Our Blood will be Avenged Before the Lord–Noble Death in the Assumption of Moses

This thesis examines the narrative of Taxo and his sons in the Assumption of Moses (As. Mos.) through the framework of ‘Jewish Noble Death.’ There has been a tendency among scholars searching to reconstruct the early employment of martyr narratives in Jewish and Christian literature—narratives which depict the martyr making the decision to die a voluntary death rather than renounce their faith—to deny or dismiss the relevance of As. Mos. for understanding the development of antique martyrology. Where it has been included in such surveys of early martyrdom, important details about the text’s context and possible social function have been overlooked. It is my contention that this short but complex text may convey how ideas about piety and one’s willingness to die because of commitment to the Law shaped early Jewish identity in a period of great social, religious, and cultural change. As. Mos. reflects a stage in the development of the connection between noble death and posthumous, divine reward, and religious mandate in the study of the early martyrological tradition, and the contribution of this text merits consideration. It advocates for continued adherence to, and preservation of, ancestral Law, even to the point of death—not only in the face of foreign imperialism and pagan persecution but also in the face of priestly impiety and corruption internal to Jewish society. As. Mos. constructs the deaths of Taxo and his sons, a full expression of their piety and obedience, as an antitype to contemporary Jewish militant movements; where militancy has failed, Taxo and his sons will succeed. While the text shares common motifs with Second Temple works such as 2 Maccabees and the writings of Josephus, particularly in its depiction of familial martyrdom, the image of Jewishness in the first century CE depicted in As. Mos. is significant in its own right as an early example of how noble death and divine reward could be integrated with Jewish identity, without recourse to militancy.Religious Studie

Genetic correlation between amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and schizophrenia

We have previously shown higher-than-expected rates of schizophrenia in relatives of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), suggesting an aetiological relationship between the diseases. Here, we investigate the genetic relationship between ALS and schizophrenia using genome-wide association study data from over 100,000 unique individuals. Using linkage disequilibrium score regression, we estimate the genetic correlation between ALS and schizophrenia to be 14.3% (7.05-21.6; P=1 × 10) with schizophrenia polygenic risk scores explaining up to 0.12% of the variance in ALS (P=8.4 × 10). A modest increase in comorbidity of ALS and schizophrenia is expected given these findings (odds ratio 1.08-1.26) but this would require very large studies to observe epidemiologically. We identify five potential novel ALS-associated loci using conditional false discovery rate analysis. It is likely that shared neurobiological mechanisms between these two disorders will engender novel hypotheses in future preclinical and clinical studies

Additional file 2: Figure S1. of Disorders of sex development: insights from targeted gene sequencing of a large international patient cohort

DSD gene variants in different global regions. DSD gene variants among the international cohort of 46,XY DSD patients. For ease of analysis, countries were grouped together into regions: Asia comprises Indonesia (97), Pakistan (25), Vietnam (35), Cambodia (16), India (1), a total of 174 patients ; Europe comprises the Netherlands (38), Austria (15), Belgium (6), and Italy (2), a total of 61 patients; and AUS & NZL comprises Australia (83) and New Zealand (7), a total of 90 patients. All curated variants are shown; those which have been curated and called pathogenic, likely pathogenic, and VUS. In the cohort from Asia, 35% of the patients were found to have a diagnostic variant (pathogenic or likely pathogenic), while this was 44% for Europe and 45% for AUS/NZL. Two patients from Canada were not included in the diagram. (PPTX 158 kb

Additional file 1: Table S1. of Disorders of sex development: insights from targeted gene sequencing of a large international patient cohort

DSD gene variants. Each variant found in a diagnostic gene (after the filtering and curation process) is shown. In some cases where the gene is inherited in an autosomal recessive manner, two variants are grouped together. Inheritance has been indicated where familial samples were available: negative indicates negative for variant and N/A sample not available. De novo events have only been noted where both parental samples were available and found to be negative for the change. Previously reported refers to a variant being described in either ClinVar, HGMD, or a publication in a peer-reviewed journal via a PubMed search. Variants were classified consistent with previous MPS publications of DSD cohorts [8, 10] which were based on ACMG guidelines [15]. VUS were called for three reasons: 1 = fits phenotype but predicted to be benign; 2 = damaging but doesn’t fit phenotype; or 3 = variant in the AR repetitive region. Patients marked with an asterisk were identified to have two or more diagnostic gene variants. Null variants (frameshifts, splice sites mutations, and premature stop codons) are shown in bold. Patients have been classified based on clinical notes provided, according to the recommended classification of DSD in the Chicago consensus report. Classifications: CGD complete gonadal dysgenesis, DASA disorders of androgen synthesis or action, DSD DSD of “unknown” origin; hypospadias, LCH Leydig cell hypoplasia, OT ovotesticular DSD, PGD partial gonadal dysgenesis, PMDS persistent Müllerian duct syndrome; syndromic, T testicular DSD. Related affected individuals are indicated. File is in Excel spreadsheet format. (XLSX 47 kb

