Brown University researchers have created a reliable and fast flu-detection test that can be carried in a first-aid kit. The novel prototype device isolates influenza RNA using a combination of magnetics and microfluidics, then amplifies and detects probes bound to the RNA. The technology could lead to real-time tracking of influenza. Results are published in the Journal of Molecular Diagnostics.
Posts Tagged ‘biotechnology’
Scientists at the University of Pennsylvania are printing blood vessel networks out of sugar.
Toxic chemicals wreak havoc on cells, damaging DNA and other critical molecules. A new study from researchers at MIT and the University at Albany reveals how a molecular emergency-response system shifts the cell into damage-control mode and helps it survive such attacks by rapidly producing proteins that counteract the harm.
Peter Dedon, a professor of biological engineering at MIT, and colleagues had previously shown that cells treated with poisons such as arsenic alter their chemical modification of molecules known as transfer RNA (tRNA), which deliver protein building blocks within a cell. In their new paper, appearing in the July 3 issue of Nature Communications, the research team delved into how these modifications help cells survive.
Researchers at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine have recently published a method that may further complicate the way society relates to genetic information and an individual’s right to privacy. Drs. Eric E. Schadt and Ke Hao from Mount Sinai’s Institute for Genomics and Multiscale Biology, have developed a method for identifying an individual’s DNA barcode using only their RNA expression levels. According to Schadt “By observing RNA levels in a given tissue, we can infer a genotypic barcode that uniquely tags an individual in ways that enables matching the individual to an independently derived DNA sample.”
While regulators have established privacy laws related to what can be done with an individual’s genome, very little, (if anything), has been discussed with regards to how personal RNA information can be used. Considering that, until now, it would have been difficult, at best, to identify an individual based on their RNA expression, such laws were considered useless. However, with the development of this new technique all that has changed. Not only will the new technique allow scientists to predict disease risks which were previously done using genomic data information, but it would also enable law enforcement authorities to tie genomic DNA found at a crime scene to individual information stored in a research studies’ RNA database (which are publicly available via a number of databases in the United States and Europe and contain thousands of genomic studies from around the world).
According to the authors, society needs to rethink the way they relate to privacy information. “Rather than developing ways to further protect an individual’s privacy given the ability to collect mountains of information on him or her, we would be better served by a society that accepts the fact that new types of high-dimensional data reflect deeply on who we are,” Dr. Schadt said. “We need to accept the reality that it is difficult—if not impossible—to shield personal information from others. It is akin to trying to protect privacy regarding appearances, for example, in a public place.”
This reminds me of a recent spoof produced by The Onion highlighting the significant paradigm shift social media has created for our right to privacy. What are your thoughts on the matter?
For more information see New ‘genetic bar code’ technique establishes ability to derive DNA information from RNA
Reference: Schadt, E., Woo, S., & Hao, K. (2012). Bayesian method to predict individual SNP genotypes from gene expression data Nature Genetics DOI: 10.1038/ng.2248
Disclosure: I don’t believe that we are in as bad a shape as some would have us believe. Nonetheless, in a recent survey conducted by Research!America more than half of likely voters doubt that the United States will be the No. 1 world leader in science, technology and health care by the year 2020.
Significant findings include:
- 57% are upset by cuts in federal spending for medical and health research
- 54% think that federal spending for medical and health research should be exempt from across-the-board cuts outlined in the Budget Control Act of 2011
- 58% of Americans do not believe the United States will be a world leader in science and technology in 2020
- 53% of Americans do not believe the United States will be a world leader in health care in 2020
- 65% of Americans say it’s important that the U.S. is a leader in medical and health research
- 85% of likely voters are concerned about the impact of a decreased federal investment in research, including the possibility of scientists leaving their profession or moving abroad to countries with a stronger investment in research
- 66% of likely voters believe government investment in medical and health research will have an impact on the future of the United States
- Nearly 70% of Americans believe science and math education will have an impact on the future of the United States
There is, of course, an upside to all of these negative findings, and that is that more than half of likely voters (64%) say they would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who supports increased government funding for medical and health research. We are fortunate to live in a strong democracy. We have the power to change the future!
What are your thoughts?