The underdogs have won this year Nobel Prize for
Medicine/Physiology. The unanticipated winners were three American
scientists who have shed light on the genetic underpinnings of the
biological clock. It is being considered that The Nobel Committee is
making a subtle point by awarding the prize to scientists working in
areas of science that are not obviously of immediate commercial value.
In a world that has become intensely practical, a world where funding of
abstruse research questions is no longer easy, a world where dreamers
are no longer so welcome; the prize has gone to scientists who have
worked for the sake of pure science.
Jeffrey Hall and Michael Rosbash from Brandeis
University and Michael Young from Rockefeller University shared the
Nobel Prize this year for unraveling the mystery of our circadian
rhythm. It was known that some fruit flies with mutations had a
disordered circadian rhythm. Hall not only isolated the gene called ‘period’,
he along with Michael Robash identified the protein (PER) produced by
the gene. They found that the PER protein accumulates in the cell during
the night and is degraded in the day. The third scientist Young in a
series of delightful experiments identified another gene with the
beguiling name ‘timeless’ whose protein combines with the PER
protein to enter the nucleus and regulate the functioning of the
period gene. He also discovered another gene named ‘double time’
that delays the accumulation of the PER protein so that our biological
clock is set to 24 hours in tune with the rotation of the earth and
other rhythms of life on earth.
This is the sixth Nobel Prize going to work done on
the ubiquitous fruit fly. The love affair between geneticists and the
fruit fly (Drosophila) is easily explained. Drosophila has just 4 pairs
of chromosomes, a life cycle of just 2 weeks, a high mutation rate, and
75% of human diseases (such as Down syndrome, Alzheimers, autism,
diabetes) have a genetic counterpart in the fruit fly. No wonder this
year winner Rosbash, dedicated his prize to the simple fruit fly. Big
things start from humble beginnings. (www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2017/press.html)
Nobel Prize in Chemistry
Three scientists Henderson, Frank and Dubochet; who
have helped to develop the technique of cryo-electron microscopy have
shared this year’s Nobel Prize for chemistry. So far the 3D structure of
most proteins has been characterized using X-ray crystallography.
However, this method fails in many biomolecules because crystallization
would distort the actual shape. Electron microscopy seemed the logical
answer but there are many hiccups in the actual use of the technique.
Joachim Frank of Columbia University, New York, developed a mathematical
image-processing method that allowed a computer to merge several
two-dimensional electron microscope images into a sharp 3D picture.
The technique was further improved by Jacques
Dubochet from the University of Lausanne, Switzerland. Dubochet
succeeded in vitrifying water – he cooled water so rapidly that it
solidified around a biological sample, allowing the biomolecules to
retain their natural shape even in a vacuum. Then in 1990, after 15
years’ work of refining sample preparation and electron detection,
Richard Henderson from Cambridge, UK, succeeded in using an electron
microscope to create an image of a large bacterial cell membrane protein
called bacteriorhodopsin, and do it at atomic resolution.
Cryo-electron microscopy will help us ‘see’ protein
structure right down to the atomic level. It will transform research in
biomolecules, and have far-reaching effects in understanding life
processes at the nano level. (https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2017/press.html;
Scientific American 4 October 2017)
Readability of Scientific Texts: Trends Over Time?
Scientific writing should be clear and easy to read.
Unnecessary use of jargon means that accurate messages do not reach the
scientific community and the lay public. Concerns include both
reproducibility and accessibility of information.
Plaven-Sigray, et al. from Karolinska
Institute, Stockholm, analyzed 709,577 abstracts published between 1881
and 2015 from 123 scientific journals, and found that the readability of
science is steadily decreasing. This journal list included, among
others, Nature, Science, NEJM, The Lancet, and JAMA. The reading level
of each abstract was tested using two established measures of
readability: the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and the New Dale-Chall
Readability Formula (NDC). The FRE is calculated using the number of
syllables per word and the number of words in each sentence. The NDC is
calculated using the number of words in each sentence and the percentage
of ‘difficult’ words.
The average yearly trends combined with this
statistical model reveal that the complexity of scientific writing is
increasing with time. A FRE score of 100 is designed to reflect the
reading level of a 10- to 11-year old. A score between 0 and 30 is
considered understandable by college graduates. In 1960, 14% of the
texts had a FRE below 0; in 2015, this number had risen to 22%. In other
words, more than one-fifth of scientific abstracts now have a
readability considered beyond college graduate level English. Lower
readability implies less accessibility, particularly for non-specialists
such as journalists, policy-makers and the wider public.
Word processors offer readability tests for authors
to assess their writing before submission. Some journals also offer ‘lay
summaries’ for the public to comprehend. Other suggestions include
adding an r-index (readability index) in the peer review process.
Simplicity is not so simple after all! (eLife. 2017;6:e27725.
doi:10.7554/eLife.27725)