Evolution of genes and genomes on the Drosophila phylogeny

Comparative analysis of multiple genomes in a phylogenetic framework dramatically improves the precision and sensitivity of evolutionary inference, producing more robust results than single-genome analyses can provide. The genomes of 12 Drosophila species, ten of which are presented here for the first time (sechellia, simulans, yakuba, erecta, ananassae, persimilis, willistoni, mojavensis, virilis and grimshawi), illustrate how rates and patterns of sequence divergence across taxa can illuminate evolutionary processes on a genomic scale. These genome sequences augment the formidable genetic tools that have made Drosophila melanogaster a pre-eminent model for animal genetics, and will further catalyse fundamental research on mechanisms of development, cell biology, genetics, disease, neurobiology, behaviour, physiology and evolution. Despite remarkable similarities among these Drosophila species, we identified many putatively non-neutral changes in protein-coding genes, non-coding RNA genes, and cis-regulatory regions. These may prove to underlie differences in the ecology and behaviour of these diverse species

Whole-genome sequencing reveals host factors underlying critical COVID-19

Altres ajuts: Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC); Illumina; LifeArc; Medical Research Council (MRC); UKRI; Sepsis Research (the Fiona Elizabeth Agnew Trust); the Intensive Care Society, Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowship (223164/Z/21/Z); BBSRC Institute Program Support Grant to the Roslin Institute (BBS/E/D/20002172, BBS/E/D/10002070, BBS/E/D/30002275); UKRI grants (MC_PC_20004, MC_PC_19025, MC_PC_1905, MRNO2995X/1); UK Research and Innovation (MC_PC_20029); the Wellcome PhD training fellowship for clinicians (204979/Z/16/Z); the Edinburgh Clinical Academic Track (ECAT) programme; the National Institute for Health Research, the Wellcome Trust; the MRC; Cancer Research UK; the DHSC; NHS England; the Smilow family; the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (CTSA award number UL1TR001878); the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania; National Institute on Aging (NIA U01AG009740); the National Institute on Aging (RC2 AG036495, RC4 AG039029); the Common Fund of the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health; NCI; NHGRI; NHLBI; NIDA; NIMH; NINDS.Critical COVID-19 is caused by immune-mediated inflammatory lung injury. Host genetic variation influences the development of illness requiring critical care or hospitalization after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The GenOMICC (Genetics of Mortality in Critical Care) study enables the comparison of genomes from individuals who are critically ill with those of population controls to find underlying disease mechanisms. Here we use whole-genome sequencing in 7,491 critically ill individuals compared with 48,400 controls to discover and replicate 23 independent variants that significantly predispose to critical COVID-19. We identify 16 new independent associations, including variants within genes that are involved in interferon signalling (IL10RB and PLSCR1), leucocyte differentiation (BCL11A) and blood-type antigen secretor status (FUT2). Using transcriptome-wide association and colocalization to infer the effect of gene expression on disease severity, we find evidence that implicates multiple genes-including reduced expression of a membrane flippase (ATP11A), and increased expression of a mucin (MUC1)-in critical disease. Mendelian randomization provides evidence in support of causal roles for myeloid cell adhesion molecules (SELE, ICAM5 and CD209) and the coagulation factor F8, all of which are potentially druggable targets. Our results are broadly consistent with a multi-component model of COVID-19 pathophysiology, in which at least two distinct mechanisms can predispose to life-threatening disease: failure to control viral replication; or an enhanced tendency towards pulmonary inflammation and intravascular coagulation. We show that comparison between cases of critical illness and population controls is highly efficient for the detection of therapeutically relevant mechanisms of disease

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field