Monday, January 25, 2010

The Top 20 most bizarre experiments of all time



A postdoc in my lab just send me this list. Check the original site here.


To research my new book, Elephants on Acid, I scoured scientific archives searching for the most bizarre experiments of all time — the kind that are mind-twistingly, jaw-droppingly strange... the kind that make you wonder, "How did anyone ever conceive of doing such a thing?"

Listed below are twenty of these experiments.

#1: Elephants on Acid (Published in no other than Science)
#2: Obedience
#3: Demikhov’s Two-Headed Dogs
#4: The Initiation of Heterosexual Behavior in a Homosexual Male
#5: The Isolated Head of a Dog
#6: Human-Ape Hybrid
#7: The Stanford Prison Experiment
#8: Facial expressions while decapitating a rat
#9: The Vomit-Drinking Doctor
#10: Beneficial Brainwashing
#11: Monkey-Head Transplant
#12: The Remote-Controlled Bull
#13: The Ape and the Child
#14: “My Fingernails Taste Terribly Bitter”
#15: The Electrification of Human Corpses
#16: Seeing Through Cat’s Eyes
#17: Stimuli Eliciting Sexual Behavior in Turkeys
#18: “Would You Go To Bed With Me Tonight?”
#19: Shock the Puppy
#20: Heartbeat At Death

[Image taken for the original website]


ScienceBlips: vote it up!

Share/Save/Bookmark

Read More......

Monday, January 18, 2010

Protein dancing partners, yeast as our allies, and more, in my Picks of the Week from RB



Another week has gone by and some very interesting molbio blog posts have been aggregated to Researchblogging.org. Every week [see my opening post on the matter], I'll select some blog posts I consider particularly interesting in the field of molecular biology [see here to get a sense of the criteria that will be used], briefly describe them and list them here for you to check out.

Note that I'm only taking into consideration the molbio-related blog posts aggregated under "Biology".

Congratulations to everyone who got their post selected.

1) By making use of what was known about the galactose-mediated induction of gene expression in yeast (one of the earliest model systems for studying transcriptional regulation), and of studies showing the modular nature of the DNA-binding and activation domains of transcriptional activators, the Fields lab published in 1989 the first report of the yeast two-hybrid system, an approach for assessing protein-protein interactions in vivo. LabRat describes, in very simple terms, the logic behind this technique, in light of a recent review which discusses recent modifications this system has suffered in the last few years in order for it to be a more powerful source of biological information.

2) The genomes of humans and chimpanzees, as a whole, are practically identical: indeed, as stated in the article reporting the initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome, "nearly all of the bases are identical by descent and sequences can be readily aligned except in recently derived, large repetitive regions".

A recent report suggests this scenery dramatically changes when only the Y chromosomes are the subject of comparison. Apparently, there have been stark changes between the chimp and human Y chromosomes, particularly due to gene loss in the chimp, gene gain in the human and rearrangements of large portions of the chromosome.

"Thirty percent of our Y-chromosome sequences have no counterpart in the chimpanzee. As the authors say that's the sort of divergence you'd expect to see between humans and chickens, which are separated by 310 million years of evolution not humans and chimps which only split 6 million years ago!"
The Atavism discusses this article from an evolutionary point of view, commenting on possible mechanisms that could account for the amazing evolutionary rate the Y chromosome displays, compared to the rest of the genome.

"So, the burning question is what is behind that evolutionary rate? There is probably no single answer to that question but it's safe to assume it results from some of the unique features of the Y-chromosome; a lack of genetic recombination, the presence of those large repetitive sections of DNA and the preponderance of male specific genes"
3) In a sort of shameless self-promotion, I’d also like to highlight the two-article series on Yeast Recombinational cloning (YRC), an alternative to “classic cloning”, posted on our blog last week. These posts have been widely read, so I decided to select them for this week’s picks.

So, what is YRC?
"Just to refresh your memory, and in a nutshell, the idea is to co-transform the DNA segment to be cloned into yeast along with the linearized target plasmid, provided that this DNA segment bears homology to defined plasmid sequences. By homologous recombination, yeast machinery will directly “ligate” your DNA segment into the linearized vector."
The first post explains the methodology and how it relates to my own research, and the second one, explains how we get the resulting plasmid out of yeast in order to transform our model organism of choice.
This is way cheaper than using In Fusion ;-)


That's it for this week. Stay tuned for more MolBio Research Highlights!

