Friday’s Elk, July 8, 2016

Posted on by Matt Kristoffersen

Last summer, I found a way to get my genome sequenced–and to get my hands on the raw data.

I then enlisted a couple dozen scientists to join me on a trip into my DNA, pushing beyond standard genetic counseling to discover the weirdness the lurks in all our genomes. I encountered ancient viruses, Neanderthal genes, broken genetic switches, and genes that protect me from diseases.

The experience was so rich and rewarding that I ended up writing a three-part series about it for Stat. The first part will come out on Stat Monday morning. The next two will come out the following Mondays. I hope you enjoy it! (And for scientists and other genome junkies, I’m going to set up a parallel site where all the data will be freely available.) Continue reading “Friday’s Elk, July 8, 2016” →

Friday’s Elk, July 1, 2016

Posted on by Matt Kristoffersen

Happy July! Here are a couple things I published this week. I’ve also got a big project to unveil soon that I hope you’ll enjoy. I’ll spill some details in next week’s newsletter.
 

What Do We Really Know About Epigenetics?

Epigenetics is one of those subjects that’s irresistible to a science writer. Our DNA is enveloped by proteins and molecular caps that influence how active our genes can get. Some studies have suggested these epigenetic marks are the way in which the environment can reach into our cells and alter the workings of our DNA. But there’s a big debate in the epigenetics field about just how meaningful that research is. The studies may only be uncovering biological randomness, or perhaps some other process in our cells. Given that I’ve written my own share of articles about epigenetics (here and here, for example), I decided I needed to pay some attention to the skeptics, too. That’s the subject of my column this week in the New York Times. Continue reading “Friday’s Elk, July 1, 2016” →

Growing Pains for Field of Epigenetics as Some Call for Overhaul

Posted on by admin

The New York Times, July 1, 2016

Link

Our genes are not just naked stretches of DNA.

They’re coiled into intricate three-dimensional tangles, their lengths decorated with tiny molecular “caps.” These so-called epigenetic marks are crucial to the workings of the genome: They can silence some genes and activate others.

Epigenetic marks are crucial for our development. Among other functions, they direct a single egg to produce the many cell types, including blood and brain cells, in our bodies. But some high-profile studies have recently suggested something more: that the environment can change your epigenetic marks later in life, and that those changes can have long-lasting effects on health.

Continue reading “Growing Pains for Field of Epigenetics as Some Call for Overhaul” →

Friday’s Elk, June 24, 2016

Posted on by Matt Kristoffersen

Greetings from Durham!

Durham isn’t quite the brutal oven that Austin was, but it’s pretty sultry. I’m here for the annual International Society for Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health meeting. I gave a plenary talk about reporting on evolutionary medicine. Some stories virtually write themselves, while others, on tricky concepts like imprinting, require a lot of wrestling. With my talk over, I get to enjoy a couple days of presentations about research about everything from sex chromosomes to mountain sickness. Continue reading “Friday’s Elk, June 24, 2016” →

Memory researchers were rebuffed by science, and came roaring back

Posted on by admin

STAT, June 23, 2016

Link

NEW YORK — Andre Fenton got to design his lab when he joined the Center for Neural Science at New York University a few years ago, and he made sure that he had a lot of closet space. But his closets do not contain brooms or shoes.

Each one is lined with black curtains and has wires and cameras hanging from the ceiling. In the middle of each closet is a disk where Fenton places mice or rats. As the rodents explore the arena, they soon discover that one section delivers a shock. It’s a lesson they don’t soon forget.

Continue reading “Memory researchers were rebuffed by science, and came roaring back” →