Do Students See the “Selection” in Organic Evolution? A Critical Review of the Causal Structure of Student Explanations

This paper critically reviews and characterizes the student's causal-explanatory understanding; this is done as a step toward explicating the problematic of evolution education as it concerns the cognitive difficulties in understanding Darwin's theory of natural selection. The review concludes that the student's understanding is fundamentally different from Darwin's, for the student understands evolutionary change as necessary individual transformation caused by the transformative action of various physical and behavioral factors. This is in complete contrast to Darwin's (and even the Darwinian's, for that matter) understanding of evolutionary change as a change caused by accumulative selection. Hence, to understand natural selection, the student has to learn to “see” how the accumulative selection causes evolutionary change

Comparison of array comparative genomic hybridization and quantitative real-time PCR-based aneuploidy screening of blastocyst biopsies

Comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) methods are being extensively used to select chromosomally normal embryos in human assisted reproduction. Some concerns related to the stage of analysis and which aneuploidy screening method to use still remain. In this study, the reliability of blastocyst-stage aneuploidy screening and the diagnostic performance of the two mostly used CCS methods (quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) and array comparative genome hybridization (aCGH)) has been assessed. aCGH aneuploid blastocysts were rebiopsied, blinded, and evaluated by qPCR. Discordant cases were subsequently rebiopsied, blinded, and evaluated by single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array-based CCS. Although 81.7% of embryos showed the same diagnosis when comparing aCGH and qPCR-based CCS, 18.3% (22/120) of embryos gave a discordant result for at least one chromosome. SNP array reanalysis showed that a discordance was reported in ten blastocysts for aCGH, mostly due to false positives, and in four cases for qPCR. The discordant aneuploidy call rate per chromosome was significantly higher for aCGH (5.7%) compared with qPCR (0.6%; P<0.01). To corroborate these findings, 39 embryos were simultaneously biopsied for aCGH and qPCR during blastocyst-stage aneuploidy screening cycles. 35 matched including all 21 euploid embryos. Blinded SNP analysis on rebiopsies of the four embryos matched qPCR. These findings demonstrate the high reliability of diagnosis performed at the blastocyst stage with the use of different CCS methods. However, the application of aCGH can be expected to result in a higher aneuploidy rate than other contemporary methods of CCS. © 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited All rights reserved