completely preventable" severe headaches caused by taking too many painkillers, doctors have said.
They said some were trapped in a "vicious cycle" of taking pain relief, which then caused even more headaches.
The warning came as part of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's (NICE) first guidelines for treating headaches.
It is also recommending acupuncture in some circumstances.

“Start Quote

This can end up getting into a vicious cycle where your headache gets worse, so you take more painkillers, so your headache gets worse and this just becomes worse and worse and worse”
Prof Martin Underwood Warwick Medical School
"Medication overuse headaches" feel the same as other common headaches or migraines.
There is no definitive UK data on the incidence of the condition, but studies in other countries suggest 1-2% of people are affected, while the World Health Organization says figures closer to 5% have been reported.
While painkillers would be many people's instant response, they could be making sufferers feel even worse.
Prof Martin Underwood, from Warwick Medical School, who led the NICE panel, said: "This can end up getting into a vicious cycle where your headache gets worse, so you take more painkillers, so your headache gets worse and this just becomes worse and worse and worse.
"It is such an easy thing to prevent."
'Tipping point' Exactly how painkillers have this effect on the brain is unknown.
Most of the people affected are thought to have started with either everyday, tension-type headaches or migraines. The headaches then became worse as they treated themselves at home.

Main types of headache

  • Tension - the common "everyday" headache most people will experience at some point in their lives. In some cases people have tension headaches on most days of the month.
  • Migraine - severe headache that can last for several days. It gets worse with activity and often comes with nausea as well as sensitivity to light and sound.
  • Cluster - extremely severe pain around the eye and side of the face, also includes swelling and a red watery eye. Some people report eight attacks a day, which can last up to three hours.
  • Medication overuse - feels like a tension headache or a migraine, but is due to taking too many painkillers.
  • However, there are more than 200 types of headache.
Manjit Matharu, a consultant neurologist at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, said there was a tipping point at 10 to 15 days of using pain relief each month when the drugs became the issue.
He said: "This is a huge problem in the population. The figures in terms of the number of people who have medication overuse headache are one in 50, so that is approximately a million people who have headaches on a daily or near daily basis because they're using painkillers."
People with a family history of tension-type headaches or migraine may also be genetically more vulnerable to medication overuse headaches. They could be susceptible when taking pain relief even if it is not for headaches.
The new guidelines for doctors in England and Wales advise telling sufferers to immediately stop taking all pain relief. However, this will lead to about a month of agony as patients contend with regular headaches without pain relief, until symptoms eventually improve.
The panel said other options for controlling any underlying headaches, such as preventative treatments, could be considered.
Acupuncture The guidelines also include a recommendation for acupuncture in patients susceptible to migraine and tension headaches.

Drugs causing overuse headaches

  • Paracetamol, aspirin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on 15 or more days per month
  • Triptans, opioids, ergots or combination analgesic medications on at least 10 days per month
Source: NICE
"We would expect that to lead to more people getting acupuncture, but given there is good evidence to show this is effective for the prevention of both tension-type and migraine-type headaches then that is a good thing because people are getting access to an effective treatment," Prof Martin Underwood said.
Doctors have also been asked not to refer patients for brain scans "solely for reassurance" that they do not have a brain tumour. The NICE panel said a tumour would come with other symptoms such as a change in behaviour or epilepsy.
The chief executive of the Migraine Trust, Wendy Thomas, said: "The guideline will assist with accurate diagnosis, appropriate referral and evidence-based information for those with troublesome and disabling headaches.
"It will also raise awareness of medication overuse, which can be an issue for those with severe headaches.
"People with disabling migraine will experience improved quality of life as a result of this guideline."
Dr Fayyaz Ahmed, the chair of British Association for the Study of Headache, welcomed the guidelines.
He said: "Headache is the most prevalent condition and one in seven of the UK population has migraine.
"The condition puts an enormous burden on the healthcare resources and the economy in general."

Source

Monday, September 3, 2012

Organic food 'not any healthier'


Organic food 'not any healthier'

Organic egg 
  Food labelled as organic must meet certain standards

Related Stories

Eating organic food will not make you healthier, according to researchers at Stanford University, although it could cut your exposure to pesticides.
They looked at more than 200 studies of the content and associated health gains of organic and non-organic foods.
Overall, there was no discernable difference between the nutritional content, although the organic food was 30% less likely to contain pesticides.
Critics say the work is inconclusive and call for more studies.
The research, published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, looked at 17 studies comparing people who ate organic with those who did not and 223 studies that compared the levels of nutrients, bacteria, fungus or pesticides in various foods - including fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, milk and eggs.

