https://phys.org/news/2019-04-tiny-robots-powered-magnetic-fields.html

Tiny robots powered by magnetic fields could help drug-delivery nanoparticles reach their targets

Tiny robots powered by magnetic fields could help drug-delivery nanoparticles reach their targets
Vision of enhanced transport of nanomedicine into tumor tissue. Credit: Sonia Monti

MIT engineers have designed tiny robots that can help drug-delivery nanoparticles push their way out of the bloodstream and into a tumor or another disease site. Like crafts in “Fantastic Voyage”—a 1960s science fiction film in which a submarine crew shrinks in size and roams a body to repair damaged cells—the robots swim through the bloodstream, creating a current that drags nanoparticles along with them.

The magnetic microrobots, inspired by bacterial propulsion, could help to overcome one of the biggest obstacles to delivering drugs with : getting the particles to exit blood vessels and accumulate in the right place.

“When you put nanomaterials in the bloodstream and target them to , the biggest barrier to that kind of payload getting into the tissue is the lining of the blood vessel,” says Sangeeta Bhatia, the John and Dorothy Wilson Professor of Health Sciences and Technology and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, a member of MIT’s Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research and its Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, and the senior author of the study.

“Our idea was to see if you can use magnetism to create fluid forces that push nanoparticles into the tissue,” adds Simone Schuerle, a former MIT postdoc and lead author of the paper, which appears in the April 26 issue of Science Advances.

In the same study, the researchers also showed that they could achieve a similar effect using swarms of living bacteria that are naturally magnetic. Each of these approaches could be suited for different types of drug delivery, the researchers say.

Play

00:00
-01:19
Mute
Settings

PIPEnter fullscreen

Play

Magnetically controlled synthetic and living micropropellers stir up nanoparticles for enhanced drug transport. Credit: Schuerle et al., Sci. Adv. 2019;5: eaav4803

Tiny robots

Schuerle, who is now an assistant professor at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich), first began working on tiny magnetic robots as a graduate student in Brad Nelson’s Multiscale Robotics Lab at ETH Zurich. When she came to Bhatia’s lab as a postdoc in 2014, she began investigating whether this kind of bot could help to make nanoparticle drug delivery more efficient.

In most cases, researchers target their nanoparticles to disease sites that are surrounded by “leaky” blood vessels, such as tumors. This makes it easier for the particles to get into the tissue, but the delivery process is still not as effective as it needs to be.

The MIT team decided to explore whether the forces generated by magnetic robots might offer a better way to push the particles out of the bloodstream and into the target site.

The robots that Schuerle used in this study are 35 hundredths of a millimeter long, similar in size to a single cell, and can be controlled by applying an . This bioinspired , which the researchers call an “artificial bacterial flagellum,” consists of a tiny helix that resembles the flagella that many bacteria use to propel themselves. These robots are 3-D-printed with a high-resolution 3-D printer and then coated with nickel, which makes them magnetic.

To test a single robot’s ability to control nearby nanoparticles, the researchers created a  that mimics the blood vessels that surround tumors. The channel in their system, between 50 and 200 microns wide, is lined with a gel that has holes to simulate the broken  seen near tumors.

Tiny robots powered by magnetic fields could help drug-delivery nanoparticles reach their targets
Detection of synthetic mirpropeller in tumor tissue via multi photon imaging and second harmoincs signals. Credit: Jeffrey Wyckoff

Using external magnets, the researchers applied magnetic fields to the robot, which makes the helix rotate and swim through the channel. Because fluid flows through the channel in the opposite direction, the robot remains stationary and creates a convection current, which pushes 200-nanometer polystyrene particles into the model tissue. These particles penetrated twice as far into the tissue as nanoparticles delivered without the aid of the magnetic robot.

This type of system could potentially be incorporated into stents, which are stationary and would be easy to target with an externally applied magnetic field. Such an approach could be useful for delivering drugs to help reduce inflammation at the site of the stent, Bhatia says.

Bacterial swarms

The researchers also developed a variant of this approach that relies on swarms of naturally  instead of microrobots. Bhatia has previously developed bacteria that can be used to deliver cancer-fighting drugs and to diagnose cancer, exploiting bacteria’s natural tendency to accumulate at disease sites.

For this study, the researchers used a type of bacteria called Magnetospirillum magneticum, which naturally produces chains of iron oxide. These magnetic particles, known as magnetosomes, help bacteria orient themselves and find their preferred environments.

The researchers discovered that when they put these bacteria into the microfluidic system and applied rotating magnetic fields in certain orientations, the bacteria began to rotate in synchrony and move in the same direction, pulling along any nanoparticles that were nearby. In this case, the researchers found that nanoparticles were pushed into the model tissue three times faster than when the nanoparticles were delivered without any magnetic assistance.

This bacterial approach could be better suited for drug delivery in situations such as a tumor, where the swarm, controlled externally without the need for visual feedback, could generate fluidic forces in vessels throughout the tumor.

The particles that the researchers used in this study are big enough to carry large payloads, including the components required for the CRISPR genome-editing system, Bhatia says. She now plans to collaborate with Schuerle to further develop both of these magnetic approaches for testing in animal models.


Explore further

Microrobots that can form into multiple types of swarming shapes


More information: “Synthetic and living micropropellers for convection-enhanced nanoparticle transport” Science Advances (2019). advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/4/eaav4803

Journal information: Science Advances

https://www.psypost.org/2019/04/customer-mistreatment-can-harm-your-sleep-quality-according-to-new-psychology-research-53565

Customer mistreatment can harm your sleep quality, according to new psychology research

Being mistreated by a customer can negatively impact your sleep quality and morning recovery state, according to new research published in the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.

