Heterochromatin protein 1 is recruited to various types of DNA damage

Heterochromatin protein 1 (HP1) family members are chromatin-associated proteins involved in transcription, replication, and chromatin organization. We show that HP1 isoforms HP1-α, HP1-β, and HP1-γ are recruited to ultraviolet (UV)-induced DNA damage and double-strand breaks (DSBs) in human cells. This response to DNA damage requires the chromo shadow domain of HP1 and is independent of H3K9 trimethylation and proteins that detect UV damage and DSBs. Loss of HP1 results in high sensitivity to UV light and ionizing radiation in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, indicating that HP1 proteins are essential components of DNA damage response (DDR) systems. Analysis of single and double HP1 mutants in nematodes suggests that HP1 homologues have both unique and overlapping functions in the DDR. Our results show that HP1 proteins are important for DNA repair and may function to reorganize chromatin in response to damage

Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty

This study explores how researchers’ analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers’ expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team’s workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers’ results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings

Ueber das Verhältniss des Ammoniaks und der primären Monaminbasen zur Harnstoffbildung im Thierkörper

n/