“Start Quote

There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health”
Dr Cyrstal Smith-Spangler Lead researcher
None of the human studies ran for longer than two years, making conclusions about long-term outcomes impossible. And all of the available evidence was relatively weak and highly variable - which the authors say is unsurprising because of all the different variables, like weather and soil type, involved.
Fruit and vegetables contained similar amounts of vitamins, and milk the same amount of protein and fat - although a few studies suggested organic milk contained more omega-3.
Organic foods did contain more nitrogen, but the researchers say this is probably due to differences in fertiliser use and ripeness at harvest and is unlikely to provide any health benefit.
Their findings support those of the UK's Food Standards Agency, which commissioned a review a few years ago into organic food claims.

Organic

  • Organic food is produced to standards designed to keep the production more "natural", using environmentally and animal-friendly farming methods
  • Fewer, if any, chemicals are used and most pesticides are banned or very carefully controlled
  • Various bodies in the UK, including the Soil Association, certify food and producers as organic
  • Food certified as organic is not allowed to contain genetically modified ingredients
Prof Alan Dangour, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who carried out that work, said: "Consumers select organic foods for a variety of reasons, however this latest review identifies that at present there are no convincing differences between organic and conventional foods in nutrient content or health benefits.
"Hopefully this evidence will be useful to consumers."
Dr Crystal Smith-Spangler, the lead author of the latest review, said there were many reasons why people chose to eat organic, including animal welfare or environmental concerns.
"Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious. We were a little surprised that we didn't find that.
"There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health."
But the Soil Association said the study was flawed.
"Studies that treat crop trials as if they were clinical trials of medicines, like this one, exaggerate the variation between studies, and drown out the real differences.
"A UK review paper, using the correct statistical analysis, has found that most of the differences in nutrient levels between organic and non-organic fruit and vegetables seen in this US study are actually highly significant."

Source

Friday, August 31, 2012


Puppet experiment suggests humans are born to be fair


Fairness experiment using a puppet (c) PLoS One Using puppets allows scientists to test how much children would really share with their peers

Related Stories

It looks like a fairground game: a little girl and a puppet play together, using miniature fishing rods to hook tiny buckets of coins.
But this is actually a psychological experiment. Its aim is to measure a very complex human concept - fairness.
The game works like this: the puppet (with the aid of an adult puppeteer) and a three-year-old participant gather their hauls of little buckets. Then the child/puppet team is rewarded with stickers - one for each coin they have collected.

“Start Quote

We were very surprised to find sophisticated sharing behaviour already present in three-year-olds”
Patricia Kanngiesser University of Bristol
At this point the child has to decide how to share his or her prized stickers with their puppet partner.
This simple game revealed that, by the age of just three, children choose to reward their peers based on merit. The children gave the puppet more stickers if it had "worked harder" - gathering more coins.
Patricia Kanngiesser from the University of Bristol led the study, which was published in the journal PLoS One. She said she was amazed by the result.
"We were very surprised to find this sophisticated sharing behaviour already present in three-year-olds," said Ms Kanngiesser.
"Previous research has found that children don't really begin to share according to merit until they are six years of age and older."
Using puppets allowed the experimenters to carry out a controlled experiment whilst still revealing exactly how the children would behave towards peers in a real world situation.
Innate justice So, if young toddlers with almost no social experience give up more of their stickers to a deserving peer, does this mean that humans are hard-wired to treat others fairly?

“Start Quote

Co-operation and fairness are fundamental aspects of human behaviour”
Susanne Shultz University of Manchester
Prof Felix Warneken from Harvard University, a co-author of this study, has been studying cooperative behaviour in children and in chimpanzees for almost a decade.
He said knowing where our concept of fairness comes from - whether it is learned or innate - is "the toughest question".
"We can only rule things out with our experiments," he explained. "So we can rule out that it needs formal education, or that it requires sophisticated reasoning about incentives.
"[Fairness] is something that emerges with children's earliest forms of working and interacting with peers."
Ms Kanngiesser said there was a "natural human predisposition" towards treating others fairly.
"It seems to be intuitive," she said. "People have found that even by 18 months of age, children have expectations about how things should be shared fairly."
And there are logical, human reasons for this natural bias towards fair play.
Dr Susanne Shultz, a researcher from the University of Manchester who specialises in social behaviour in primates, pointed out that fairness was central in long-term stable human relationships.
This and other similar studies, Dr Shultz said, demonstrated that "co-operation and fairness are fundamental aspects of human behaviour".
"[This study] also reframes social intelligence in terms of cooperation rather than deception," she added. "I think that's really nice."
Deception has played a large part in the scientific study of fairness. While this experiment asked children to share the rewards with a partner after completing a shared task, many studies focus on whether humans, and other primates, choose to cheat a partner or to punish others for treating them unfairly.
A classic example of this type of test is known as the ultimatum game.
This is where one participant is tasked with making an offer to share something of value - for example, an amount of money - with a partner.
The partner then has the opportunity to either accept or reject this offer. And this is where the punishment comes in.
If the recipient decides to reject an apparently unfair offer, both participants receive nothing.
"[This new study] is a nice change from looking at social intelligence from a purely Machiavellian perspective," Dr Shultz said.
Uniquely human?