“One of my broader research interests is employees’ work or job stress. In particular, with the rise of service industry, service employees are important human capital for organizations, but employers do not often pay attention to their stress issues at work,” said YoungAh Park, an assistant professor at the University of Illinois and the corresponding author of the new study.

“I became interested in call center workers as their interaction with customers occur over the phone and they often report experiencing customer mistreatment. Accordingly, I wanted to test how often those call center workers receive customer mistreatment on a daily basis, how it would affect their nightly sleep quality for recovery from job stress, and what factors help cope with the stress-related customers.”

In the study, 71 call center employees in Korea completed two daily surveys over two consecutive weeks. In the morning, the participants evaluated their previous night’s sleep and their recovery state. In the evening, the participants reported customer mistreatment — such as being yelled at or interrupted — and evaluated their mood after work.

The researchers found a link between customer mistreatment at work and sleep quality.

“On days when workers experienced more customer mistreatment, they were much less likely to gain good night sleep and recovery from stress because of their negative affect at the end of their workday. This is paradoxical in that workers need to ensure good night sleep for their stress recovery, but when they need it the most, they are least likely to have it,” Park told PsyPost.

Feeling in control of one’s work, however, appeared to protect against the negative impact of customer mistreatment.

“This paradox, however, did not occur universally to all workers in my study — those who enjoyed greater job control or autonomy or who were more confident in getting recovery experiences off-work were less affected by the daily stress involving customer mistreatment,” Park said.

A similar study, which was published in Occupational Health Science, found workplace incivility had the potential to not only negatively affect an employee’s sleep but their partner’s as well.

The new research provides new insight into how customer mistreatment can impact day-to-day functioning. But the long-term effects of such mistreatment is unclear.

“The daily investigation lasted only 10 consecutive work days in my study. Thus, if employees are constantly exposed to misbehaving customers for a longer period, we don’t know whether their job autonomy would still enable them to reduce the stress from customer mistreatment,” Park explained.

“I’d say that organizations should put their preemptive effort in minimizing abusive, misbehaving customers.”

The study, “Customer Mistreatment Harms Nightly Sleep and Next-Morning Recovery: Job Control and Recovery Self-Efficacy as Cross-Level Moderators“, was authored by YoungAh Park and Sooyeol Kim.

https://www.livekindly.co/new-vegan-burgers-bites-costco/

NEW VEGAN BURGERS AND BITES ARRIVE AT COSTCO

Family-owned brand Don Lee Farms, makers of the “bleeding” Organic Plant Based Burger, will introduced vegan burgers to the Costco deli food section.

New Vegan Burgers and Bites Arrive at Costco
Two Don Lee Farms burgers are now vegan

There are two “new” vegan options at Costco’s deli section. California-based food brand Don Lee Farms, makers of the Organic Plant Based Burger, has announced that two of its long-standing products are now completely plant-based.

Costco’s New Vegan Burgers

The two products, Organic Veggie Burgers and Organic Veggie Bites, will replace Don Lee Farms’ vegetarian items in the Costco fresh deli section. Both options are made from sweet potato, sunflower seeds, and veggies. According to the company, the meatless burgers are certified organic and free from artificial ingredients.

“We introduced our first fresh veggie burger in 2005. The success we have had since hasn’t led us to be complacent,” Donald Goodman, president at Don Lee Farms, said in a statement. “We push forward with continuous innovation in all categories we sell in and have a determined focus to continue our lead in the organic plant-based space.”

Don Lee Farms’ Veggie Burger and Veggie Bites go vegan | image/Don Lee Farms

“We strive to make foods that are downright tasty, nutritious and easy to prepare at home. When we do all of those things right in development, we know that we have an exciting new item to tell people about. We knew we were ready with this launch when our plant-based formulas handily beat out our vegetarian ones in every blind cutting we performed,” Goodman continued.

Don Lee Farms’ Plant-Powered Success

The family-owned Don Lee Farms specializes in both plant-based and traditional meat products, but found success with the launch of its Organic Plant Based Burger last summer. Made to look, taste, and “bleed” like traditional beef in the same vein as the Beyond Burger, one million patties sold within the first 60 days. Since then, its distribution expanded to Wegman’s, HEB, and Amazon Fresh.

Data from leading market firm Mintel shows that 58 percent Americans are making conscious decisions to choose more meatless meat as part of their health goals — a trend that researchers expect to grow.“With more protein-rich options, we expect to see consumers continue to turn to non-meat options for their protein nutrients, especially if they are cheaper and more accessible,” said Gina Cavato, lifestyles and leisure analyst at Mintel.

Earlier this year, Don Lee Farms announced its realistic vegan burger will soon launch in other chains across the nation including Kroger, Publix, and Giant Martins as well as 15 countries in the EU, South America, and the Caribbean.

The new vegan products will launch in the deli section of Costco’s deli section this summer.

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-h-c-bonds-hydrogen-atoms-collide.html

Researchers find H-C bonds form when hydrogen atoms collide at high speed with graphene

Researchers find H-C bonds form when hydrogen atoms collide at high speed with graphene
Rehybridization in the formation of a C–H bond in collisions of an H atom at a graphene surface. HZ and CZ are the distances of the H and C atoms from the graphene plane. Three trajectories are shown for H atoms with 1.92 eV incidence energy. Credit: Science (2019). DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw6378

A team of researchers from Germany, the U.S. and the U.K. has found that a significant number of H-C bonds formed when hydrogen atoms were forced at high speed to collide with graphene. In their paper published in the journal Science, the researchers describe their efforts to view the atomic-scale motion that occurs and the energy dissipation pathways that are involved when covalent bonds form—in this case between a carbon atom and a hydrogen atom as it smashes into a sheet of graphene. Liv Hornekær with iNANO has published a Perspective piece on the work done by the team in the same journal issue.