---
ResearchBlogging.orgSome of the articles discussed in this week's selected posts:

Brückner A, Polge C, Lentze N, Auerbach D, & Schlattner U (2009). Yeast two-hybrid, a powerful tool for systems biology. International journal of molecular sciences, 10 (6), 2763-88 PMID: 19582228

Hughes, J., Skaletsky, H., Pyntikova, T., Graves, T., van Daalen, S., Minx, P., Fulton, R., McGrath, S., Locke, D., Friedman, C., Trask, B., Mardis, E., Warren, W., Repping, S., Rozen, S., Wilson, R., & Page, D. (2010). Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content Nature DOI: 10.1038/nature08700

Oldenburg KR, Vo KT, Michaelis S, & Paddon C (1997). Recombination-mediated PCR-directed plasmid construction in vivo in yeast. Nucleic acids research, 25 (2), 451-2 PMID: 9016579


ScienceBlips: vote it up!

Share/Save/Bookmark

Read More......

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Chile has a new President



Sebastián Piñera Echeñique has been elected President of Chile, for the period 2010-2014.

He represents the "Coalition for Change", an alliance that has embodied the Opposition for the last 20 years and finally gets a chance to hold office, supporting one of the most important aspects of the political dimension of democracy: the alternation of power.

Let's hope his administration is a successful one and that it can lead Chile to a period of growth and stability.

ScienceBlips: vote it up!

Share/Save/Bookmark

Read More......

BioKM Webinar



As my readers (and twitter followers) may remember, a few months ago I was a runner up in the BioKM Twitter challenge, which got me a one year account at BioKM and a great t-shirt, which some may recognize, as I wore it to the lab last Thursday.

So, what is BioKM anyway?

In a nutshell, BioKM is an online lab management solution geared towards academic research labs.

Do you want to know a little more? Do you want to see if BioKM can help you organize your projects and experiments? Sign up for their free webinar next Thursday and see for yourself!
Avi Wener will review the laboratory management system and explain its benefits as well as demonstrate its ease of use.




ScienceBlips: vote it up!

Share/Save/Bookmark

Read More......

Research Blogging Awards 2010



Research Blogging Awards 2010Directly from its website:

Seed Media Group’s Research Blogging Awards honor the outstanding bloggers who discuss peer-reviewed research. With nearly 1,000 blogs registered at ResearchBlogging.org and 8,500 posts about peer-reviewed journal articles collected, it is time to recognize the best of the best.

Any blog that discusses peer-reviewed research is eligible for nomination, and the winners will be determined by votes from their peers in the Research Blogging community. All finalists will be highlighted on ResearchBlogging.org, and winners will receive cash prizes totaling $2000.

We've been a part of RB for some time now (our first post at RB was on January 29th, 2009) and our posts, either discussing stand-out papers in molecular biology or highlighting the best molbio posts aggregated to RB, have been a success. For example, last week, our two posts aggregated to RB were the most viewed ones under "Biology".
As I've mentioned before, our blog differs from most science-themed blogs as it is written by scientists for scientists, and we are very pleased with how this whole project has developed.

Please support MolBio Research Highlights by nominating us in any category you feel we fit in.

More info here.


ScienceBlips: vote it up!

Share/Save/Bookmark

Read More......

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Fourth time is the charm: the quest for the final plasmid



ResearchBlogging.orgIn a previous post, I highlighted the wonders of using yeast recombinational cloning (YRC) as an alternative to “classic” cloning, particularly when under a high-throughput approach [See An alternative cloning strategy: yeast recombinational cloning].

Just to refresh your memory, and in a nutshell, the idea is to co-transform the DNA segment to be cloned into yeast along with the linearized target plasmid, provided that this DNA segment bears homology to defined plasmid sequences. By homologous recombination, yeast machinery will directly “ligate” your DNA segment into the linearized vector (See fig.1 in the preceding post).

