Evolution of Protein Expression: New Genes for a New Diet

SummaryA new study identifies gene duplication of a salivary enzyme as a recent adaptation to changes in diet among human populations, highlighting the diverse ways that gene regulation can evolve

Initial characterization of a highly contaminated high explosives outfall in preparation for in situ bioremediation

In situ bioremediation is a viable, cost-effective treatment for environmental contamination of many kinds. The feasibility of using biological techniques to remediate soils contaminated with high explosives (HE) requires laboratory evaluation before proceeding to a larger scale field operation. Laboratory investigations have been conducted at pilot scale which indicate that an anaerobic process could be successful at reducing levels of HE, primarily HMX, RDX and TNT, in contaminated soils. A field demonstration project has been designed to create an anaerobic environment for the degradation of HE materials. The first step in this project, initial characterization of the test area, was conducted and is the subject of this report. The levels of HE compounds found in the samples from the test area were higher than the EPA Method 8330 was able to extract without subsequent re-precipitation; therefore, a new method was developed using a superior extractant system. The test area sampling design was relatively simple as one might expect in an initial characterization. A total of 60 samples were each removed to a depth of 4 inches using a 1 inch diameter corer. The samples were spaced at relatively even intervals across a 20 foot cross-section through the middle of four 7-foot-long adjacent plots which are designed to be a part of an in situ bioremediation experiment. Duplicate cores were taken from each location for HE extraction and analysis in order to demonstrate and measure the heterogeneity of the contamination. Each soil sample was air dried and ball-milled to provide a homogeneous solid for extraction and analysis. Several samples had large consolidated pieces of what appeared to be solid HE. These were not ball-milled due to safety concerns, but were dissolved and the solutions were analyzed. The new extraction method was superior in that results obtained for several of the contaminants were up to 20 times those obtained with the EPA extraction method. The results obtained from this study showed that the test area contamination is extremely heterogeneous, and that it contains extremely high levels of the three major contaminants, HMX, RDX and TNT. The potential for success of a bioremediation strategy is discussed

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

More Crank Science

Jest to recenzja książki Michaela J. Behe'ego Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, New York 1996). Coyne stara się już z gruntu metodologicznego zdyskredytować teorię inteligentnego projektu, której Behe jest zwolennikiem. Uważa tę teorię za nienaukową, gdyż - jego zdaniem - nie da się jej sfalsyfikować. Co więcej, twierdzi, iż jest ona przejawem „fanatyzmu w nauce" - można ją traktować na równi z homeopatią czy teorią spolimeryzowanej wody.It is a review of Michael J. Behe’s book titled Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, New York 1996), containing the criticism of evolutionary theory. Author tries to discredit intelligent design theory, of which Behe is a proponent, on methodological grounds. According to the author, it is unscientific theory because it cannot be falsified. Moreover, in his opinion, it is an manifestation of „crank science” – it can be treated in the same way as homeopathy or polywater theory