Group items tagged

""We probably have underestimated the role our microbial flora play in modulating disease risk," says Daniel Rader, a heart disease specialist at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Rader, who was not involved in the study, says that gut bacteria may not be as big a factor in causing heart disease as diabetes or smoking, but could be important in tipping some people toward sickness. Researchers led by Stanley Hazen, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, didn't start out to study gut bacteria. In fact, says Hazen, he had "no clue - zero," that intestinal microbes were involved in heart disease. "I'd never even considered it or thought of the concept." Hazen and his colleagues compared blood plasma from healthy people to plasma from people who had had heart attacks, strokes or died to see if substances in the blood could predict who is in danger from heart disease. The researchers found 18 small molecules associated with fat buildup in the arteries. One of the best predictors turned out to be a byproduct made when gut bacteria break down a fat called choline (also known as lecithin). The more of this byproduct, called trimethylamine N-oxide or TMAO, a person or mouse has in the blood, the higher the risk of getting heart disease, the researchers found. Gut bacteria are actually middlemen in TMAO production. The microbes convert lecithin to a gas that smells like rotten fish. Then an enzyme in the liver changes the foul-smelling gas to TMAO."

William Gunn The Top 10 papers in Biological Sciences by Mendeley readership. With the Mendeley for Life Scientists webinar coming up on Thursday, I thought I would take a look at the readership stats for Biological Sciences. Biological Sciences has long been our biggest discipline, and having done my doctoral work in the Life Sciences, I knew this would be interesting. Overall, researchers in bioinformatics contributed most strongly to the most read papers, along with the older disciplines of micro- and molecular biology. Regardless of discipline, however, it's clear that the days of toiling away in isolation to thoroughly study one gene are over. Today, it's all about huge consortia and massive data. Here's what I found

Science online in total

"Science is a scheme for thinking and solving issues using evidence. It requires hypotheses, i.e. potential truths that require examination. A hypothesis or scientific idea is only as strong as the evidence to support it. Strong evidence is predictive and reproducible, weak evidence is less so. Scientific thinking gives greater weight to the stronger evidence base."

Cybrary Man's Educational Web Sites The internet catalogue for students, teachers, administrators & parents. Over 20,000 relevant links personally selected by an educator/author with over 30 years of experience.

"Empathy Linked to Gene -- and We Can Tell Variations in the genes for oxytocin receptors may influence empathy -- and we can tell who's got them in 20 seconds. In the study, by Aleksandr Kogan of UC Berkeley, 24 couples provided DNA samples and then the couples recounted to each other a time when they had suffered. The conversations were videotaped. Then, observers wached 20-second segments of the videos and were asked to rate each person as kind, trustworthy and compassionate. The observers tended to pick the people in the couples who had a variation in the oxytocin receptor gene known as the GG genotype. It's interesting enough that empathy might be linked to variations in our genes. And also interesting that we humans are so exquisitely sensitive to social cues that we can easily and quickly pick this out."

"And again, in this expanded group, she found the same association between the variation of the DRD4 gene and a willingness to take risks on the slopes. The variant's overall effect was slight, explaining only about 3 percent of the difference in behavior between risk takers and the risk averse, but was statistically significant and remained intact"

"Sehr lesenswert sind unserer Meinung nach die Artikel des Biologen und Bienenexperten Randy Oliver, der ein regelmäßiger Autor im American Bee Journal ist. Auf seiner Homepage "Scientific Beekeeper" findet man zwei hochinteressante Artikel, auf die wir an dieser Stelle verweisen möchten: Neonicotinoids: Trying To Make Sense of the Science Neonicotinoids: Trying To Make Sense of the Science - Part 2 Er listet viele Studien zum CCD und zu Neonicotinoiden und schreibt, dass etliche mit einer gehörigen Portion Voreingenommenheit in die eine oder andere Richtung behaftet sind. Manche spielen die Wirkung der Neonicotinoide hinunter, andere versuchen zu beweisen, dass diese Giftstoffe die zentrale Schuld am Bienensterben tragen. In einem spannenden Artikel von April 2013, bei dem er sich vor allem damit auseinandersetzt, was "dieses Frühjahr mit den Bienen geschah", vergleicht er die Bienenverluste mit der Verwendung von Neonicotinoiden. Er findet dabei eine Korrelation von 2006 bis 2009, aber 2010 dreht sich der Trend: mehr Neonicotinoide als im Vorjahr werden eingesetzt und wesentlich weniger Bienen verenden"

"If you're here, you either are interested in how to use Web 2.0 tools for science, or attended one of the Social Networking for Scientists workshops from Christie Wilcox. This wiki is a gathering place for anyone with a passion and interest in science communication and workshop attendees from across the country so that everyone can continue to learn about the topic as well as network with one another. "

"He then asked a bunch of radiologists to review the slides of lungs for cancerous nodules. He wanted to see if they would notice a gorilla the size of a matchbook glaring angrily at them from inside the slide. But they didn't: 83 percent of the radiologists missed it, Drew says. This wasn't because the eyes of the radiologists didn't happen to fall on the large, angry gorilla. Instead, the problem was in the way their brains had framed what they were doing. They were looking for cancer nodules, not gorillas. "They look right at it, but because they're not looking for a gorilla, they don't see that it's a gorilla," Drew says. In other words, what we're thinking about - what we're focused on - filters the world around us so aggressively that it literally shapes what we see"

"Hudnall: I really do believe that repression makes you sick. I'm big believer of what is coming out in the neuroscience and therapy community. Brene Brown, who is a shame and guilt expert, said it best: "We have an epidemic of shame in this country." If you keep things inside and have no one to talk to - and this is not crystals and patchouli - you will get sick, you will be miserable, you will ruin your relationships, and you will be unhappy. I know people whose lives were ruined by silence. Especially women. The one thing that has really opened my eyes while teaching is just what we do to our women. Only my women students have said to me, "I don't know if I have anything worth saying." It smacks me in the face every day. We are really fucking up our women"

@NerdyChristie Don't think you need to be on g+ ? Time to reach 20 mio users: g+: 24 days tw: 1035 days fb: 1152 days

"Evolution likes to keep what works best. The rest falls by the wayside. In theory, this means that the most "fit" variations, say, a color that looks poisonous or one particularly attractive to the ladies, would become the most common. By this logic, the many colors of the guppy should have conformed to a single common pattern long ago. But they haven't. Instead, the male guppies continue to show not only bright colors but also a high diversity of colors. What keeps the variety going? The rare-male effect. Female guppies prefer the males that are rare, no matter what their color pattern actually is. This effect has been documented in the laboratory in guppies and in other species like fruit flies."

I have recently discovered this great place, its very recomended