How do we differ from our primate cousins?

Capuchin monkey
  • Many scientists believed they would find merit-based sharing among our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees. But, in a 2007 study published in the journal Science, researchers using the ultimatum game found that chimps would take any reward - no matter what share they were offered
  • While children appear to be prepared to share with a new playmate, non-human primates seem to limit their altruism to close kin and mates. But it is not simply the case that the more intelligent the species the more altruistic they are. Recent research on sharing published in PNAS in social primates revealed that capuchins and marmosets were some of the most "giving" primates - commonly offering food rewards to other group members
  • Before we feel too superior to our primate cousins, our capacity to be spiteful appears to be ours alone. A 2007 published in PNAS study found chimpanzees, unlike humans, do not retaliate against personally harmful actions. Being spiteful is a human trait
In recent years there has been increased scientific interest in whether non-human primates are able to understand the concept of fair play.
As well as gaining an understanding of the complexities of animal behaviour, these studies are trying to unpick its evolutionary origins.
The first of these was published in Nature in 2003. Sarah Brosnan, currently at Georgia State University, found that capuchin monkeys reacted dramatically to being treated unfairly.
Dr Brosnan trained wild monkeys to work with human handlers on a simple task; the monkey would hand over a piece of rock and, in return, receive a food reward.
In the experiment, two monkeys sat side by side. The handlers either gave both monkeys an identical reward (a slice of cucumber) or gave just one of the monkeys the much preferred reward of a grape for completing exactly the same task.
As it was reported at the time by National Geographic: "Capuchins who witnessed unfair treatment and failed to benefit from it often refused to conduct future exchanges with human researchers, would not eat the cucumbers they received for their labours, and in some cases, hurled food rewards at human researchers."
Since then, several groups have tried to test fairness in our closer and apparently more intelligent cousins - the great apes.
But, Dr Shultz said, overall, "non-human primates, apes included, are not very good at solving fairness problems".
In one study published recently in Biology Letters, chimps and bonobos presented with a food-based ultimatum game would accept any food reward on offer - no matter how meagre their share was in comparison to their partner's.
The apes would also consistently steal food from one another during the task.
So is a sense of fairness; of treating others justly at our own expense, a uniquely human characteristic?
Dr Warneken explained that the scientific evidence pointed to a human-ape divide when it came to "recognising inequity".
"There's evidence that some non-human primates are averse to others receiving more than they receive," he said.
But, he added, there was very little evidence that they were averse to offers that were the other way around - where they received more than their fair share.
"That [latter scenario] is a more solid argument for a true understanding of fairness," he explained. "And it's currently something that has no equivalent in non-human primates."
Dr Kanngiessen concluded: "There is a huge debate about what makes us human: is it language, our ability to care about others."
"But even though animals show so many of these complex behaviours, when it comes to helping others and not receiving anything in return, that seems so far to be something [that's] unique to us."

Source

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Family trees: Tracing the world's ancestor


Family trees: Tracing the world's ancestor

Crowd of people pictured from behind
A question one Radio 4 listener asked about the bloodline between Jesus and King David raised a wider genealogical issue. How many generations does it take before someone alive today is the ancestor of everyone on the planet?
Listeners to the More or Less programme on Radio 4 have been challenging me to answer any fiendish question they can throw at me.
A question about Jesus's genealogy was rather interesting and the answer has astounding ramifications.
The Bible says Jesus was a descendant of King David. But with 1,000 years between them, and since King David's son Solomon was said to have had about 1,000 wives and mistresses, couldn't many of Jesus's peers in Holy Land have claimed the same royal ancestor?
Theory tells us that not only would all of Jesus's contemporaries be descended from King David, but that this would probably be the case even if Solomon had been into monogamy.
We can make this sort of prediction because over the past 15 years or so, these ideas have been studied as part of the research into understanding patterns in our own genome.

Who is Yan Wong?