The researchers note that despite a lot of effort, very few ways have been found to actually see what happens at the atomic scale as a covalent bond is forming. In this new effort, they sought to find a new way to see what happens using hydrogen atoms and graphene. They point out that for a  to form between colliding molecules, energy must flow from them into the rest of the molecules in a given system. To that end, the researchers fired hydrogen atoms at high speed at a sheet of graphene that was sitting on a plate made of platinum. They chose graphene because it has extreme asymmetry (an attribute that makes it one of the few materials that contract when heated). They then closely monitored and measured what happened as the hydrogen atom struck.

The researchers report that the collision between the hydrogen atom and graphene sheet resulted in the creation of bonds between the hydrogen atom and carbon atoms in the graphene. They further report that energy was very efficiently dissipated by an in-plane sonic wave that formed moving along the length of the sheet of graphene. They also found that a transverse wave was also formed that supported out of plane vibrations—it was formed by displacement of as they interacted with the  atom. The team also reports that the H-C bonds that formed were strong enough to allow many of the  to actually stick to the  sheet rather than bounce off of it. They also claim that their experiments have revealed a previously unknown pathway to  in a system where covalent bonds are formed, opening up new ways to study the process as it occurs.


Explore further

Atoms use tunnels to escape graphene cover


More information: Hongyan Jiang et al. Imaging covalent bond formation by H atom scattering from graphene, Science (2019). DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw6378Liv Hornekær. Stabilizing a C–H bond on graphene with sound, Science (2019). DOI: 10.1126/science.aax1980

Journal information: Science

https://www.ecowatch.com/impossible-burger-2635663466.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

What Is the Impossible Burger, and Is It Healthy?

HEALTH + WELLNESS

T.Tseng / Flickr / CC BY 2.0

By Jillian Kubala, MS, RD

The Impossible Burger is a plant-based alternative to traditional meat-based burgers. It’s said to mimic the flavor, aroma, and texture of beef.

Some claim that the Impossible Burger is more nutritious and environmentally friendly than beef-based burgers. Others argue that certain ingredients in the Impossible Burger may not be optimal for your health.

This article explains what the Impossible Burger is, what it’s made of, and whether it’s nutritionally superior to beef-based burgers.

What is the Impossible Burger?

The Impossible Burger was created by Impossible Foods, a company founded by Patrick O. Brown in 2011.

Brown is a scientist and professor emeritus at Stanford University in California. He holds a medical degree and a Ph.D. and has worked as a research scientist for many years.

Through conferences, Brown tried raising awareness about how using animals for food harms the environment. However, this had little impact, so he created a business that produced plant-based alternatives to popular animal products.

Its signature product — the Impossible Burger — aims to perfectly mimic the taste of beef.

Impossible Burger Ingredients

Using carefully selected ingredients, Impossible Foods created a plant-based burger that some say perfectly resembles the taste, aroma, and texture of beef.

The original Impossible Burger contains the following ingredients:

Water, textured wheat protein, coconut oil, potato protein, natural flavors, 2% or less of leghemoglobin (soy), yeast extract, salt, konjac gum, xanthan gum, soy protein isolate, vitamin E, vitamin C, thiamine (vitamin B1), zinc, niacin, vitamin B6, riboflavin (vitamin B2), and vitamin B12.

In 2019, the company introduced a new recipe featuring the following changes:

  • uses soy protein instead of wheat protein, making it gluten-free
  • contains a plant-based culinary binder called methylcellulose to improve texture
  • replaced a portion of the coconut oil with sunflower oil to reduce saturated fat content

Heme, or soy leghemoglobin, is the ingredient said to set the Impossible Burger apart from other plant-based burgers. It adds to the flavor and color of the burger and makes it “bleed” like a beef burger does when cut.

It’s also perhaps the most controversial ingredient in the Impossible Burger.

Unlike the heme found in beef, the heme in the Impossible Burger is genetically engineered by adding soy protein to genetically engineered yeast (1).

Though Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), some raise concern about its potential health effects (2).

Currently, the Impossible Burger is only available at certain restaurants and fast food establishments in the United States, Hong Kong, and Macau. The company also plans to sell the Impossible Burger in U.S. grocery stores from 2019.

Summary

The Impossible Burger is a plant-based burger option said to replicate the flavor, texture, and aroma of beef.

Impossible Burger Nutrition

There are nutritional differences between the Impossible Burger and beef-based burgers.

The following chart compares a 113-gram serving of the Impossible burger to an equal serving of a 90%-lean beef burger (34).

Impossible Burgers are significantly lower in protein than beef-based burgers, yet they contain more fiber. Impossible Burgers are also higher in fat and contain carbohydrates, while beef burgers do not contain any carbs.

Furthermore, the Impossible Burger beats beef in many vitamin and mineral categories like folate, B12, thiamine, and iron.

However, it’s important to note that these nutrients are added to the product, unlike the nutrients found in beef.

Impossible Burgers also contain a high amount of added salt, packing in 16% of the daily value for sodium in one 4-ounce (113-gram) serving.

Summary

The Impossible Burger is higher in certain vitamins and minerals than beef burgers, as they are added during processing. Impossible Burgers are also higher in salt and carbohydrates.

Impossible Burger Benefits

Impossible Burgers offer several health benefits.

