Group items tagged

"scientists at Harvard University say they've modified the CRISPR method so it can be used to effectively reverse mutations involving changes in one letter of the genetic code. That's important because two-thirds of genetic illness in humans involve mutations where there's a change in a single letter."

"Efficient introduction of specific homozygous and heterozygous mutations using CRISPR/Cas9" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17664.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20160428&spMailingID=51249830&spUserID=MTEzODM0NjYzMzgS1&spJobID=903461217&spReportId=OTAzNDYxMjE3S0 As posted here previously, the number and importance of CRISPR is growing steadily, but still plenty of work to make it a reliable tool. Maybe, next work for the Molecular Engineering RF?

isn't it strange that one single gene mutation can enable or disable such a complex behavioural pattern? anything to take advantage of in our gate study (Guido?)

In nature, the molecular-recognition ability of peptides and, consequently, their functions are evolved through successive cycles of mutation and selection. Using biology as a guide, we can now select, tailor, and control peptide-solid interactions and ex

Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life. The simulation results made me think of Jojo's attempts to make a self-assembling space structure. Seems he may have been on the right track, just not thinking big enough

:-P Thanks Thijs... I do not agree with the premise of the article that a possible correlation of energy dissipation in living systems and their fitness means that one is the cause for the other - it may just be that both go hand-in-hand because of the nature of the world that we live in. Maybe there is such a drive for pre-biotic systems (like crystals and amino acids), but once life as we know it exists (i.e., heredity + mutation) it is hard to see the need for an amendment of Darwin's principles. The following just misses the essence of Darwin: "If England's approach stands up to more testing, it could further liberate biologists from seeking a Darwinian explanation for every adaptation and allow them to think more generally in terms of dissipation-driven organization. They might find, for example, that "the reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not be because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make it easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve." Darwin's principle in its simplest expression just says that if a genome is more effective at reproducing it is more likely to dominate the next generation. The beauty of it is that there is NO need for a steering mechanism (like maximize energy dissipation) any random set of mutations will still lead to an increase of reproductive effectiveness. BTW: what does "better at dissipating energy" even mean? If I run around all the time I will have more babies? Most species that prove to be very successful end up being very good at conserving energy: trees, turtles, worms. Even complexity of an organism is not a recipe for evolutionary success: jellyfish have been successful for hundreds of millions of years while polar bears are seem to be on the way out.

"A new study of chickens overturns the popular assumption that evolution is only visible over long time scales. By studying individual chickens that were part of a long-term pedigree, the scientists led by Professor Greger Larson at Oxford University's Research Laboratory for Archaeology, found two mutations that had occurred in the mitochondrial genomes of the birds in only 50 years."

For Dario, as they quote him heavily...

Yep, I was told already a few months ago from Storn that this is indeed the best adaptive DE ever made. It is already in the road map for pagmo 1.2. According to pagmo it humiliates CMAES !!!

And in case you didn't notice, the first author is an undergraduate student.

Dario - perhaps worth giving a look to be up-to-date... There's even an article "Improving Classical and Decentralized Differential Evolution with New Mutation Operator and Population Topologies". They quote our CEC paper, but not the ParCo.

Isn't it a bit a paper-killing quote?

:) It's in the context of a review of the work that's been done about DE with island model in general, they don't evaluate. Pity they didn't refer to the ParCo article on topologies, as it was a bit more extensive and more focused on the method (as they do in the article) rather than on the problem (as was our CEC paper, if I recall well).

How many people to we actually need put on that ship?

We should invite these people to the AF special issue

sounds really interesting. their simulations don't account for biological issues (mutation, migration, selection, drift, founder effect) though, so the numbers are very low. this paper (https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0094576513004669/1-s2.0-S0094576513004669-main.pdf?_tid=6bec2a5c-f05f-4024-b4de-af78ab06fd42&acdnat=1531827379_d4f0be1b193873890d6e5b4574e82f2e) takes those effects and their implications on genetic composition of populations into account, but the numbers are enormous. do you have an idea why they (marin and beluffi) wouldn't put those effects into the simulations?