So, for this week's Weekly Science Article Report, please find an article that addresses this and report back to us about it.
As a reminder:
1) Cite your article
2) Write a brief (no more than 2 sentence) summary of the article.
3) Write a reflection on the article, sharing about what your learned, what surprised you, and what questions you had. You should also add how it connects to what we have been studying in class.
Posts
21 comments:
Malaria is a Likely Killer in King Tut’s Post-Mortem
By John Noble Wilford (New York Times)
This article was about how scientists are now finding genetic evidence that suggests King Tut (the Egyptian pharaoh) died of Malaria, which goes against what everyone had thought before. The scientists were able to use different genetic techniques to uncover the truth.
While reading this article I learned just how much scientists can get from the DNA of people who have been dead for a long time. They were able to find the malaria parasite, Plasmodium falciparum, in the DNA of ancient mummies (including King Tut) which made sense to the researchers, because the mummies had lived near the Nile River, so could be prone to the disease. Researchers also used genetic fingerprinting, which is a technique used for identification. I also learned just how long these processes take. The investigation of King Tut took two years, and was just reported.
Something that surprised me while reading this article was how deep researchers can go to gather information. They were able to find fractures, and defects in the bone of the mummies, which is beyond me. That seems like it would be hard to do on someone who’s alive, but to do these tests on someome who has been dead for many years was really surprising to me. I knew that archaeologists could uncover a lot of general information about certain people or artifacts, but I had no idea just how much genetic research they were able to carry out.
Some questions that I had were what kinds of tools and machinery were used to actually uncover all of this information, because the article wasn’t very specific on how the tests were actually carried out. If the article had included this, I think it would have been much stronger. I was also wondering why it was all of a sudden that they were able to find this genetic information. Why not earlier? Did certain tools and machinery just come out? Or have they had the resources this whole time and just not thought to dig that deep?
This connects to what we have been studying in class because it takes information that we have already learned, and shows us how that information can be used in a career or project. It kind of helped me because it made the point of all of this a lot clearer. I now know just how important it is to know about genetics.
A Legal Puzzle: Can a Baby Have Three Biological Parents?
NYTimes.com
The article that I read was about scientists trying to reduce or eliminate birth defects and diseases inherited through maternal DNA. The scientists put genetic material from a female’s egg and put it into the place of another female’s egg. Which they figured out could be done with humans too.
When the scientists did the testing they figured the result of what they did would be a baby with 3 biological parents, or as some people call it, “fractional parents”. All of these events and discoveries were debated about, people wondering if a baby could end up having 100 parents, how much DNA would be needed, and so on. The problem with answering the questions fully is that, already, dealing with the law of parenthood is already confusing. Most of this is confusing because it also depends on the opinions of what a family is, or what makes a family.
I think that this article was really interesting, because you always hear about surrogates, and we were born to think it was normal or not a problem. Now that I’ve read this article it seems weird to me to be calling people who donate sperm or eggs and surrogates biological parents. To me, it seems unreal or unnecessary. In the article, it was also explaining many events that has happened and the difficulties with claiming the parents, I’ve always known on some level that there were always problems with these situations but I never thought scientists or the government would ‘fix’ it enough to make it a whole different situation and name.
This article connected to what we were studying in class by the situation of fixing diseases that were inherited through maternal DNA. Doing that, they took eggs from one female and in its place, put genetic material from the eggs of another female in its place. This is all trying to fix the genetic disease problem. Questions that I have are: Will the government come to a conclusion about how to fix the problem or situation? Will families be put through more drama and difficulties trying to get the child that was rightfully theirs, and if so, who would be the correct parents?
All of these questions were not answered in the article, and weren’t explained clearly so I would be interested in knowing the answer because it’s a topic that will have a lot of effects on people and could change their lives for the better or for the worst.
Researchers Take Step Toward Synthetic Life
By Andrew Pollack
New York Times
This article is about how scientists have made a version of bacteria entirely out of chemicals that they have put together in pieces. The scientists are hoping to eventually create an entirely synthetic organism (an organism that is completely manmade).