As I stated in the previous post, my interest was to use YRC to clone promoter sequences upstream of a reporter gene (and I have MANY promoter sequences to clone, so this is a suitable approach), and after discussing the methodology and how it applied to my own research, I ended that post by saying:

(…) we have generated a yeast strain which contains a plasmid with our promoter of interest controlling the reporter gene. Now, it’s time to obtain that plasmid in working concentrations, sequence it and then transform it into our model organism.

How do we do this? How do we get the resulting plasmid out of yeast?
The purpose of this post is to discuss how we do this: how we get our plasmid out of yeast so that we can use it to transform our model organism to study the promoter’s biology in vivo.

The answer? A “Smash & Grab” approach (reflecting that you’d smash yeast cells and get what’s rightfully yours: your plasmid).

When I first got to the lab, my PI gave me a protocol that consisted on picking one of the yeast transformants (a yeast colony that grew on URA- media plate after transformation with the DNA segment of interest and the linearized plasmid), streaking it onto a new selective plate and growing it O/N. The next day, you’d scrap the clone and transfer it to a Eppi containing 300 ul of S&G buffer (which has Triton X-100, SDS, NaCl, Tris pH 8 and EDTA), resuspend, add glass beads and phenol/chloroform and vortex for a minute.
You’d then centrifuge and transfer part of the aqueous solution to a new Eppi containing sodium acetate 3M pH 5.2. Then, after an ethanol precipitation, you would have yeast DNA, both plasmid and chromosomal of origin.
After resuspending the DNA in 50 ul of water or TE, you’d take 3 ul and transform E. coli (remember that the plasmid we are using is a shuttle vector).

Even though this seems pretty easy, the efficiency of such method was disastrous in our hands (we use chemocompetent E. coli). My PI insisted this was routinely used in his previous lab (where he did his post-doc and used overpriced commercial electrocompetents cells) with great results (lots of E. coli colonies), but we just couldn’t get it to work with our cells nor we had those commercial electrocompetent cells available. This drove me to literature in order to find a protocol that would give good results in our lab.

I dug up a paper from 1995 (see ref below1) describing a protocol which was very similar to the one we were using, although it claimed to yield plasmid DNA without chromosomal contamination, which is perfect.

Briefly, two/three loopfuls of yeast cells (taken directly from patches on minimal media, grown O/N), were resuspended on a solution containing NaCl, Tris-HCl pH 8, EDTA and SDS. Then, glass beads were added, and the mixture was vortexed for 2 mins. An ice cold solution containing NaOH and Triton X-100 was then added, and after mixing by inversion, an aliquot of sodium acetate 3M pH 4.8 was added, and everything was then mixed thoroughly. After a short incubation in ice, you’d add an equal volume of phenol chloroform-isoamyl alcohol (25:24:1, v/v), vortex the mixture and then centrifuge. Another phenol-chloroform extraction of the aqueous solution was next. Then, the aqueous solution was ethanol-precipitated.

This actually worked like a charm the first time in my hands, but my colleagues couldn’t get it to work. Afterwards, and due to the “magic” of life in the lab, I couldn’t get it to work either, despite several tries!
I didn’t put much thought into it and instead, looked for another protocol, considering that this thing only worked once, and only for one person. I went back online and found another somewhat related protocol2, which “takes advantage of the finding that phenol/chloroform extraction in the presence of LiCl and Triton X-100 solubilises plasmid DNA, while precipitating cellular proteins and denatured chromosomal DNA”.

No good. Transformation efficiency was still dismal in our hands.

Decided to tackle this problem as soon as possible, and with a little help from Google & Pubmed, I found what is now the standard Smash & Grab protocol in our lab: “A simple and highly efficient procedure for rescuing autonomous plasmids from yeast” (my emphasis), an article published in NAR in 19923. How did I miss this in my first search? This is exactly what I was trying to achieve!

So, how is this protocol different?

[from the article]
In order to take advantage of the extremely powerful techniques of molecular genetics which are available in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, it is often necessary to recover shuttle vectors replicating in yeast back into E. coli. However, many workers have found this step troublesome due to what has been described as a 'persistent inhibitor of E. coli transformation' which accompanies yeast DNA preparations. None of the previously published protocols completely eliminates this problem.
(my emphasis)

Notably, one of the referenced articles which “did not eliminate the problem”, is the one I used in my third try! So after just reading the first paragraph of this one-page article, I became excited.

