Reprogrammed Ants

Florida carpenter ants have specialized jobs where they either "major" which are soldier or "minor" which forage for food. Shelby Berger injected the "major" ants with trichostatin A from 0,5, or 10 days after adulthood. This was injected in the brain and caused numerous of their genes to be expressed differently. Some had changes in behavior, but the ants that were injected at 10 days did not; suggesting that behavior flexibility has a very short time frame. This can cause soldier ants to behave as the foragers.

I think this is a very interesting study. I wonder if this can be done with ants, what other species this can affect as well. The test seemed to mainly turn the soldier ants into foragers, but I wonder if it could work the other way as well. I believe it would because it seems to alter their genetics, so it should be the same.



https://www.the-scientist.com/image-of-the-day/image-of-the-day--reprogrammed-ants-66709

Related Article:
https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/reprogramming-carpenter-ants-epigenetics

Male Mice With No Y Chromosome

A new experiment suggests that a Y chromosome is no longer to needed to make a male. Scientists have taken mice and begun to "play" around with the chromosomes, making it possible that any detection of the Y chromosome simply does not exist. Some researchers believe that later in evolution  the Y chromosome will no longer be needed, other scientists disagree and so do I. The researchers found that the male mice that were made without the Y chromosome, could not produce sperm or had immature sperm. I think that without a Y chromosome, reproduction is not an option. Experimenters used the Sox9 gene usually turned on in females, was expressed, developing the male. These were the males that did not make sperm. For mice to make sperm they must have the Eif2s3y gene, therefore, if there was no Y chromosome, this gene is not there.

I find this article weird. Why would we try to find males without the Y chromosome? There is the X and Y chromosome which determines the sex, why are we looking for more options? I understand there are chromosome mutations such as Kleinfelter's Disease (XXY), but no Y at all, makes you a female. It is really an interesting topic, but very weird. It's hard to tell what scientists are trying to get from this type of study. 

New gene-editing enzyme, NgAgo, proving to be difficult replicate in lab

There are reports that a new enzyme can edit genes, but no one has been able to replicate the original experiment.

Extraordinary research that shows promise in altering mammalian DNA more efficiently than CRISPR-Cas9, but after multiple attempts, no one can recreate the experiment? What gives? There is a lot of speculation, but mostly complaints as to why researchers failed to replicate it.

There have been many controversial reports as to what the possible role of NgAgo is, but none of them involve editing of genes. One theory was that NgAgo was thought to clamp onto a gene and limit it's expression, noted in the experiment on eye development in zebrafish, but this were correct, the enzyme would not permanently change gene function that's passed down every generation.

Another theory was that temperature could play a key aspect to a successful experiment. The original experiment was carried out in a cool environment, which allows the bacteria, that makes the protein, lives.

Whether this protein's role is entirely different than what the original report says it is, needs to be kept in a cool environment, or just simply doesn't work, the debate surrounding this experiment is insane. Until the NgAgo experiment is published, we will never know whether this enzyme is used for gene editing.

Worldwide Brain-Mapping Initiative

Brain-mapping is defined by the study of anatomy and function of the brain and spinal cord through imaging. Brain mapping has been around for a few years but now researchers will apply all data found "in a global push" to fully understand the brain. Researchers held a meeting hosted by the U.S National Science Foundation at Rockefeller University to discuss the main goals of this project. One goal is to have universal brain-mapping tools. Many scientists from all over the world have great equipment to perform experiments. However, scientists can perform experiments quite differently when not in the same environment. This, thus, makes it complicated to exchange data and information. If the data is too difficult to exchange, than other scientists will not be able to re-perform experiments in order to test how accurate the data is. Another major goal is to create an International Brain Observatory. In this observatory, scientists from all around the world will have access to compelling microscopes, and etc. Thus being a virtual cloud-base resource center for sharing information on the brain. However, some feel like there are resources that are being ignored. For example, a nine-year old CBRAIN program in Canada is very similar to the International Brain Station proposed at Rockefeller University. I think there is a reason why not every country participates in the CBRAIN Program. Professional scientists would not waste time and money if they did not have too. This new idea is more suitable for exchanging information in a calmly manner. There are also money concerns- who will pay for all technology? I believe that once scientists all around the world exchange data more efficiently, than humans will be able to understand the complex brain and how it works.

Genetics involved in Risk-takers?

A recent study shows that people who are risk-takers may be motivated by their DNA. In recent years, scientists zeroed in on various sections of genes that affect the brain's levels or response to the neurotransmitter dopamine. Dopamine is a substance that is known to influence our feelings of pleasure, reward, and gratification. Scientist believed that people who enjoy extreme, daredevil conduct, likely process dopamine differently than those who are risk-averse. However, test were inconsistent.


Cynthia Thomson, a graduate student in the exercise physiology department at the University of British Columbia, formed a questionnaire and asked patrons between the ages of 17 and 19 to participate. A high score on the questionnaire indicates a strong tendency to take risks. Some volunteers gave a cheek swab for DNA typing.

While examining the swabs, Cynthia began focusing on the DRD4 genes, which are involved with the development and function of dopamine. She found that their was a difference of about three percent in the gene between those who are risk-takers and those who are risk-averse. This means that some people might have inherited the need to perform risky activities to reach the optimal level of arousal.

I have always wondered if there was anything responsible genetically for somebody's willingness to take risks. Personally, I am risk-averse. In terms of sports, some of the things that people do are life-threatening and they seem to do it without being nervous. Instead, it seems to satisfy them. It is very interesting that there is a possibility of genetics playing a role in determining who is a risk-taker or not.