From this article, I learned that DNA can be created by people. I had no idea that something like that was possible, but it makes sense I guess, because if scientists can find the components that DNA is usually made up of then they can also put them together and make DNA. To do this, they order the base pairs from a company that makes strings of base pairs by "stitching" them together. They only make the strings about 50 to 100 base pairs long, because even the machines they use can make mistakes, and the sequences must be checked. For this project, the small strings were then stitched together to make larger strings that were thousands of base pairs long. From there they figured out that they could just keep adding onto the DNA until they have the full amount. This process takes a long time, it was started in 2002, just finished in 2008, and costs millions of dollars.
What surprised me about this is that no one thought to strings many sequences together before this, because to make bigger pieces of DNA, they would have to come up with some way to make it work. I was a little confused how they plan to make an organism that is entirely made synthetically, so I would have liked to know more about that. Something else that surprised me about what they planned to do in the future was to be able to print DNA. They thought that in the future they would be able to design DNA on the computer, and then simply print it out and be able to put it right into a cell of an organism. They didn't go very far into this topic, so I want to know how they would print it out. Would they have a special printer that would include chemicals into the print out?
These experiments relate to what we are learning in class because they both are at the very deep level of genetics. We have learned about the base pairs and elements that go into chromosomes and DNA, (A, C, G and T) and the scientists constructed the DNA out of the same elements, they just put them together with machines instead of naturally. To eventually make an entirely synthetic organism, they will have to start small, on the level of DNA and chromosomes like we are learning about, and work their way bigger.
Want a Better Listener? Protect Those Ears
By Joyce Cohen
New York Times
The article I read was about how protecting a child's ears can improve their hearing in the future. This is because loud noise affects children more because their ear canals are smaller, which means more pressure as the sound enters the ear.
This article was very interesting. I liked it because it talked about how being at something like a sporting event or a concert, can seriously affect your hearing. These are all things that people do normally, without really thinking twice about it. The problem is, even things like fireworks displays or motorcycles can damage hearing-if a child is exposed to it long enough- and it's very rare that children wear protective gear, to diffuse the sound. The article took something that a lot of people were already aware of, and showed the science behind it and why, or how it happened.
I think that an issue like this is a difficult one to overcome, because sometimes you may not be aware you're going to experience a loud noise, so you can't anticipate it or prevent it. Also, it seems kind of silly for kids to wear protective headphones just for being by a motorcycle, or watching fireworks, or going to a baseball game, which is what scientists suggest. I think a lot of people overlook this issue, when it's actually quite serious. Loud noises can cause hearing damage which may lead to a sensation of muffling when trying to hear, or tinnitus, a disorder in which one would hear ringing, humming,buzzing, etc in their head.
What surprised me about this article was how such common things, or things that may not even seem that loud to someone, can cause such permanent and irreversible damage. The fact that something like a fireworks display could have such effects, astonishes me. Also, it surprised me that when a child or baby cries due to a loud noise, it's not because of immaturity or something along those lines, it's because the sound is so much louder, and noticeable, and their ears are much more sensitive, so they are more uncomfortable than an adult would be. I also would assume that an adult would be more uncomfortable because their ear canals are larger, which seemed like it would let more sound in, but after reading the article, I learned that since a child ear canal is more small, the same amount of sound has to go through that small amount of space, so the pressure is greater. I was also surprised at how it's just become a recognizable issue, and more people haven't worried about it. I mean, sure, you may hear that ipods or loud music can be dangerous, but most parents don't go to the extent of buying you protective headphones to go to a concert.
This article makes me wonder if maybe, it doesn't matter that much, because lots of people ride motorcycles or go see fireworks, or go to sporting events, and you don't usually hear a lot about hearing disabilities. Although, it may be because nowadays, more children are exposed to concerts, or football games, etc than they used to be. It used to be more of an adult thing.
Although this doesn't directly relate to what we are doing in class, it does show how observations on the relativity of loud noises and hearing damage, can bring scientists to a conclusion like knowing how to protect you or your child's hearing, which is a huge part of science.
