Ancient DNA

CUTAG of the Week:

Serendipity, such as this case of prehistoric fossils being perfectly preserved in a frozen climate, met with modern technology, allows for previous records in scientific achievements to be surpassed.  A 700,000 year-old ancestor to the modern horse has recently had its DNA fully recovered allowing for the oldest genome known to be fully sequenced.  What do you make of the use of DNA of other specimens assumed to be related to the ancestor as references for completing the sequencing?  What other limitations should be considered should prehistoric hominid DNA be recovered for sequencing?  At what point, if any, could older traditional methods for mapping related organisms and their evolution become obsolete?  Can genomic sequencing become the sole method for determining how organisms evolve and are related?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/genetics/record-breaking-700000-year-old-horse-genome-sequenced-15631224

Battlefield: Nature vs. Nurture

CUTAG: 

An ongoing debate in the field of genetics is what is more important, our genes, the “nature” in the debate, or the way we are raised, the “nurture”. Recently scientists have found that certain transposons, or “jumping DNA”, that previously have been found to have little effect on its’ hosts, has developed a positive effect when inserted next to a certain gene. The effect in this study is disease resistance in plants, an example of epigenetics at play. What does this finding support in the nature vs nurture debate?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130815113723.htm

CUTAG?: "To live longer and better" (from which point of view)

When taking a new drug, there is always a chance of having a side effects, some of which can be benign, and others more severe. Those with HIV/AIDS for example, will take dozens of medication, just to subdue the side effects of the drug that is actually working to keep the patient alive and the disease at bay. Scientists have been trying to decrease the number of side of effects caused by drugs though molecular mechanisms, though it is hard to imagine that a drug with virtually no side effects will develop in our lifetime. 

Questions to think about: 

Do you think side effects are something we have to get used to, as more and more diseases are medications for those diseases are developed? Knowing that you have a non-life threatening disorder, such as acne, that requires the use of drugs with severe side effects, would you still take those drugs, or would you be more likely to live with the disease and wait for it to wear off with age, if possible?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130419075920.htm

CUTAG ? : "My Genetic Test Results say what ?!? " 

What material should be disclosed to patients for their consent to medical treatment, especially elective treatments and those not considered standard of care, has continued to be contentious.  Genetic screening procedures take no exception to this.  Clinical staff have the burden of explaining genetic testing procedures and potential implications all while avoiding  overwhelming patients with genetic predispositions indicated for both the patient and the patient’s relatives.   Read this link and comment below:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130516142545.htm

Questions to think about: 

What are your thoughts on an individual’s right to not know information not immediately material to life choices?  At what point is there an obligation to medical staff to disclose additional information that originally was not sought and even possibly specifically noted to be withheld?  What criteria could be set to determine if/when such information should be given?