The latest Tangled Bank is now online at Quintessence of Dust.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
A dismaying update: the paper in question contains a significant amount of outright plagiarism, and large chunks of text are taken literally from Butterï¬eld et al. 2006, “Oxidative stress in
Alzheimer’s disease brain: New insights from
redox proteomics,” European Journal of
Pharmacology 545: 39-50. I hope we hear from Han and Warda sometime; they’ve got a lot of ‘splaining to do.
Mitochondria are fascinating organelles. They are the “powerhouses of the cell” (that phrase is required to be used in any discussion of their function) that generate small, energy rich molecules like ATP that are used in many cellular chemical reactions, but they also have important roles in cell signaling and cell death. They also have a peculiar evolutionary history, arising as endosymbionts; their ancestors were independent organisms that took up residence inside eukaryotic cells in a mutually happy and long-lasting relationship. They exhibit some interesting relics of that prior history, as mitochondria have their own private strand of DNA which encodes some of the genes needed for the chemical processes they execute. Other genes for those functions have migrated over evolutionary time into the nuclear genome, which means the mix of gene products operating in the organelle are from two sources, the mitochondrial and nuclear genome. It’s a good subject for studies in proteomics.
Right now, there is a paper that is available as an Epub ahead of print in the journal Proteomics. It is not promising. In fact, all you have to do is read the title to make you wonder what the authors, Warda and Han, were smoking: “Mitochondria, the missing link between body and soul: Proteomic prospective evidence.”
Attila Csordas asks, “Can you tell a good article from a bad based on the abstract and the title alone?”, and I’m inclined to say yes. Sometimes you get pleasant surprises in the full paper that were not well described in the abstract, but when the abstract and title contain hints that the bridge is out and that somebody has switched the train to the wrong tracks, you can predict that there will be a train wreck if you read further. Here’s the abstract. I’ve highlighted one provocative statement.
Mitochondria are the gatekeepers of the life and death of most cells that regulate signaling, metabolism, and energy production needed for cellular function. Therefore, unraveling of the genuine mitochondrial proteome, as the dynamic determinant of structural-functional integrity to the cellular framework, affords a better understanding of many still-hidden secrets of life behind the already known static genome. Given the critical mitochondrial role under different stress conditions, the aim of the current review is to merge the available scientific data related to mitochondrial proteomes and frame them into a reliable new agreement extending beyond the limited already accepted endosymbiotic hypothesis into broader fundamental mechanisms orchestrating cellular outcome on behalf of cell survival. The focus of this work is to cover first the mitochondrial proteome/genome interplay that is currently believed to be implicated in a range of human diseases. The mechanochemical coupling between mitochondria and different cytoskeleton proteins and the impact of the mitoskeleton on mitochondrial structure and function are then addressed. Further crosstalk between mitochondria and other cellular organelles, e.g., the ER and the nucleus is then discussed. Additionally, the role of mitochondria in apoptosis and the mitochondrial contribution in intercellular communication mediated by gap junctions are also described. These data are presented with other novel proteomics evidence to disprove the endosymbiotic hypothesis of mitochondrial evolution that is replaced in this work by a more realistic alternative. Furthermore, the role of mitochondria in development of oxidative stress-based diseases, e.g., neurodegenerative and cardiovascular diseases is pointed out together with the prospective proteomics view as an alternative prognostic and diagnostic tool for interpreting many mitochondria-related anomalies. The insights generated by recent proteomic research that provide a rational impact on possible mitochondrial-targeted therapeutic interventions are also discussed.
My blog makes a career out of describing train wrecks, so how could I not continue on and read the paper?
Turn off your TVs. Don’t bother watching the election coverage. I know you’ve all been wondering how little rural Morris, Minnesota, population 5000, would vote in the super Tuesday voting.
Turnout was heavy, with between 400 and 500 people showing up for the caucus, and the results were … (drumroll, please) … about 2:1 in favor of Barack Obama. A landslide victory!