New genetic discovery may help people to regrow teeth
The Associated Press
This article was about how scientists bred mice that did not have the gene that prevents you from growing extra teeth. They grew teeth like those of a shark and this could help people who don't have teeth grow more.
I thought it was kinda cool that they might have found something to grow back your teeth. Dentures are not the best teeth. It would be better if people could grow their own teeth when need be. But I'm wondering if they find out a way to make this work for humans, would we grow shark-like teeth? Would we just grown like 1 tooth if 1 fell out? Or would too many grow?
I think this article relates to what we're learning because the thing preventing you from growing more teeth is a gene. This gene is called Osr2. And scientists have been working and testing mice about that gene.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=genetic-doping-next-athletic-cheat-10-02-05
Genetic Doping: Next Athlete Cheat
The article I read was about how the new athetic cheating epidemic is genetic doping.
This article distresses me greatly because, steroids were bad enough, but now, athletes can geneticlly enhance themselves, just to get a head. One example is genes for insulin growth, could enhance muscle mass. The worst part about it is the fact that most of these genetic doping techniques, don't leave a trace, so the athlete will get away with it. One question I have is how an athlete obtains these drugs. One thing that surprised me was the fact that these were tested on mice, and they made the mice faster and stronger. This means they work, and it means they will very soon be a problem. This connects to what we are learning about because it has to do with genetics, but it dosn't really connect to what we are learning about.
sorry the article i read was written by Cynthia Graber
In Down's Syndrome DYRK1A Gene May Be One Of Most Influential Factors
By Amaia Portugal
Elhuyar Fundazioa
For many year scientists have been studying the DYRK1A gene, and they have come to the conclusion that this gene effects how the brain of a person with downsyndrome processes things that they have learned. They have found that it affects their memory, And this could be why a characteristic of down syndrome is trouble processing information, and remembering things.
This article helped teach me about both genetics and down syndrome. I learned about how different genes affect different parts of the body, on different levels. This gene affects memory, how things are learned. Most people with down syndrome have trouble learning verbalally. The article says, “There is evidence that the superexpression of the DYRK1A gene may alter the transcription of the DNA (the process that synthesises proteins from DNA). Mr Azkona confirmed the evidence with an experiment with a transgenic mouse which had superexpression. This would directly affect cholinergic neurones and cause damage typical of Down's syndrome with memory and the learning process.” They tested their theory, proving that this gene does do something to memory and proccessing. They spent many years studying how a person with down syndromes brain develops, and how things change overtime. Im wondering how long it took them, because its seems that if they were studying the same group of people’s brains deveop, it must take years and years to study a persons life. They used mice in the experiment, but I know that many scientist do that too. This relates to what we are talking about in class because it is of course about genetics, but it also talks about how different genes affect different things, and how the outcome of having an extra gene; the case of down syndrome.
Human got holds second genome
by Doreen Walton
BBC news
In this article it talks about how there are so many more bacteria in the gut that it is called the second genome. There is also such a close relation to people in other country's that it can help close some gaps in curing diseases. I learned that there is almost twice as many genes in the gut area then there are in the rest of the body. I was shocked that the people from across the world have similar bacteria even though they eat differemt foods so I thought that the bacteria would vary drasticaly. I'm surprised that it took people that long to test the bacteria.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2006/0704-doggy_genes.htm
Newly Sequenced Genome Could Shed Light on Human Diseases
By Unknown
The article I read was about how scientists have fully unlocked the dog genome. By doing this they may be able to solve some human diseases. What I learned from the article was that dogs and humans share many of the same diseases. I never knew that a dog could get diabetes. The fact that dog genes are more specific that human genes it can help us survive by giving us cures. What really surprised me was that it was just small mutations that set dogs up differently. They are almost the same in breeds but different genes come on and come of. What also was surprising was that you test your dog to see what breed it was by sending cheek cells or blood to a lab. I was wondering though wif we could know whether or not the dog was a pure bred would that mess with people and would it hurt the chances of certain dogs being adopted.