Dr Yan Wong
Yan Wong is an evolutionary biologist specialising in computer and mathematical modelling of evolutionary genetics.
He is a presenter of the BBC One science programme Bang Goes The Theory and a contributor to More or Less.
The most successful approach has been to go backwards in time, taking a sample of people and imagining the patterns of inheritance in their ancestral family tree.
When applied to the question of who is descended from whom, the results can surprise even the professionals.
That's because geneticists normally study biological information - DNA - that people inherit from just one of their parents.
Just like a surname, or the male lines of descent quoted in the Bible, these generate lineages that shrink or expand rather slowly. That's why we expect the proportion of Smiths in the phone-book to fluctuate only a little from decade to decade.
The surprise comes if we look at inheritance from both parents. Here, the numbers change drastically as the generations go by. For instance, we have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on.
Each generation back, we multiply the number by two. This leads to what is called an exponential increase: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024 and so on.
It's not long before we hit huge numbers. Take the specific case of Jesus and King David.
The number of generations between them is at least 35. Luke lists 42 generations down the male line, and Matthew gives an incomplete list of 27.
Mural showing Jesus Jesus Christ would have had more than 34 billion potential ancestors
These numbers agree reasonably well with an average time between generations of 25 or 30 years - an estimate taken from documented historical records from Iceland and Canada.
So back in the time of David, Jesus would have had at least 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 (35 times); in other words 2^35 - or more than 34 billion potential ancestors. That's far more than the total population of the world, of course.
This is a good illustration of what's been called the "genealogical paradox".

What about isolated communities?

Members of Indian tribe in Amazon rainforest
"The one thing that stands a chance of scuppering our calculations is if the population is split into isolated groups," says Yan Wong.
"However, to be considered separate, these groups need to basically never interbreed with each other.
"To quote one of the papers on this subject, 'substantial forms of population subdivision can still be compatible with very recent common ancestors'. (Rohde et al., 2004).
"In fact, even using current DNA studies, you can almost always detect distant shared relatives between distinct human populations (Henn et al., 2012)."
In short, we seem to have too many ancestors. The solution is that we have to take inbreeding into account. Many of these ancestors are duplicates; the same person can found through multiple routes in the family tree.
You are unlikely to be the product of inbreeding between recent ancestors. So initially, your increase in ancestors will indeed be almost exponential.
But as your family tree increases to thousands upon thousands, you will inevitably find many obscure branches that have interbred. That's when the numbers start tailing off.
Even so, by that time, you will have collected a large number of people in your ancestry. So it's not surprising that any two people in any one country probably won't need to go back many generations before finding a common ancestor.
More specifically, imagine the simplest case of a population of a constant size - say a million (the approximate size of the Holy Land at the time of Jesus).
If people in this population meet and breed at random, it turns out that you only need to go back an average of 20 generations before you find an individual who is a common ancestor of everyone in the population.
If you go back on average 1.77 times further again (35 generations) everyone in the population will have exactly the same set of common ancestors (although they will be related, of course, through different routes in all the different family trees).
DNA helix Advances in DNA allow us to detect shared genetic ancestry
In fact about 80% of the people at that time in the past will be the ancestors of everyone in the present. The remaining 20% are those who have had no children, or whose children have had no children, and so on - in other words, people who were genetic dead-ends.
Apply that to the case of King David. According to this model, he would be a common ancestor of the whole population of the Holy Land somewhere between 20 and 35 generations after his life. That's even without Solomon sowing his seed so widely.
That's why everyone alive in the Holy Land at the time of Jesus would have been able to claim David for an ancestor.
Reductions in population caused by events such as the Assyrian invasions will have produced more inbred family trees, and shortened the number of generations needed to reach a common ancestry.

More or Less: Behind the stats

Listen to More or Less on BBC Radio 4 and the World Service, or download the free podcast
What about the wider ramifications? A single immigrant who breeds into a population has roughly 80% chance of becoming a common ancestor. A single interbreeding event in the distant past will probably, therefore, graft the immigrant's family tree onto that of the native population. That makes it very likely that King David is the direct ancestor of the populations of many other countries too.
How far do we have to go back to find the most recent common ancestor of all humans alive today? Again, estimates are remarkably short. Even taking account of distant isolation and local inbreeding, the quoted figures are 100 or so generations in the past: a mere 3,000 years ago.
And one can, of course, project this model into the future, too. The maths tells us that in 3,000 years someone alive today will be the common ancestor of all humanity.
A few thousand years after that, 80% of us (those who leave children who in turn leave children, and so on) will be ancestors of all humanity. What an inheritance!

Source