High in Important Nutrients

The Impossible Burger contains an impressive amount of nutrients, as vitamins and minerals like iron, thiamine, zinc, niacin, riboflavin, and vitamin B12 are added during processing.

Some of these nutrients, such as vitamin B12, iron, and zinc, are especially important for those following plant-based diets, including vegans and vegetarians.

Vegans and vegetarians are at a greater risk of developing deficiencies in these nutrients than people who consume animal products (567).

What really sets the Impossible Burger apart from other vegan and vegetarian foods enriched with iron is that it provides heme iron. Heme iron is better absorbed by your body than the non-heme iron you get from plant foods.

Moreover, soy leghemoglobin has been shown to have an equivalent bioavailability to the iron found in meat, making it a potentially important source of highly absorbable iron for those who don’t consume animal products (8).

The iron in the Impossible Burger has been approved by the FDA for use in food, although it’s long-term safety is still unknown.

Suitable for Plant-Based Diets

The Impossible Burger is a good choice if you enjoy the taste of beef burgers but want to limit your intake of animal products.

In addition to being suitable for both vegetarian and vegan diets, it contains nutrients that many plant-based diets lack, such as vitamin B12 and heme iron.

Given that Impossible Burgers are offered at certain restaurants and fast food establishments, it’s a tasty and easy, on-the-go meal choice for those following plant-based diets.

May Be a More Environmentally-Friendly Choice

The Impossible Burger website claims that producing this plant-based burger uses roughly 75% less water, generates 87% fewer greenhouse gasses, and requires 95% less land than producing conventional ground beef from cows (9).

Indeed, research shows that cattle farming is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions in the livestock industry (10).

Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock farming contribute to global warming. This leads many climate experts to recommend that people eat a more plant-based diet in order to mitigate pressure on the environment (1112).

Summary

The Impossible Burger is an environmentally-friendly food packed with nutrients that vegan and vegetarian diets often lack, such as iron and vitamin B12.

Impossible Burger Precautions

Although the Impossible Burger offers some benefits, there are some downsides to consider as well.

Concerns Over Plant-Based Heme

Although soy leghemoglobin — the heme used in Impossible Burgers — was deemed GRAS by the FDA, its long-term safety is still unknown.

Current studies on soy leghemoglobin have only been conducted in animals and over short periods.

For example, a 28-day study in rats found that those fed the equivalent of 750 mg/kg per day of soy leghemoglobin, which is over 100 times greater than the 90th percentile estimated daily intake in humans, had no adverse effects (13).

However, it’s currently unknown whether it’s safe for humans to eat this man-made compound over longer periods.

Contains Potentially Allergenic Ingredients

The original Impossible Burger recipe contains wheat and soy, both of which are common food allergens.

In fact, 1% of the world’s population has celiac disease, which is an immune reaction to gluten-containing grains.

What’s more, it’s thought that 0.5–13% of the general population has non-celiac gluten sensitivity — an intolerance to gluten that results in unpleasant symptoms like headache and intestinal issues (14).

While the new Impossible Burger recipe has swapped gluten-containing wheat protein for soy protein, the burger still contains ingredients that some people can’t tolerate.

For example, an allergy to soy, while less common than an allergy to milk or wheat, is considered one of the eight most common food allergens for both adults and children (15).

Concerns Over GMOs

Impossible Foods does not hide the fact that the Impossible Burger contains genetically modified (GMO) ingredients like soy leghemoglobin and soy protein.

Most scientists agree that GMO foods are safe. However, some are concerned about the use of GMO crops that are resistant to commonly used herbicides like glyphosate and 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) (16).

Glyphosate has been linked to potentially harmful effects on humans, plants, and animals, leading many experts to demand further research on the possible hazards of this herbicide to both humans and the environment (17, 1819).

For example, glyphosate has been shown to harm hormonal function, and some studies have linked it to certain cancers like leukemia (2021).

Additionally, some studies have linked exposure to 2,4-D with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of cancer (22).

Summary

There are several downsides to the Impossible Burger, including its content of potentially allergenic ingredients and the use of GMO ingredients like soy leghemoglobin.

Is the Impossible Burger Healthy?

If taste and convenience are your only concerns, the Impossible Burger may be a good choice. However, if you want to eat a more nutritious plant-based burger, consider a more whole-food-based veggie burger.

There Are Healthier Plant-Based Burger Options

The Impossible Burger contains mostly soy or wheat protein, as well as added preservatives, salt, flavorings, and fillers to enhance its taste, shelf life, and texture.

Although these ingredients are considered natural, they aren’t necessary for a healthy diet, and some people prefer to avoid them.

Another downside to the Impossible Burger is that any restaurant can put their own spin on it, meaning that other ingredients — aside from those listed on the official website — may be present in the final food product.

Other veggie burgers on the market usually contain similar ingredients. However, some contain more whole-food-based ingredients like lentils, quinoa, hemp, and black beans.

Fortunately, you can make healthier and more whole-food-based veggie burgers at home. Delicious plant- and nutrient-dense burger recipes can be found online and are often based on plant proteins like beans, grains, and nuts.

Plus, many recipes pack in fresh vegetables like sweet potato, onions, cauliflower, leafy greens, and spices to further elevate the nutritional benefits of the final dish.

The heme iron in the Impossible Burger is more bioavailable than non-heme iron in plant foods.

Luckily, if you eat a plant-based diet, you can instead meet your iron needs by eating nutrient-dense whole foods like legumes, nuts, seeds, and grains. Alternatively, you can take iron supplements.