This relates to what we are learning in class because it shows how different genes help show traits. The different sections of DNA are like humans and can cause the same problems. The problem is they aren’t exactly a like and that causes mutation like we are learning about in class.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8547454.stm
Human Gut Microbes Hold ‘Second Genome’
Microbes are crucial to our health. This article talks about how they discovered how microbes hold the second genome. The bacteria helps us with so much. Digest food, Provide vitamins.
I never really knew what microbes were and how they affected us. I learned from this article that there isn’t much we can do with out them. The discovery’s made here are incredible. Scientist developed something called a metagenome, which is a combined genome. They found that every person had about 160 bacterial species. They mapped the genes to find their way around the problem. I find it interesting, that they use this to find genetic diseases.
http://www.8bm.com/?p=1035
KING TUT’S FAMILY TREE WAS A POLE
This articles is about the family tree of egyptian royalty, and mainly focuses on king Tut. In this article it explains a quite a bit about inbreeding.
In this article I found out that inbreeding quadruples a persons chance of getting a genetic disease. I also found out that king Tut's mother was his father's sister. I knew that inbreeding happened between a royal family previously, but I never knew that king Tut was born to siblings.
One of the things that really surprised me, that I learned about was, that king Tut was a rather deformed child. He had an abnormally large head, and quite a lot of deformities in his bones, in fact he had to walk around carrying a cane with him, so he really couldn't have been an active child.
I also learned that king Tut, was not murdered and instead he died of malaria. This article relates to what we're learning in class because it talks a lot of about genetic disorders. To find out who is part of king Tut's family, the scientists had to do DNA fingerprinting, so they took DNA from king tut and they checked to see whether it matches that of other people, and then they worked their way throughout the family tree, which doesn't seem to have as many branches as most people would expect.
I thing that scientists did was inject king Tut's DNA into a bacteria similar to humans, then they used the DNA to see similarities between the parents and the offspring. I thought it was really cool that a bacteria has king Tut's genes!
In all I really liked this article because it was easy to understand, and it was informative, and I learned some new things. It also really connected to what we are learning in class as I have mentioned previously.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8547454.stm
Human gut microbes hold 'second genome'
The article I read was about how the human gut holds microbes that contain millions of genes. The article also talks about microbes that live in stomach and intestinal track are essential to our survival.
I learned that there are 10 times as many bacteria cells in our body then human cells. I find that extremely surprising that there are more bacteria cells in our body the human body cells. According to the article most of the bacteria live in the intestinal track and that we could not live without them. The bacteria help digest food, provide vitamins, and protect us from invading pathogens. The scientist also found the there are about 160 different species of bacteria in every person. But if there is a disturbance you can get all kinds of diseases such as Crohn’s disease, Ulcerative colitis, and a link to obesity.
Ancient Man in Greenland Has Genome Decoded
By Nicholas Wade
New York Times
This article is about how a man who lived on the western coast of Greenland about 4,000 years ago has been decoded because of a good preservation of his DNA (his hair). His hair was so think that they thought it was originally from a bear and not a human. This is the first time the genome of an ancient human has been analyzed.
I thought this article was very interesting because just by preserving a chunk of hair they can track down a man that lived 4,000 years ago. I didn’t know how long hair can last and was wondering if we found it any later in history would it still be preserved? Just by using this genome as a “bases” the teams of researchers from the University of Copenhagen have found the man’s closest relatives and their history all from a piece of hair. The hair was preserved in a piece of ice in the water with other waste products and scientists have concluded that the hair was from a haircut.
I was wondering how scientist can track down all this information. Did they have to test everyone’s DNA from around the area to see if it matched the man’s from 4,000 years ago?
This relates to what we’re doing in class because we’re learning about DNA and I thought it was interesting how people can track down someone that far ago just by their DNA (hair), and even though right now we’re talking about the structure of DNA and protein synthesis this shows a basic on just how long the structure of DNA can live for and that it doesn’t just die out like cells in your body.
Food From Cloned Animals Seems Safe, A Panel Finds
NY Times
Elisabith Rosenthal
The article I read talked about the safety of eating cloned animals goods, and the differences between cloned animal and animals that weren't cloned.
