GoogleNews.com, March 17, 2010, by Maggie Fox – WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Rudolf Jaenisch, whose stem cell lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has consistently broken new barriers in the field, is the world’s “hottest” researcher, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.
The annual hot list from Thomson Reuters’ Science Watch also names four genome experts at MIT and Harvard University’s Broad Institute – Mark Daly, David Altshuler, and Paul I.W. de Bakker and Eric Lander.
Biostatistician Goncalo Abecasis of the University of Michigan, who has worked with the Broad team, also makes the top 12 list, as do Manchester University materials professors Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov, who discovered graphene, the two-dimensional form of carbon and who also worked on a new adhesive known commonly as gecko tape.
Shizuo Akira of Osaka University, named by Thomson Reuters as the hottest researcher in 2005 and 2006, is on the list for work on toll-like receptors – which are molecular doorways on immune cells.
Carlo Croce from Ohio State University makes the list for papers on cancer genetics, theoretical physicist Mikhail Katsnelson from Radboud University in Nijmegen, Netherlands, is on the list for work on condensed matter and computer scientist Ji-Huan He from Donghua University in Shanghai, China is there for work figuring out how to break down complex problems.
“Our annual roundup of researchers who have authored multiple Hot Papers allows us to recognize those who are leading scientific thought,” said Christopher King, editor of Science Watch.
Thomson Reuters is the parent company of Reuters.
Science Watch uses Web of Science database to see which recent papers are being cited the most by other researchers.
“Many of the people featured in Chris King’s list over the last decade are people that I would put money on to eventually win a Nobel Prize,” Thomson Reuters’ David Pendelbury, who compiles the company’s annual Nobel predictions, said in a telephone interview.
“Hot papers are recently published papers, papers published in the past two years that are exceedingly highly cited right out of the blocks.”
Jaenisch, who works with embryonic stem cells and the new cells made out of skin cells called induced pluripotent stem cells or iPS cells, had 14 of the most cited papers.
Scientists share their discoveries by writing studies called papers, which are published by journals. Other researchers read them, poke holes in them, try to replicate them and use them as the basis for their own studies.
Each time they do, they credit the original paper by citing it. Scientists who are cited frequently are highly influential and so is their field of study, Pendelbury said.
“You really have to be contributor in an area that is recognized as an important area to your fellow researchers,” said Pendelbury. “It’s an index, really, of which fields are of most interest.”
Jaenisch’s highly cited research looks at using iPS cells to study Parkinson’s disease, sickle-cell anemia and other conditions.
Rudolf Jaenisch Discusses Stem Cell Research
About the Whitehead Institute
‘Embryonic’ From Skin
Regenerative Medicine – Tissue Engineering – Building Body Parts
The genetic makeup of microbes on a person’s skin could provide crime scene evidence
MIT Technology Review, March 17, 2010, by Alla Katsnelson – It’s not just our genomes that make us unique. The genomic profile of bacteria that rub off our fingertips and onto objects we touch–a computer keyboard, for instance–also provides a “fingerprint” that could be used for forensic purposes, according to researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
The researchers extracted bacterial DNA from numerous samples taken from the three keyboards and sequenced more than 1,400 copies of bacterial ribosomal gene from each sample to identify the individual species of bacteria each sample contained, finding they could match the three individuals with the keyboards they used. They then took swabs from computer mouses of nine different people. When they compared the bacteria found in the samples to a database of microbial communities found on 270 hands of people who had never touched any of the computer mouses, the researchers found that the bacteria on each person’s mouse was more similar to that on their hand than to samples in the database. So far, Fierer notes, the technique is extremely preliminary, but it could one day be as accurate as techniques like DNA or fingerprint analysis, he says.
The idea of using a microbial “signature” to identify individuals is not new, says David Relman, a professor of medicine, and of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University. For decades, researchers have wondered whether it may be possible to identify individuals based on, say, the unique strains of Escherichia coli harbored in their gut. Until recently, though, “all the ideas that were floating around couldn’t really be explored in a really detailed and methodical way,” Relman says.
In the past few years, faster and cheaper sequencing technology has paved the way for extensive studies of the various microbial communities harbored in the human body, and researchers have devised DNA “bar codes”–short strands of characteristic DNA–that allow them to easily identify species of bacteria.
“You could not do this literally three years ago,” says Lance Price, director of the Center for Metagenomics and Human Health at the Translational Genomics Research Institute in Arizona.
A handful of recent studies within the Human Microbiome Project, including one from the same researchers, have shown that the makeup of microbes in the skin of different individuals, and even those found on different parts of the same person’s body, varies consistently. The current study shows that “even the residue of microbiota that are left behind retains the features of individuality,” says Relman. As a forensics technique, he notes, “this is way too early for application, but one day this could become robust.”
The approach, when developed more fully, could potentially provide information where existing forensic techniques fall short, says Martin Blaser, a professor of medicine and microbiology at New York University. “When you just swab the skin, you get at least 100 times more microbial DNA than human DNA,” he says, so less material could give investigators a stronger signal.
Blaser also notes that fingerprints can’t be accurately read if they’re smudged, while a smudged print could still contain enough microbes to analyze. “The microbiome is us–it’s just another form of fingerprint, just like genomic DNA is us,” says Blaser, who wrote an accompanying commentary to the study, both published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
So far, though, a lot of questions remain about how accurate the technique can become. “We did these studies as a proof of concept,” says Fierer. “Now we need to do the hard work.”
For one thing, it is unclear whether an individual’s microbial signature could be retrieved if another person has touched the object being sampled. Another open question is just how stable an individual’s microbiome truly is. Antibiotics, for example, change an individual’s bacterial profile, although nobody knows for how long. A key step to developing the needed level of confidence, says Fierer, will be to expand the database of microbial communities found on individuals’ hands. Being able to compare a profile to a large number of other profiles will provide a baseline for extracting the truly individual elements.
However, says Relman, “the very reason that makes it more complex gives it all kinds of value that DNA will never have.” For example, he says, a person’s microbiota can reveal not just his or her identity–it can also give clues as to what that individual tends to eat, for example, or where he or she works or lives, so researchers could determine how the types of microbes carried on the body are dependent on such factors.
“I think this is the beginning of the process,” Relman says. “But we are going to need a lot more sources of the variation before we can still see the individual shining through.”