Besides its claimed higher efficiency (which again cited the article I used in my third try, stating that it was 1-2 orders of magnitude more efficient), this method doesn’t require organic solvents (phenol and chloroform), which is always appreciated :)

The idea behind this protocol is simple: let’s simply boil yeast!

In the words of Montell Jordan, “this is how we do it”: We grow an O/N 5 ml yeast culture under selective conditions (i.e in URA- minimal media), harvest the cells by centrifugation, resuspend the pellet in a buffer containing sucrose, Tris pH8, EDTA and Triton X-100, add glass beads and vortex vigorously for 5 mins. We then place the tubes in a boiling water bath for 3 mins. After a brief cool-down on ice, we spin the cells and transfer the supernatant to a fresh tube with 7.5 M ammonium acetate and incubate for an hour at -20C. Interestingly, the authors claim that:

At this stage, residual chromosomal DNA, large RNA species, and the putative impurities which inhibit E.coli transformation are precipitated
Then, we centrifuge again and add an aliquot of the supernatant to ice cold ethanol and incubate again for an hour at -20C. Later, we centrifuge, wash with 70% ethanol and resuspend in water. We then use 10ul to transform E. coli.

This has reproducibly given great results in our lab (not only in my hands this time ;-)), so we are happy to have finally nailed down this part of the protocol.

But let’s remember that the idea is to get the plasmid out of yeast in working concentrations, sequence it and later use it to transform our model organism.

Now that we have the correctly assembled plasmid in bacteria (which we check by PCR), the aforementioned steps are simple: we just grow a colony O/N in selective media, do a miniprep and send an aliquot out for sequencing.

And that’s it!

In just a week, you can have your segment of interest cloned in a particular plasmid and send it out for sequencing, thanks to the power of yeast genetics (and its high levels of homologous recombination) and to a simple, cheap and efficient protocol for getting plasmid DNA out of yeast and into E. coli(*).

We are now ready to transform our model organism to study the promoter in vivo.
What reporter do we use? How do we monitor it? Be sure to check the next post on this series of articles. Stay tuned!

--
(*) There are some “yeast miniprep kits” available, but as expected, they are pricey and, in my opinion, not a justifiable expense considering the protocol I just detailed, which is not only cheap, but also easy and amenable for upscaling.


1
Sobanski, M., & Dickinson, J. (1995). A simple method for the direct extraction of plasmid DNA from yeast Biotechnology Techniques, 9 (3), 225-230 DOI: 10.1007/BF00157083

2
Ward AC (1990). Single-step purification of shuttle vectors from yeast for high frequency back-transformation into E. coli. Nucleic acids research, 18 (17) PMID: 2205843

3
Robzyk K, & Kassir Y (1992). A simple and highly efficient procedure for rescuing autonomous plasmids from yeast. Nucleic acids research, 20 (14) PMID: 1641351




ScienceBlips: vote it up!

Share/Save/Bookmark

Read More......

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Hybrid sterility in fruit flies, regulating the mammalian circadian clock and more, in my Picks of the Week from RB



Another week has gone by and some very interesting molbio blog posts have been aggregated to Researchblogging.org. Every week [see my opening post on the matter], I'll select some blog posts I consider particularly interesting in the field of molecular biology [see here to get a sense of the criteria that will be used], briefly describe them and list them here for you to check out.

Note that I'm only taking into consideration the molbio-related blog posts aggregated under "Biology".

Congratulations to everyone who got their post selected.

1) In his 1942 book “Systematics and the Origin of Species”, Ernst Mayr argued that species are best defined by the Biological Species Concept: “species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups”.

“Intrinsic postzygotic isolation” (one of the many mechanisms of reproductive isolation), results in the sterility or lethality of hybrid offspring following a successful fertilization event and the formation of the zygote. Lucas Brouwers at Thoughtomics discusses a new article addressing the molecular basis of hybrid sterility in Drosophila using two species as a study model, D. simulans and D. mauritiana, between which the crosses produce sterile F1 hybrid males and fertile females.

The authors propose that a protein called OdsH acts as a “sterilizing factor” and suggest that in this system hybrid sterility results from defective heterochromatin packaging and condensation.

