Rated my first paper in PLoS One

ResearchBlogging.org

Well, PLoS One has announced its rating system is open. See Chris Surridge’s Blog for more detail here. This is basically the first good system for trying out ratings for scientific publications in much the way it is done at YouTube and other Web 2.0 type systems.

I personally am not sure if I think PLoS One is the perfect system for scientific publishing. But we desperately need to try out new systems and as an Open Access Web 2.0 scientific publishing system, the concept is worth trying. So – I decided to try it.

I rated my first paper. I picked a paper by Xiang Xia Min and Donal Hickey on DNA barcoding. Why did I pick this paper. Well a few reasons. First, when I searched PLoS One for “metagenomics” and “metagenomic” it was one of the papers that came up. As soon as I saw the Barcoding title line I knew I had to look at this paper. Why? Well a few years ago, I posted a “dissent” on Faculty of 1000 about a paper on Barcoding. I stand by my dissent in that article. Basically I said that Barcoding sounded a heck of a lot like what Pace and others have been doing with rRNA surveying of uncultured microbes for a long long time. And it seems to me that the barcoding researchers are rediscovering some of the same findings and challenges that Pace and others found. Of course, not all can see my Faculty of 1000 review. Why? Well it is not Open Access. Bummer. Especially since the response by Hebert was unconvincing too … he basically said that rRNA was not used to delineate species. Apparently he had never heard of phylotypes or any of the extensive work using rRNA to do EXACTLY what they are suggesting mitochondrial genes could be used for in plants and animals.

Anyway – enough about Faculty of 1000. In the new paper, the authors discuss some aspects of barcoding and in particular they address whether one gene can represent all the genes in a mitochondrial genome. Basically, they say yes. But that is beside the point here. You want to know more. Read there paper here. And my comment here. That is yet another benefit of Open Access.

I call on everyone out there to find a paper in which you are interested and rate it and comment on it at PLoS One.

Min, X., & Hickey, D. (2007). DNA Barcodes Provide a Quick Preview of Mitochondrial Genome Composition PLoS ONE, 2 (3) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000325

When is a worm a microbe? When it is in the New York Times (in 1996)

Well, it is dangerous I guess to follow the ways people get to my blog. One person used the search terms “dr. david relman and the new worm”. And what did they get: this. The top hit is an article from 1996 in the New York Times by Lawrence Altman. The story reports on an article in the Lancet which itself reported the apparent connection of a new worm species to the death of an AIDS patient. The worm was identified by PCR surveys. Nevermind the details of the article. The most intriguing thing to me (especially since I did not then realize this was not a new article in the Times) … the line:

“The sequences were distinct from human DNA and placed the microbe in the tapeworm class”

Yes that’s right, the microbe was a worm. I know – it is a little late to be blogging about a 1996 article. But hey, I did not have a blog then and at the time I think I may have written a letter to the editor about the mistake, but I am not so sure anymore. So now I am correcting the record. Worms are in fact NOT microbes.

Metagenomics 2007 Update

Some brief notes on the Metagenomics 2007 meeting. For those who do not know – metagenomics is the simultaneous sequencing of the genomes of communities of microbes.

Day 1 : I missed the introductory talk by Larry Smarr (my flight was late). Then there was an opening poster session – a diverse collection of things. My favorite were those involving methods to sequence the genomes of single cells (e.g., one by Ramunas Stepanauskas). Such methods will be critical for getting reference genomes from organisms that are not abundant in a community but might nevertheless be important.

Then there was a dinner and a post dinner talk by Masahira Hattori. The talk was not overwhelmingly interesting … sort of a good example of metagenomics as a fad. Hattori has extensive experience in genome sequencing – having been involved in sequencing the human genome as well as the genomes of other large charismatic furry organisms. As with many people who worked on the human genome, he moved into microbial genomic studies. He has done some interesting things in this arena, the most interesting to me being the sequencing of the genome of a symbiotic bacteria called Carsonella. He did talk about this and I learned something I missed in the paper – this genome was sequenced with the aid of genome amplification methods (see above).