Additionally, pairing plant-based iron sources with foods rich in vitamin C, as well as soaking, sprouting, or fermenting grains and legumes before eating them, are simple ways to naturally enhance the absorption of non-heme iron (2324).

Summary

While the Impossible Burger may be a good option for vegans and vegetarians on the go, you can make healthier plant-based burgers at home.

The Bottom Line

The Impossible Burger has made headlines for its impressive similarity to beef-based burgers.

It boasts high protein, vitamin, and mineral contents, including a genetically engineered, plant-based source of heme iron known as soy leghemoglobin.

However, there are concerns about some of its ingredients. These include soy hemoglobin and potentially allergenic protein sources like gluten and soy.

Although the Impossible Burger may be a tasty and convenient option on the go, you can make more nutritious plant-based burgers from whole-food ingredients at home.

Reposted with permission from our media associate Healthline.

https://qz.com/1605697/the-trouble-with-the-design-of-23andmes-genetic-test-results/

The biggest problem with at-home genetic testing services is hiding in plain sight

Member story by Katherine Ellen Foley for Gene reading

Direct-to-consumer genetic tests like Ancestry and 23andMe were mostly the result of innocent curiosity.

Geneticists at the turn of the century were hopeful that after the near completion of the Human Genome Project, they would be able to provide comprehensive personalized insights to everyone. While this idea may be true eventually, right now it’s still a pipe dream: Individual genetics have so many variations(membership), scientists couldn’t possibly understand them all in the few decades modern genetics has existed.

At-home genetic testing companies, though, immediately capitalized on the few variations scientists do understand: a handful related to health and wellness traits, and a few others associated with populations from across the world. The services filled a need(membership). Customers desperately want to understand their genetic material, and now they could, it seemed, with easy-to-read maps and donut charts.

But the designs of these popular tests raise ethical questions. On the one hand, simplified genetic reports make personalized science accessible. They’re also easily shared on social media, adding an element of entertainment. On the other, they obfuscate the nuances and complexities of a growing scientific discipline. Although most companies make their tests’ shortcomings clear in the fine print, users don’t have much incentive to read about them when sleek presentations fool them into thinking they have the full story.

In most cases, these companies risk spreading faulty science communication—a disservice, but not a tragedy. But if they lead customers to misinterpret information about their health, or propagate ideas that ancestral identity can be determined entirely through genetic estimates, the consequences could be disastrous. White nationalists, for example, have used ancestry tests to try to prove their “purity” (membership). And while there’s no data yet to suggest that customers are using genetic test results to justify forgoing medically necessary screenings, it’s easy to see how this could happen.

The growth of these services has been exponential in recent years: Globally over 26 million people have taken some kind of consumer genetic test, and in just five years, forecasts suggest, the industry will be worth $2.5 billion. It’s clear that the services’ popularity won’t go away anytime soon. The long-term effects they’ll have on consumers depend on how their creators choose to clarify the uncertainties of science.

This essay first appeared in the weekend edition of the Quartz Daily Brief newsletter and draws from guides to gene reading recently produced for Quartz members.

This story was first published .

https://www.knowablemagazine.org/article/living-world/2019/what-does-it-look-turn-gene

What does it look like to “turn on” a gene?

Only recently have scientists directly witnessed this most pivotal of events in biology, thanks to new technology that allows them to observe the process in living cells. It’s teaching them a lot.

n the murky darkness, blue and green blobs are dancing. Sometimes they keep decorous distances from each other, but other times they go cheek to cheek — and when that happens, other colors flare.

The video, reported last year, is fuzzy and a few seconds long, but it wowed the scientists who saw it. For the first time, they were witnessing details of an early step — long unseen, just cleverly inferred — in a central event in biology: the act of turning on a gene. Those blue and green blobs were two key bits of DNA called an enhancer and a promoter (labeled to fluoresce). When they touched, a gene powered up, as revealed by bursts of red.

Activation of a gene — transcription — is kicked off when proteins called transcription factors bind to two key bits of DNA, an enhancer and a promoter. These are far from each other, and no one knew how close they had to come for transcription to happen. Here, working with fly cells, researchers labeled enhancers blue and promoters green and watched in real time. Also tweaked was the gene itself, such that mRNA copies, hot off the press, would glow red. The red flare is so bright it’s almost white, because several mRNAs at a time are being made. The study found that the enhancer and the promoter have to practically touch in order to kick off transcription.

CREDIT: H. CHEN AND T. GREGOR / PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

The event is all-important. All the cells in our body contain by and large the same set of around 20,000 distinct genes, encoded in several billion building blocks (nucleotides) that string together in long strands of DNA. By awakening subsets of genes in different combinations and at different times, cells take on specialized identities and build startlingly different tissues: heart, kidney, bone, brain. Yet until recently, researchers had no way of directly seeing just what happens during gene activation.

They’ve long known the broad outlines of the process, called transcription. Proteins aptly called transcription factors bind to a place in the gene — a promoter — as well as to a more distant DNA spot, an enhancer. Those two bindings allow an enzyme called RNA polymerase to glom onto the gene and make a copy of it.

That copy is processed a bit and then makes its way to the cytoplasm as messenger RNA (mRNA). There, the cellular machinery uses the mRNA instructions to create proteins with specific jobs: catalyzing metabolic reactions, say, or sensing chemical signals from outside the cell.

This textbook take is true as far as it goes, but it raises many questions: What tells a given gene to turn on or off? How do transcription factors find the right sites to bind to? How does a gene know how much mRNA to make? How do enhancers influence gene activity when they can be a million DNA building blocks away from the gene itself?