The interesting thing that was discovered in the study, was that cloned animal produced the same quality goods. The only down side is that cloned animals are more prone to disease. The great thing about this is that really strong animals can be made again. A animal that makes good goods is worth more in the long run. A animal that can survive harsher weather and still make the same good product is something everyone wants. The article was mostly targeted towards the safety standards of this kind of thing, but the whole future part was what I found interesting. In the article they say that more of these kinds of animals will appear because they are the ones being bread, these animals are "desirable."
The way this all works is as follows. An unfertilized egg is taken. Then a "desirable" animals genes are injected into the unfertilized egg. The new organism is the same as the "desirable" organism.
I'm personally for this kind of thing however this article didn't talk much about disruption in the food chain and things like that. Those are things I may want to learn a little more about. Overall a pretty good read but I still want to know a little more of how this type of things effect the environment.
Human gut microbes hold 'second gene'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8547454.stm
The article I read was about how the human gut contains microbes. These microbes hold millions of genes so many that they are being called our "second genome". It also talked about the digestive tract and the amount of genes that it has.
I thought this article was kind of cool because I didn't realize that there were so many genes in one signal part of the body. What got me even more is that there are 10 times more bacteria cells in the body than body cells. I had always thought that body cells were dominant over bacteria cells. In the article it said most of these bacteria live in the intestine and help break down food. Another cool thing I saw was that each person has 160 different types of bacteria in them. With that many bacteria one disturbance can cause lot's of problems such as Crohn's disease and Ulcerative Colitis.
"Genetic Engineers Who Don't Just Tinker"
By Nicholas Wade
NY Times
In this article, it talks about synthetic biology and how Dr. Venter and his team of scientists are working towards creating the first synthetic cell. This will be HUGE for synthetic biology and it will change biology greatly.
I have to say, I didn't really like this article as much as I've liked my past articles. It did interest me how they were able to make the beginnings of a synthetic cell by copying the genome of a bacterium. It also interested me in how scientists are planning to also use genetic engineering for other things as well, like being able to grow a house from an acorn!! It really makes you think about just how far science might someday be able to go.
This relates to what we're learning in class because we are learning about how these genes make up how organisms live and this article talks about how one day we will be able to modify how an organism is made to live through genetic engineering and synthetic biology.
Do-it-yourself genetic engineering
Author: Jon MooAllem
New york times
This article, I thought, was really cool. It covered the topic of synthetic biology. (The artificial creation of a living thing)
The article specifies a group of community college students, who, as they were brainstorming ideas for a science fair, humorously came up with the idea to modify electric eel cells to output usable energy as an alternative energy source. After telling their biology professor as a joke, he took it seriously. The rest is history.
The idea evolved into creating completely new DNA to code for a bacteria which would power an electric battery. Creating DNA has been done before, but not at scales necessary to produce new life. Some of the ideas were also to code a life form to grow a bookshelf from a tree, an organism that secretes green fuel, a cell that naturally makes anti-bacterial/virus drug, etc...
I figured out from the article that the DNA code can really do anything, given a sterile environment and enough food for the organism. Imagine a world where if you need to charge your Ipod you can stop by at an 'energy ATM' that draws power from a pool of modified electric eel cells. Your car has a tank of harmless bacterium that secrete gas and an exhaust port that has a screen of living cells which eat car exhaust and excrete oxygen. These kinds of things can be done with synthetic biology.
One thing I extracted from the article is this: We are creating DNA in labs this very moment, why are we not using synthetic organisms yet? Well, there are 3 billion base pairs in DNA. That's alot. Nobody can make that many in a lifetime and most organisms have more chromosomes than we do. Also, most of our DNA is useless junk, that does not code for a protein. It's gotta be there for a reason!
There are some unanswered questions in synthetic biology. I hope this field goes far, because if it does it will be the beginning of a new era. Also, think of information that could be stored in DNA. If we were to make up 'DNA words' for every word we have, (say, ATG means "excited") And invent a computer that translates that DNA into human words, you could take one human cell's worth of base pairs and hold countless numbers of books. So far, this seems to be the only way I know of storing human information in DNA... So, my question is how to store a gigabyte of random computer information in DNA the same way human letters seem to be able to be stored. I have no doubt that one tiny cell can at least store a DVD's worth of information. (Which is, most likely, a HUGE, HUGE understatement.)