Then Hattori talked about his recent work on human microbiome metagenomics. He has done a lot of work in this area including a big project in which 80,000+ sequence reads were generated for 13 healthy Japanese individuals (both adults and children). I confess much of his results/analyses were not convincing – they seemed to me to be something of the order of “I know I should be doing metagenomics – here is some.” His talk did lead to one of the funnier moments of the meeting – someone asked a question that went something like this

“I know when I go to Japan my intestinal tract changes” leading to a groan from the audience and at least one “A little too much information” comment. The questioner was clearly going somewhere with then but before he got too far, Hattori interjected “It gets much better”

Day 2: Some notes.

Day 2 was a pleasant surprise. For many metagenomics related meetings you hear the same talks and the same data over and over and over again. That was not the case here.

The first talk was by Jed Furman. This was truly inspiring to me. He presented a tour de force of environmental microbiology where metagenomics was simply a component and he interwove the history of metagenomics too. Among his topics – use of ARISA in surveying microbes, studies of the functions present in marine archaea, species richness versus latitude, the scalar nature of sampling for microbes, changes in ocean communities over time, and functional redundancy. This to me is the ideal use of metagenomics – as a tool in other studies. In this sense I disagree with those who say metagenomics is a field. I view it more as a tool. A powerful tool, as Furman showed. But most powerful if used in the context of other studies. In particular he said “Remarkably few experiments other than sequencing have been done in environmental genomics and I hope that will change”

Other talks were by Dawn Field, David Relman, Jim Tiedje, Janet Jansson, Forest Rohwer, and Mitch Sogin. Just a few tidbits from these:

  • Janet Jannson who talked in part about a twin study of microbes associated with Crohn’s disease lauded the idea of a Genomic Encyclopedia for Bacteria and Archaea (a project I am leading at the JGI … if you want to know more stay tuned or ask). Also she referred to humans as “fermenters of microbes” a phrase I kind of like.
  • David Relman gave a good overview of his and others’ work on the human microbiome. One thing he emphasized was the need to remember that rare organisms can be important and that most metagenomics projects do not sample the rare bugs well. And he too then talked about single-cell genomics. He also mentioned a paper I have been waiting for and did not know it had come out. This is a paper on microbial colonization of the human gut in infants by Chana Palmer et al. (with Pat Brown as senior author). In this paper they use a rRNA chip to track microbes colonization infants. This paper is spectacular. Really.
  • Forest Rohwer, who talked most about coral associated microbes and coral damage by people started off by saying “This is my humans suck talk”

There were also breakout sessions, one of which I chaired on “Computational Metagenomics.” Our general conclusion from this – metagenomic informatics is really difficult, we need more interdisciplinary efforts to develop new approaches, and that more money is needed for computational efforts if we want to get the most out of metagenomic data (like we were going to say we need less money). All jokes aside, I do agree with this point – metagenomic sequence analysis is orders of magnitude more complex than analyzing any single-organisms genome. And we need a major ratheting up of computational efforts if we are to get the most out of these data sets that are being produced.

Metagenomics 2007 – streaming live

If you are interested in Metagenomics – log on to the Webcast here.

More info on the meeting can be found here.

News Story titles you don’t want to see – Va. May Increase Freshwater Fecal Bacteria Limit

Just a quick one here … talk about story lines you really do not want to hear or see. What I really want is more fecal bacteria in my lakes and rivers.

Genome Transplantation – Coming to a Bacteria Bacterium Near You

Well, I was interviewed yesterday by the AP (see the AP article here) relating to an article in Science on Genome Transplantation by John Glass, Craig Venter, and crew and the Venter Institute. Their article is coming out in tomorrow’s Science. Though this was not published in an Open Access journal, I think this one is definitely worth talking about and looking at.

Here is what they did, in a nutshell. Took one mycosplasma species (mycoplasma are bacteria that do not have cell walls and have very small genomes) and very carefully removed its chromosome. They then mixed this with a recipient mycoplasma that had some detectable genetic differences. And they then selected for cells that had a antibiotic resistance function found only in the “donor” genome. And they got some growth. And surprisingly, many of the cells that grew up appear to have COMPLETELY replaced the endogenous genome with the donor genome. Thus they use the term genome transplantation.

It seems like a pretty solid paper, although I still am not 100% convinced that these are not some relics of the original donor cells that simply made it through the genome extraction processes intact (this is very unlikely given their controls but still possible). Assuming that they really have genome transplantation, it is a pretty cool result.