An infographic of a cell showing a close-up of the nucleus and outlining the steps and players involved in turning on a gene. The DNA helix forms a big loop, bringing together two distant regions of DNA, the enhancer and promoter. Various proteins, including transcription factors and mediator proteins, assist RNA polymerase as it makes an RNA copy of the gene. This copy, pre-mRNA, is processed into mRNA and then exits the nucleus via a pore. In the cell’s cytoplasm, the mRNA is read, and the desired protein is synthesized.
 

For decades, scientists had only blunt and indirect tools to probe these questions. Ideas about DNA, RNA and proteins came from grinding up cells and separating components. Then, in the 1980s, scientists began using a game-changing technique called FISH (short for fluorescence in situ hybridization) to see DNA and RNA directly, right in the cell. Other methods followed — microscopes with better resolution, new ways to tag (and thus track) players in this molecular symphony as it played out. Researchers could parse transcription as it happened, in detail.

Before, it was like trying to hear the symphony by looking at a static picture of the orchestra, says Zhe Liu, a molecular biologist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Janelia Research Campus in Virginia. “You would never figure out what they are playing,” he says. “You could never appreciate how beautiful the symphony is.”

Here’s a taste of what molecular biologists are learning by spying on this key, nanoscopic process — increasingly in real time, in living cells.

The life and times of transcription factors

Though scientists have long known that transcription factors dictate whether or not a gene powers up, it’s been mysterious how these proteins navigate the ridiculously crowded space in the nucleus to find their binding sites.

Consider that, uncoiled, the DNA in a human cell would run a meter or two long. The nucleus is about 5 to 10 micrometers in diameter, so the packaging of our genome is akin to stuffing a string that could wrap 10 times around the Earth inside a chicken egg, Liu says.

Researchers are just starting to tackle how this coiling and looping affects gene transcription. For one thing, they suspect it could help explain how enhancers can influence a gene’s activity from a great distance — because something far away when DNA is stretched out may be a lot closer when the genetic material is bundled up.

And if it seems miraculous that transcription factors know where they are going — well, most of them don’t. By tracking these proteins in a single cell over time, researchers find that they spend fully 97 percent of their life jiggling hither and thither, bouncing off of whatever bits of DNA they encounter until they luck out. (A few types may act as leaders, scanning the genome, latching on to their target and setting up the right conditions for a larger pack to follow.)

To see how transcription factors move around inside the nucleus, researchers watched one specific transcription factor, Sox2, in living cells taken from mouse embryos. Shown are Sox2 molecules labeled with fluorescence, in a 3-D grid. Researchers recorded the movements of several Sox2 molecules within a single cell nucleus using a special microscopy approach that stacks 2-D images to make a 3D one. Each of the traces represents the movement of a separate transcription factor.

CREDIT: J. CHEN ET AL / CELL 2014

One would imagine, at least, that when a transcription factor finally found its binding site, it could stay stuck and do its job for hours. Scientists used to believe so from experiments with dead, preserved cells.

But studies on live cells show that’s far from true. Liu’s lab and others have shown over the past five years that transcription factors bind only for seconds, and that high concentrations of them congregate near the binding site, helping each other glom on. “It’s mind-boggling how transcription factors actually work,” Liu says.

And there are a lot of them: Up to 10 percent of the genes in a mammal carry instructions for making ones of different flavors. Recent evidence suggests that this affords huge precision to the cell. For any given gene, varied combinations of transcription factors can ramp up or tamp down the process, potentially making the system exquisitely tunable.

Hooking up at the polymerase party

If transcription factors are the gas pedal and brakes, the engine is RNA polymerase. In the basic model, RNA polymerase pulls apart a gene’s two strands, then slithers down one of them to make an mRNA copy of it. Turns out things are a hair more complicated.

Studies in mashed-up and preserved cells had hinted that many polymerase molecules cluster together to make this mRNA magic happen. But no one had ever seen such a clump in living cells, so no one knew how or when — or even if — the clumps formed. By attaching a fluorescing chemical tag to RNA polymerase in live cells, researchers saw multiple polymerases repeatedly group together for about five seconds — then scatter.

Last year, the same team of scientists spotted gatherings of other proteins as they congregated to help RNA polymerase do its job. These beasts — known as mediator proteins — form giant clusters numbering in the hundreds that join the RNA polymerases on the DNA.

Specialized groups of proteins called the mediator complex (green) gather around a gene to help RNA polymerase do its job of copying DNA into mRNA (magenta). The box outline marks a 3-dimensional region surrounding the gene. The study showed that the two clusters fuse together and interact directly with the gene during transcription.

CREDIT: W. CHO ET AL / SCIENCE 2018

The two gaggles seem to concentrate into distinct droplets, like blobs of oil in water. Then they fuse, perhaps creating a kind of self-assembling, cordoned-off transcription mill. A lesson from this? “Beyond the biochemistry, there are all these physical phenomena that may have a role in telling us how genes get turned on,” says biophysicist Ibrahim Cissé of MIT, who led the work.

Messenger RNA is made in fits and starts

For decades, researchers assumed that when a gene is active, transcription simply goes into “on” mode and cranks out mRNA at a steady clip. But a breakthrough technique called MS2 tagging, first developed in 1998 and still widely used, has radically changed that view.

Invented by cell biologist and microscopist Robert Singer and colleagues at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, MS2 tagging allowed scientists to see mRNAs in living cells for the very first time. (Key ingredients of the method come from a virus called MS2 — hence the technology’s name.)

In a nutshell, scientists use engineering tricks so that mRNA made from a specific gene bears distinctive structures called stem-loops. Through a second trick, those stem-loop locations are made to glow fluorescently so researchers can “see” mRNA from the gene of their choice whenever it is made and wherever it travels to, under a microscope and in real time.