The full, final, official tally for Morris:
| Biden | 1 | 0% |
| Clinton | 139 | 26% |
| Dodd | 0 | 0% |
| Edwards | 8 | 1% |
| Kucinich | 2 | 0% |
| Lynch | 1 | 0% |
| Obama | 387 | 72% |
| Richardson | 0 | 0% |
| Uncommitted | 2 | 0% |
We had a turnout of 540 people, over 10% of the residents of the town. For a caucus. The Democratic base is motivated and ready to get out and change things. Now all we have to do is get the Democratic leadership to go along.
I’m swamped with teaching labs, writing deadlines, and the DFL caucus — you’re all going to caucus, right? — so I’m just going to have to ask you to pretend that Henry Rollins is me for a little while.
The speakers for The Amaz!ng Meeting 6 have been announced. Uh, wow. What am I going to do up there? I don’t do card tricks, nor do I blow stuff up. I’m not going to be the most acerbic speaker in that crowd, either.
I also have to be worth some fraction of the $450 registration cost. The pressure is on!
…and now they just have to sign the prenup (there is a prenup, right?). Shelley and Steve are merging their two blogs as of early March, and they’ve picked one of the names one of you perspicacious readers suggested.
(I would have just said “This is madness!”, but then Shelley would have kicked me down a well. And they apparently did not like my suggestion of “Food for the Worm. Hmph.”)
Sure you do. So you might enjoy this webcast series from Scientific American.
One of the things they mention is the recent “peer-reviewed” “scientific” “journal” from Answers in Genesis (sharply slammed by Larry Moran), and they criticize Nature‘s coverage, which urges scientists to avoid taking “too strong a stance against the journal” because it would “fuel creationist’s claim of scientific bias against religion.”
This is what always happens when you go to appeasers for quotes: you get urged to be a coward in dealing with the opposition.
I appreciate sincere criticism, I really do, and despite all the praise for my recent radio debate, I listened to it and mainly heard a lot of things I could have done better. So I like it when I find someone who also offers suggestions for improvement, but at the same time, I have to disagree with one (just one, the others are good) central point he makes.
However, in the future I would warn PZ against calling his opponent ignorant or berating them in a debate like this. Save that kind of stuff when you’re venting to your fellow smart people. Name calling doesn’t convince any of the audience and it gives your opponent a chance to get off the ropes through subversive rhetoric. Using the term “ignorant” allowed Simmons to take the upper hand and make PZ look like a dick even though he was right in pointing out Simmons’ lack of knowledge. Or at least, it would have allowed Simmons to take the upper hand if he didn’t suck so much. In essence, don’t attack the opponent, attack the opponent’s ideas.
Just the title of this book is good for a laugh: The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Prayer. They’ve certainly got their target audience pegged.
As an added bonus, the reviews are amusing.
Have reviewed a number of books on prayer and they usually get too complicated and bogged down.
“Close your eyes and pretend” is too complicated? Are there rules and regulations and rituals that must be performed for this prayer thing that are baroque and beyond my understanding, or is this reviewer the kind of person who finds swallowing to be an act of will that requires concentration and practice?
I just recently returned to my Christain roots and the Complete Idiot’s Guide to Prayer helped answer a question that many of us are afraid to ask; “How do you pray?” I’ve seen it done hundreds of times but it’s all so mysterious. This book explains a variety of options to mix it so that prayer doesn’t become a chore.
I’ve seen it done, too, and no, it isn’t mysterious. People just talk to themselves, silently or aloud. It isn’t hard. It also doesn’t work. But it’s that last line that I found weird.
These people supposedly believe they have a direct, personal relationship with the Supreme Omnipotent Overlord of the Universe, and not only that, but he loves them and is deeply interested in the tawdry minutia of their personal lives. Yet they can consider having a conversation with such a being a “chore”? If such a being existed, and if I were able to talk with him, ask questions, and get answers, I’d be online with the big guy all the time and asking all kinds of questions. He’d be better than Google!
Of course, if he were a colossal tyrannical jerk who refused to answer any of my questions, then I’d consider it a chore. I’d also stop calling him up.
But then, I’m an atheist, and I’m smarter than they are — the Bible says so.
Hey, gang! We’ve got a Tangled Bank coming up at Quintessence of Dust like, TOMORROW. Links to your science writing are needed — send ’em in today to me or [email protected], or you’ll miss the party.
We’re also running low on scheduled hosts — if you’d like to volunteer, drop me a note.