Why? Well, it means that at least in some sense, they can use this as a tool in synthetic genomics. One of the big limitations of synthetic biology right now is how one would make a genome in vitro of a bacteria and then get this genome to “boot up” into a cell. For viruses, they can make genomes in the test tube and get the virus to be created because viruses are cellular parasites and all they have to do is get the DNA for the virus to be packaged in the right way into a cell or viral capsid. But for a bacteria, things are much different. The challenge has been how to get a recipient cell to boot up a new genome and delete its own or at least silence its own. And without going into all the gory details, this has proven challenging.

So – now genome transplantation. On the one hand, it can serve as a way to boot up a new genome. However, it probably has limited potential in many ways since to get the new genome to effectively replace the old one, it has to not only be replicated, but the machinery of the cell present in the recipient has to work well enough on all the key components of the donor genome to get the booting up to work. For example, all the promoters in the donor genome must be transcribed efficiently by the recipients machinery, at least for the RNA and protein synthesis machinery genes, so that the donor stuff can get made. And of course the replication origin and other replication features must all work as well. What this means is that I think genome transplantation will only work if the donor and recipient are very similar to each other for most of the housekeeping genes and functions. So this is not yet ready to work for all of synthetic biology. But it still seems pretty cool.

Evolution is … WTF?

OK

I know I am a little dim (well, maybe a lot). And maybe something was lost in the translation of putting this on the web. But WTF? Can someone explain to me what the point of the NY Times “story” entitled “Evolution is” with a bunch of quotes?

And again, WTF? Why did they pick these quotes?

Like this one by Gould

“It touches all our lives; for how can we be indifferent to the great questions of genealogy: where did we come from and what does it all mean? and then, of course, there are all those organisms: more than a million described species, from bacterium to blue whale, with one hell of a lot of beetles in between – each with its own beauty, and each with a story to tell.” – Stephen Jay Gould

and this one by Maynard Smith

“As an evolutionary biologist, I have learned over the years that most people do not want to see themselves as lumbering robots programmed to ensure the survival of their genes.” – John Maynard Smith

Anyone out there have the inside scoop on this?

Southwest Airlines Supports Evolution

Congrats to Southwest Airlines. On a recent flight coming back to Davis from San Diego I saw a nice 1 pager in their Spirit Magazine promoting the Darwin exhibit currently on display at the Field Museum in Chicago. Many places shy away from saying anything about evolution for fear of antagonizing ID supporters. In fact, I cannot recall ever seeing anything on evolution in anyother airline magazine. Kudos to Southwest. Another reason to fly them. For those airlines that shy away from topics like evolution in their magazines, do they also shy away from physics and math in their engineering departments?

Trip to the Creation Museum

Just a quick post suggesting people check out the slashdot story on a field trip to the creation musuem. Thanks to Doug Rusch for pointing this out.

Support Open Access – write your Congressional Reps

To all supporters of Open Access publications. Please consider writing / faxing your Congressional Reps as there is a lobbying effort going on by supporters of closed access. For more information see the Alliance for Taxpayer Access site.

The most important to write to are the members of the House Appropriations Committee

Nita M. Lowey (NY)
District: http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/pdf/congdist/NY18_109.pdf
Phone: (202) 225-6506

Rosa L. DeLauro (CT)
District: http://www.house.gov/delauro/our_community.html
Phone: 202-225-3661

Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (IL)
District: http://www.house.gov/jackson/District.shtml
Phone: (202) 225-0773

Patrick J. Kennedy (RI)
District: http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/congress.html#ri
Phone: (202) 225-4911

Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA)
District: http://www.house.gov/roybal-allard/district.shtml
Phone: (202) 225-1766

Barbara Lee (CA)
District: http://lee.house.gov/index.cfm?SectionID=7&ParentID=0&SectionTypeID=2&SectionTree=7
Phone: (202) 225-2661

Tom Udall (NM)
District: http://tomudall.house.gov/display2.cfm?id=5266&type=KidsZone
Phone: 202-225-6190

Michael Honda (CA)
District: http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/CA15_109.gif
Phone: (202) 225-2631

Betty McCollum (MN)
District: http://mccollum.house.gov/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={7744FE23-1C14-4D6C-8864-2271EF5A7DBD}
Phone: (202) 225-6631

Tim Ryan (OH)
District: http://timryan.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=122&Itemid=11
Phone: 202-225-5261