Singer, who coauthored a 2018 article about mRNA imaging in the Annual Review of Biophysics, used MS2 tagging to show, with his colleagues, that the production rate of mRNAs from a gene fluctuates wildly over 25 minutes or so. It turned out that the size of these bursts doesn’t vary much, but their frequency does, and that’s what dictates how energetically a gene pumps out its mRNA product. Increasing or decreasing the rate of this transcriptional “bursting” may allow the system to ramp up or slow down a gene’s activity to meet the cell’s needs.

Researchers think that the on-off kinetics of transcription factors, meaning the rate at which they pop on and off of their binding sites, somehow regulates transcriptional bursting. But they don’t yet know how.

Trekking towards translation

Making mRNA is just the first step in a gene’s strutting its stuff. Next comes translating instructions in that mRNA to make proteins. For that to happen, the mRNA must journey out of the nucleus and into the cytoplasm where the protein-making factories reside.

Scientists had assumed that the cell’s molecular machinery carefully transported mRNA to the nucleus’s membrane and then pumped it out into the cytoplasm. Using the same MS2 method, Singer’s lab found that wasn’t so. Instead, mRNAs bounce around — “buzzing around in the nucleus like a swarm of angry bees,” as Singer terms it — until they happen to hit a pore in the nuclear membrane. Only then does the cell’s machinery lift a finger and actively shuttle mRNA through this gate.

In this video, proteins in the pores of the nuclear membrane are labeled red, and mRNA is labeled green. Using a special microscope designed to record at a very fast frame rate, researchers could watch individual mRNAs as they zipped around the nucleus until they hit a pore and passed through the pore into the cytoplasm, where protein synthesis takes place.

CREDIT: D. GRÜNWALD AND R.H. SINGER / NATURE, 2010

More recently, Singer and colleagues created mutant mice that enabled them to watch as mRNA shuttled up and down a nerve cell’s delicate dendrites, the structures that receive signals from other nerves. The team even got to spy on memory-making in action. The mRNAs they were tracking carried instructions for making a protein — β-actin — that is abundant in nerve cells and is thought to help bolster connections when memories are made in the brain. In a video that looks like a network of roads at nighttime, within 10 minutes after a nerve cell was activated, mRNAs cruised to points of contact with other nerves, ready for actin production to shore up those nerve-nerve connections.

Researchers devised a way to track mRNAs of a gene crucial for making memories as they traveled through living brain cells. The team engineered a mouse so that all the mRNA copied from this gene, which codes for a protein called β-actin, was labeled. β-actin helps neurons reshape tiny protrusions called spines that other neurons connect to, a process thought to be important in learning and memory. When neurons grown in a dish were stimulated, β-actin mRNAs were produced in the nucleus within 10 to 15 minutes. In this video, you can see about 6 seconds of β-actin mRNAs cruising through the neuron’s branches, or dendrites, after stimulation. The researchers believe that these mRNAs are searching the dendrites for spines that have just made connections, so that they can synthesize β-actin protein right there on the spot.

CREDIT: HYE YOON PARK

Scads of details about gene activity remain mysterious still, but it’s already clear that the process is far more dynamic than once assumed. “The change has been phenomenal, and it’s accelerating rapidly,” Singer says. “There’s a lot of information to be gleaned just by watching.”

https://www.infoworld.com/article/3391213/javascript-tutorial-functional-programming-in-javascript.html

JavaScript tutorial: Functional programming in JavaScript

How to embrace immutability, think functionally, and write code that is easier to understand and test

JavaScript is a flexible language, allowing for all sorts of styles and programming paradigms. Although this breadth sometimes comes at a cost to readability or consistency across a code base, it also allows developers to express their thoughts in different ways depending on the problem. One of those ways, functional programming, has become more and more popular with JavaScript programmers in recent years.

Functional programming relies on pure functions and avoids shared state and mutable data. It’s a programming style that rose to prominence with languages like Clojure, Scala, and Elm, but you can get into the functional mindset right within JavaScript. The following tips should help you to start writing more functional code and reap the benefits that the functional paradigm has to offer—functions that are easier to reason about, code that is easier to understand, and programs that are easier to test and debug.

The first step is embracing immutability. Ordinarily with JavaScript, you can change pretty much any variable you want. Any variable you declare can be reassigned to any other value, unless you use the const keyword. Even then, if you declare a const and assign it an object, you can change anything you want within the object itself. In functional programming, this is a big no-no. Mutations are considered a nasty side-effect that should be avoided. The issues that arise from mutation typically have to do with assumptions about shared state. For example, take the following code:

let myList = [1, 2, 3];
someFunction(myList);
console.log(myList);

If you’re using the full language functionality of JavaScript, you can make no assumptions about what is going to be logged to the console on line three. Instead you have to dig into the implementation of someFunction to see what it does to myList. But if we stick to the functional paradigm, we know that line three will log [1, 2, 3], because someFunction isn’t allowed to mutate the list we passed in. If we want someFunction to return some processed version of the list, we would have to return a new list with the processed values. The old list would remain the same:

let myList = [1, 2, 3];
let newList = mapToLetters(myList);
console.log(myList); // [1, 2, 3];
console.log(newList); // ['a', 'b', 'c'];

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/26/worlds-first-100-solar-powered-train-video/

World’s First 100% Solar Powered Train (Video)

April 26th, 2019 by 

The Byron Bay Railroad Company’s charming 100% solar-powered train has been featured in a Fully Charged video, showcasing the possibility of zero-emission public transport. The train is super efficient, requiring 8.33 watt-hours per passenger kilometer, even with frequent stop–starting. With a 6.5 kW rooftop solar array and a lithium-ion battery on board, in peak solar hours, the train is effectively 100% self-powered.

