Sunday, December 23, 2007
James Watson's and Craig Venter's personal genome sequence
Craig Venter’s genome was published on September in Plos Biology. The analysis and assembly of the 20 billion bp of Venter’s DNA is the first look at both set of chromosomes of an individual, and has shown a greater degree and more kinds of genetic variation than expected. As a matter of fact, human to human variation has proved to be 5-7 times higher than in previous genome reference sequence . Inclusion of insertion and deletions into a conservative estimate of interchromosomal difference reveals that only 99,5 % similarity exists between the two chromosomal copies of an individual. To note, the estimated difference between the human genome and the chimpanzee is only 2, 7%. James Watson’s sequence has also been completed, and Jim received a DVD documenting his personal sequence in a ceremony at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas in May 2007. Although not yet confirmed by a peer-reviewed scientific paper, unofficial voices on the composition of Watson genome appeared already on several magazines worldwide. Apparently the analysis of the genome of James Watson showed that 16% of his genes are likely to derive from a black ancestor of African descent. Most people of European descent would have no more than 1%. As reported in online version of Times magazine, Kari Stefansson of deCODE Genetics (the company who carried out the analysis) said that this level is what you would expect in someone whose great-grandparent was African. Given Watson’s opinions on race, and his recent claim that black people are less intelligent than whites on a genetic basis, the discovery sounds ironic. Seems that Watson was not available to comment on this. If you’re curios and want to find out yourself the truth, you can browse James Watson’s genome sequence at http://jimwatsonsequence.cshl.edu/cgi-perl/gbrowse/jwsequence/.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Human embryonic stem cell policy: Italy versus Spain
A recent study appeared on the July issue of Cell Stem Cell Research journal [Cortes, Menendez] describing how a survey conducted in different fertility clinics in Spain gave the following results: 49 % of the interviewed couples chose to donate their embryos for stem cell research, and 44 % decided to keep them cryopreserved. Only 7 % chose to donate them to other infertile couples, and less than 1 % made the decision to discard them.
Spain is one of the countries with the most liberal policies concerning human embryonic stem cell research. Cryopreserved embryos fewer than fourteen days past fertilization may be used for human embryonic stem cell line derivation, the only requirement being that the procedures must be linked to a specific research project. The Spanish government recently passed a bill to permit therapeutic cloning and cellular reprogramming. Additionally, many stem cell banks have been set: Valencia, Granada, and Madrid. Moreover, the Spanish law permits donation of surplus embryo result of in vitro fertilization for the treatment of other infertile couples.
What about Italy? It has one of the world most restrictive laws concerning embryo research, not allowing embryos to be created or destroyed for research purposes. Furthermore, surplus embryos result of in vitro fertilization cannot be cryopreserved and must all be implanted into the woman’s uterus, with great risk to her health and the health of the multiple embryos. Anyone involved in destroying human embryos lives under the threat of being excommunicated. In 2005 Italians were called to vote to open up the possibility of research with surplus embryos, but the campaign was so blurred and information so scarce –much responsibility was also on the shoulders of researchers, who did not put enough effort in communicating the exact nature of the science to the public- that people did not vote, and the quorum was not reached. Despite all this, seven Italian research groups are working on human embryonic stem cells (IES group), and on July 12th they presented in Rome their Manifesto with their reasons for commitment to research on hES (http://www.eurostemcell.org/AboutUs/about_press.htm#Manifesto ). The Italian law, in fact, does not specifically prohibit research on human embryonic stem cells derived outside of the country, being similar in this regard to the German law.
Given this data, we may ask ourselves how it was possible for the two catholic countries in Europe by antonomasia to reach opposing policies regarding human stem cell research. Italy and Spain are very similar also for language and life habits. But when we look at science, over the last few years they have diverged greatly: while Italy seems to be taking a rest, Spain has shifted into the fifth gear. For example, in July 2006 one of the biggest European scientific parks on molecular medicine opened in Barcelona (http://www.pcb.ub.es/homePCB/live/en/p1.asp), while in Valencia in 2005 the Principe Felipe center, specifically dedicated to the derivation of human embryonic cell lines and clinical applications, was inaugurated (http://www.ochoa.fib.es/).
Spain is one of the countries with the most liberal policies concerning human embryonic stem cell research. Cryopreserved embryos fewer than fourteen days past fertilization may be used for human embryonic stem cell line derivation, the only requirement being that the procedures must be linked to a specific research project. The Spanish government recently passed a bill to permit therapeutic cloning and cellular reprogramming. Additionally, many stem cell banks have been set: Valencia, Granada, and Madrid. Moreover, the Spanish law permits donation of surplus embryo result of in vitro fertilization for the treatment of other infertile couples.
What about Italy? It has one of the world most restrictive laws concerning embryo research, not allowing embryos to be created or destroyed for research purposes. Furthermore, surplus embryos result of in vitro fertilization cannot be cryopreserved and must all be implanted into the woman’s uterus, with great risk to her health and the health of the multiple embryos. Anyone involved in destroying human embryos lives under the threat of being excommunicated. In 2005 Italians were called to vote to open up the possibility of research with surplus embryos, but the campaign was so blurred and information so scarce –much responsibility was also on the shoulders of researchers, who did not put enough effort in communicating the exact nature of the science to the public- that people did not vote, and the quorum was not reached. Despite all this, seven Italian research groups are working on human embryonic stem cells (IES group), and on July 12th they presented in Rome their Manifesto with their reasons for commitment to research on hES (http://www.eurostemcell.org/AboutUs/about_press.htm#Manifesto ). The Italian law, in fact, does not specifically prohibit research on human embryonic stem cells derived outside of the country, being similar in this regard to the German law.
Given this data, we may ask ourselves how it was possible for the two catholic countries in Europe by antonomasia to reach opposing policies regarding human stem cell research. Italy and Spain are very similar also for language and life habits. But when we look at science, over the last few years they have diverged greatly: while Italy seems to be taking a rest, Spain has shifted into the fifth gear. For example, in July 2006 one of the biggest European scientific parks on molecular medicine opened in Barcelona (http://www.pcb.ub.es/homePCB/live/en/p1.asp), while in Valencia in 2005 the Principe Felipe center, specifically dedicated to the derivation of human embryonic cell lines and clinical applications, was inaugurated (http://www.ochoa.fib.es/).
The example of Spain should at least invite us to reflect on the present situation of research in Italy: isn’t this “siesta” lasting too long?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