I am interested in synthetic biology, because it has eons of potential, and could mean the permanent basis of human technology.
Cigarettes Might be Infectious
By Janet Raloff
This article is about how an environmental scientist discovered that there might be germs in the leaves of cigarettes.
I learned that tobacco may transfer certain diseases. Scientists have found that tobacco might be a host to many different kinds of germs that are accountable for some human diseases.
Amy Sapkota, an environmental health scientist thinks that putting a cigarette (that is unlit) or touching one could transfer diseases.
Amy Sapkota and her colleagues examined the leafy parts of tobacco for any (and every) bacteria. They then carried out certain tests on the leafy parts of the tobacco. I was so surprised that there could be germs in the leafy parts of tobacco. I’ve always known that by smoking tobacco, you can create cancer, or other types of diseases.
This relates to what we are learning in class because the team of scientists got all of the ribosomal material alone, and focused on 16S regions or species-specific stretches of DNA. We have been focusing on what happens on specific sections of DNA and researching certain chromosome, and genetic diseases that are on them. There are known 16S patches of bacterial species that were compared to the ones taken from the ribosomal material. There are about 800 different types of bacteria, and Amy Sapkota’s team had 16S probes for them. Marlboro Red, Kool Filter Kings, Camel, and Lucky Strike Original Red all matched her 16S probes. Some specific diseases are: clostridium, corynebacterium, and campylobacter. Campylobacter causes Guillain-Barre syndrome and food poisoning. Clostridium also causes food poisoning and can cause certain types of pneumonia. Corynebacterium is linked with certain types of diseases (e.g. e-coli) and pneumonias. These germs are connected to these very popular brands of cigarettes. Since there were only about 700 bacterial species, Amy Sapkota could only test with them. Now there are new probes that can test for the bacterial 16S genetic material of about 5,000 (or more) germs! She thinks that there will be 1,000 or more germs in tobacco because of these new probes.
Are there any other brands that these diseases are connected to?
What are some other tests that you preformed on the leafy bits of the tobacco?
What other diseases are connected to tobacco?
Have there been any break outs of diseases because workers touched the cigarettes?
PROTEIN PLAYS THREE CANCER-FIGHTING ROLES
Tina Hesman Saey
This article was about how the protein, p53, can help with fighting cancer. The protein is able to stop the duplication of damaged cells until they are repaired. This protein also cuts RNA into smaller pieces called microRNA. MicroRNA control production of certain proteins that are associated with the overproduction of certain cells, which can lead to cancer.
It’s really interesting that scientists are starting to find cures to cancer. It is pretty necessary that we do find cures because so many people are diagnosed with cancer and it’s killed so many. It surprises me that a protein that we already produce is said to be able to help fight cancer. I’ve heard of things like fish oil as potential cures, but they are not found in the human body. I wonder if it’s possible that people are fighting cancer with the p53 protein without even knowing it.
University of Alberta. "New Research Unravels How Proteins Help Repair DNA." ScienceDaily 23 June 2009. 18 March 2010 .
This article is about the science of how DNA gets repaired by proteins and what happens during this process
This article is very interesting personally to me and I think will be to a lot of other people because It really shows how much science has advanced. Scientists have detailed information about all the little processes that happen in your body. All these little processes are what keep you alive and I'm sure this one's important because you need it to fix DNA. Another cool thing is the body knows how to do this and it happens by itself when the organism this process is happening in isn't even aware of it. What happens are there are these little proteins that unzip the DNA then delete the section of DNA and the next time that genetic information is needed its is replicated based off the other half of the DNA. I think also its kind of weird to know about all this stuff just think back to a few decades ago and we didn't know any of this stuff let alone have the information open to the general public for a middle school student to see. By this process we uphold our life and every piece of our genetic information by replacing it and renewing it and that just amazes me.
The only few questions I had was that the article didn't explain the proteins that do these jobs and what happens if both sides of the same part break and they're both removed at the same time, how do you get it back?
Post a Comment