Byron Bay’s Solar Powered Train / Fully Charged

The Byron Bay Railroad Company’s solar-powered train was brought into service in late 2017, and has operated perfectly since then. The original 1949 train carriages are still used, but have undergone an upgrade from diesel locomotion to battery-electric locomotion, powered predominantly by onboard PV panels.

The train has a 77 kWh lithium-ion battery running at 410 volts. The dual electric motors are US-sourced Parker GVM series permanent magnet AC units, running at 220 kW and producing several hundred Nm of torque. The batteries are fed by a 6.5 kW peak rooftopcarriage-top solar PV array, using flexible SunMan eArche panels that conform to the original roof shape of the carriages (see the above image). In peak sunshine hours, the onboard panels can effectively provide enough energy for the train’s duty cycle!

The train runs a simple 3 km route (taking just under 10 minutes) between North Beach station and Byron Beach station, and then back again, typically completing the cycle once per hour. With the help of gentle acceleration, modest cruising speeds, and a bit of regenerative braking, the total energy used for the 6 km round trip is only 5 kWh! In peak sunshine, the panels can in principle collect 6.5 kWh of energy per hour, covering the train’s energy requirements over the same time period.

Train arriving in North Beach terminal / Fully Charged

Bear in mind that this 2-carriage train weighs 77,000 kg and has space for 100 passengers. The 5 kWh per 6 km cycle works out to a remarkably efficient 8.66 Wh of energy per passenger kilometer! For context, the current hypermiling record for the Tesla Model 3 is right around 75 Wh per km, for a theoretical 15 Wh per passenger kilometer (assuming 5 passengers could endure such a feat). That record required steadily cruising the Tesla Model 3 at just under 40 km/h — which is also around the top speed that the train reaches on its 3km run.

Whilst for the Tesla that record required continuous cruising (of almost 1000 km!), the train achieves the same efficiency even with starting and stopping every 3 km! What can we say? The speeds are modest, the route is almost perfectly flat and straight, and trains have very low rolling resistance!

The terminus at North Beach station also has a solar PV array on its roof, with 30 kW peak power. In theory, the train’s 77 kWh battery holds enough energy for 15 runs of 3km each, but at either end of the day, and in the winter months, when train needs a recharge, dual 22 kW 3-phase AC chargers do the job. The overall system generated an excess of 60 MWh of energy in the first year of operation, which was exported to the grid. That’s equivalent to the power requirements of around 17 average Australian 3-bedroom homes (the video mentions 12 homes, but the train’s website says 17 — take your pick).

We’ve previously seen national railway systems that are effectively 100% wind powered. We’ve also seen city tram networks that are effectively 100% solar powered. So far as I’m aware, this is the first in-service passenger train route which is run from onboard solar power. The video report by the good folks at Fully Charged is well worth a watch:

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Atomic-Pi-A-Raspberry-Pi-alternative-with-an-Intel-processor-that-costs-less-than-US-35.419686.0.html

Atomic Pi: A Raspberry-Pi alternative with an Intel processor that costs less than US$35

Atomic Pi: A Raspberry-Pi alternative with an Intel processor that costs less than US$35 (Image source: Digital Loggers)
Atomic Pi: A Raspberry-Pi alternative with an Intel processor that costs less than US$35 (Image source: Digital Loggers)
The Atomic Pi is an affordable Raspberry Pi alternative equipped with an Intel Atom Cherry Trail processor, 2 GB RAM and 16 GB of eMMC flash storage. The developer board has numerous expansion connectors, ports and sensors too. The Atomic Pi is available worldwide for US$35.

At the heart of the Atomic Pi is an Intel processor, unlike many ARM powered Raspberry Pi alternatives. Specifically, Digital Loggers has opted for the Atom x5-Z8350, a quad chip that has a 1.44 GHz base clock, which it can boost up to 1.92 GHz across all cores. The 14 nm CPU integrates Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), which Intel bases on Intel HD Graphics 5300.

The Atomic Pi also has 2 GB of DDR3 RAM on board along with 16 GB of eMMC flash storage, which can be expanded with up to 256 GB microSD cards. Moreover, there USB 3.0 and 2.0 Type-A ports for connecting additional mass storage or peripherals. The developer board has a HDMI output too that also supports audio out and a Qualcomm CSR8510 chipset that supplies the Atomic Pi with Bluetooth 4.0 connectivity. There is also a MediaTek RT5572 that supports up to IEEE 802.11 n Wi-Fi and can connect to 2.4 or 5 GHz networks. There is a Realtek RTL8111G-CG chip too for Gigabit Ethernet should you need a wired connection.

The board has a total of 26 GPIO pins for connecting actuators and sensors and a 9-axis inertial navigation sensor with a compass too. The Atomic Pi packs in a real-time clock and battery too along with a comparatively huge heatsink despite its small size. The board measures just 130 x 100 x 50 mm with the heatsink attached or 20 mm with it removed, for reference.

The Atomic Pi is compatible with Windows and Linux, the latter of which Digital Loggers pre-installs. The company provides Debian and Ubuntu images too, which you can download here. The Atomic Pi is available on Amazon US or via Digital Loggers directly for US$34 and can be shipped worldwide. You must factor in shipping though, which can add up. You will need a 5V/4A power supply too that can deliver 4-15 W of power. Digital Loggers sells the Atomic Pi with a large breakout board too for US$49.