On the Theory of Evolution Versus the Concept of Evolution: Three Observations

Here we address three misconceptions stated by Rice et al. in their observations of our article Paz-y-Miño and Espinosa (Evo Edu Outreach 2:655–675, 2009), published in this journal. The five authors titled their note “The Theory of Evolution is Not an Explanation for the Origin of Life.” First, we argue that it is fallacious to believe that because the formulation of the theory of evolution, as conceived in the 1800s, did not include an explanation for the origin of life, nor of the universe, the concept of evolution would not allow us to hypothesize the possible beginnings of life and its connections to the cosmos. Not only Stanley Miller’s experiments of 1953 led scientists to envision a continuum from the inorganic world to the origin and diversification of life, but also Darwin’s own writings of 1871. Second, to dismiss the notion of Rice et al. that evolution does not provide explanations concerning the universe or the cosmos, we identify compelling scientific discussions on the topics: Zaikowski et al. (Evo Edu Outreach 1:65–73, 2008), Krauss (Evo Edu Outreach 3:193–197, 2010), Peretó et al. (Orig Life Evol Biosph 39:395–406, 2009) and Follmann and Brownson (Naturwissenschaften 96:1265–1292, 2009). Third, although we acknowledge that the term Darwinism may not be inclusive of all new discoveries in evolution, and also that creationists and Intelligent Designers hijack the term to portray evolution as ideology, we demonstrate that there is no statistical evidence suggesting that the word Darwinism interferes with public acceptance of evolution, nor does the inclusion of the origin of life or the universe within the concept of evolution. We examine the epistemological and empirical distinction between the theory of evolution and the concept of evolution and conclude that, although the distinction is important, it should not compromise scientific logic

Implications of a RAD54L polymorphism (2290C/T) in human meningiomas as a risk factor and/or a genetic marker

BACKGROUND: RAD54L (OMIM 603615, Locus Link 8438) has been proposed as a candidate oncosupressor in tumours bearing a non-random deletion of 1p32, such as breast or colon carcinomas, lymphomas and meningiomas. In a search for RAD54L mutations in 29 menigiomas with allelic deletions in 1p, the only genetic change observed was a silent C/T transition at nucleotide 2290 in exon 18. In this communication the possible association of the 2290C/T polymorphism with the risk of meningiomas was examined. In addition, the usefulness of this polymorphism as a genetic marker within the meningioma consensus deletion region in 1p32 was also verified. The present study comprises 287 blood control samples and 70 meningiomas from Spain and Ecuador. Matched blood samples were only available from Spanish patients. RESULTS: The frequency of the rare allele-T and heterozygotes for the 2290C/T polymorphism in the blood of Spanish meningioma patients and in the Ecuadorian meningioma tumours was higher than in the control population (P < 0.05). Four other rare variants (2290C/G, 2299C/G, 2313G/A, 2344A/G) were found within 50 bp at the 3' end of RAD54L. Frequent loss of heterozygosity for the 2290C/T SNP in meningiomas allowed to further narrow the 1p32 consensus region of deletion in meningiomas to either 2.08 Mbp – within D1S2713 (44.35 Mbp) and RAD54L (46.43 Mbp) – or to 1.47 Mbp – within RAD54L and D1S2134 (47.90 Mbp) – according to recent gene mapping results. CONCLUSION: The statistical analysis of genotypes at the 2290C/T polymorphism suggest an association between the rare T allele and the development of meningeal tumours. This polymorphism can be used as a genetic marker inside the consensus deletion region at 1p32 in meningiomas

Analysis and Implementation of an Electronic Laboratory Notebook in a Biomedical Research Institute

Electronic laboratory notebooks (ELNs) will probably replace paper laboratory notebooks (PLNs) in academic research due to their advantages in data recording, sharing and security. Despite several reports describing technical characteristics of ELNs and their advantages over PLNs, no study has directly tested ELN performance among researchers. In addition, the usage of tablet-based devices or wearable technology as ELN complements has never been explored in the field. To implement an ELN in our biomedical research institute, here we first present a technical comparison of six ELNs using 42 parameters. Based on this, we chose two ELNs, which were tested by 28 scientists for a 3-month period and by 80 students via hands-on practical exercises. Second, we provide two survey-based studies aimed to compare these two ELNs (PerkinElmer Elements and Microsoft OneNote) and to analyze the use of tablet-based devices. We finally explore the advantages of using wearable technology as ELNs tools. Among the ELNs tested, we found that OneNote presents almost all parameters evaluated (39/42) and both surveyed groups preferred OneNote as an ELN solution. In addition, 80% of the surveyed scientists reported that tablet-based devices improved the use of ELNs in different respects. We also describe the advantages of using OneNote application for Apple Watch as an ELN wearable complement. This work defines essential features of ELNs that could be used to improve ELN implementation and software development.This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and the Catalan Government through the Economy and Knowledge Department and the Health Department. This work was also supported by doctoral fellowships from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and “La Caixa” to MIF and HPN, respectively. SG was supported by a post-doctoral fellowship from “Fundació la Marató de TV3”. GD has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 661051