2) Circadian clocks control a variety of processes in organisms ranging from bacteria to humans. In eukaryotes, the basic architecture and the molecular organization of the central oscillator is conserved: interconnected positive and negative feedback loops give rise to a robust oscillator which drives rhythms in biochemistry, physiology and behavior with a period close to 24 hrs.

Protein phosphorylation is a common regulatory element in circadian systems and a variety of kinases have been identified as regulators of core clock components in different (circadian) model organisms. LabRat comments on a recent article reporting that the well-studied Akt-GSK3β signaling pathway regulates the stability and function of BMAL1, a core clock component of the mammalian oscillator.

3) A few months ago, Laura Bonetta published a paper in Cell discussing Twitter and the potential benefits this microblogging service can have for scientists.
Allyson Lister at “The mind wobbles” now discusses Friendfeed as another social networking tool that can be of aid to scientists:
“We find that Friendfeed shares all of the features of Twitter but few of its limitations and provides many additional features valuable for scientists”.
As both a Twitter and Friendfeed user myself, I found both the article and the blog post particularly interesting, mainly because discussing science is really what I use this services for.


That's it for this week. Stay tuned for more MolBio Research Highlights!

---
ResearchBlogging.orgSome of the articles discussed in this week's selected posts:

Bayes, J., & Malik, H. (2009). Altered Heterochromatin Binding by a Hybrid Sterility Protein in Drosophila Sibling Species Science, 326 (5959), 1538-1541 DOI: 10.1126/science.1181756


Sahar, S., Zocchi, L., Kinoshita, C., Borrelli, E., & Sassone-Corsi, P. (2010). Regulation of BMAL1 Protein Stability and Circadian Function by GSK3β-Mediated Phosphorylation PLoS ONE, 5 (1) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008561

Bonetta, L. (2009). Should You Be Tweeting? Cell, 139 (3), 452-453 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.10.017


ScienceBlips: vote it up!

Share/Save/Bookmark

Read More......

Friday, January 8, 2010

Cell launches a new format for the presentation of research articles online



Just a heads up for those who don't follow me on twitter, where I've promoted this more extensively.
Remember that a few months ago I discussed Cell Press' "Article of the Future"?

At the time I wrote

"As a collaborative effort to redefine the way a scientific article is presented online, integrating the tools and capabilities of the online environment, Cell Press and Elsevier have launched a project called Article of the Future at its Beta Prototype site."
So now, they've relaunched it, integrating some of the changes the community suggested. Check it out here!

ScienceBlips: vote it up!

Share/Save/Bookmark

Read More......

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Francis Crick: "a brainstorming intellectual powerhouse with a mischievous smile"



Here's a link to an obituary of this great British scientist published in PLoS Biology in 2004, highlighting his "Legacy for Neuroscience".



Francis Harry Compton Crick was born on June 8th, 1916, at Northampton, England, being the elder child of Harry Crick and Annie Elizabeth Wilkins. Together with James D. Watson and Maurice Wilkins, they were awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material".


[Image credit: Profiles in Science]
[Title quote from Vision Research (2004) 45: 391-393
]

ScienceBlips: vote it up!

Share/Save/Bookmark

Read More......

Sunday, January 3, 2010

Picks of the week from RB? Holiday effect



Although some fascinating (yet few -I blame it on the Holiday-) molbio-related posts were aggregated to ResearchBlogging.org this week, none of them met our criteria for selection (see my opening post on the matter).

A few were close though, and discuss some interesting papers or topics, so I'll just link to them:


1. Two posts by Dan Koboldt at MassGenomics:

a) SNP Discovery in NGS Data, Atlas-SNP2, and VarScan and
b) Sanger Adds Two Cancer Genomes (the articles discussed in this post where the subject of a selected post on a recent Picks of the Week) .

2. A useful guide for the bioinformatics tool builders, by Sandra Porter at Discovering Biology in a Digital World

3. Finally, Prion Propagation: Survival of the Fittest, by Brian Appleby at CJB Blogger.


That's it for this week. Stay tuned for more MolBio Research Highlights!


ScienceBlips: vote it up!

Share/Save/Bookmark

Read More......