yuedongxiao的个人博客分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/yuedongxiao

博文

NATURE上的评论(中文)

已有 5457 次阅读 2016-8-9 15:33 |系统分类:论文交流

《自然》杂志网站登出了新闻,标题是《Replications, ridicule and a recluse: the controversy over NgAgo gene-editing intensifies》(重复、嘲讽与隐士:NgAgo 基因编辑风波越演越烈)。
链接: http://www.nature.com/news/replications-ridicule-and-a-recluse-the-controversy-over-ngago-gene-editing-intensifies-1.20387

我在上面的评论如下(英译中):

下面是我对中国发生的有关韩氏 NgAgo 激烈辩论的一个总结。

1. 方舟子鲁莽的作假指控仅仅是由于他未能理解韩的论文及分子生物概念不清。方舟子的一个超级粉丝都向他指出他对论文中电泳图的解读错误。方还把基因编辑靶点的距离当成了DNA片段的大小差。

2. 另外一个实名人士(方的主要信息来源)在网上的直接辩论中丧失可信度,因为未考虑 NgAgo 的剪切机制(在靶点附近去掉多达20个核苷酸)。

3. 正如韩的论文所说, NgAgo 蛋白只有在表达时才能装载导引。澳洲BURGIO博士承认他没有按照韩论文中重点强调的程序操作(那又怎么能成功?)

至此,所谓作假的指控已被证明为缺乏根据。一次成功的重复就足以定性地证明韩的结果。但愿对韩的怀疑与嘲讽将引发更多的好奇与研究并得出更为确定的答案,而不是因为误导而放弃一个可能具有巨大潜力的基因编辑工具。


The following is a summary of some very heated debate in China on the Han NgAgo paper.

1. Fang's rash accusation of fraud was a mere result of his misunderstandings of the Han paper and molecular biology in general. Even one of Fang's ardent supporters pointed out to him that he misinterpreted the electrophoresis bands presented in the paper. Fang further mistook distances between target sites for DNA segment size deltas.

2. Another named person, who was Fang's main source, has been discredited in a direct online debate, for failing to consider NgAgo's effect of removing 1 to 20 nts at the target site.

3. As stated in Han's paper, the guide can be loaded only when the NgAgo protein is in the process of expression. Dr. Burgio admitted that he did not follow a starred procedure in Han's published protocol.

Thus far, the accusations of fraud have been shown to be unfounded. A single successful replication is sufficient to qualitatively vindicate Han's result. Hopefully, the suspicion and ridicule will trigger more curiosity and research to bring about more definitive answers, instead of misguided abandonment of a potentially potent tool for gene editing.


The failure of the Burgio experiment is actually a partial validation of Han's paper. Han theorized that the guides can be loaded only when NgAgo is in expression, and he taught the procedure of multiple transfection of gDNA post NgAgo. Logically, according to Han, if one loads both the same time, he or she is very likely to fail. Dr. Burgio co-injected the NgAgo and gDNA once simultaneously into mouse zygotes, and was disappointed when a new breed failed to emerge. But this is exactly what one would expect from reading Han's paper.

So far, only two named people spoke up against Han in China, one is Shimin Fang, the other I mentioned but withheld the name. Both have been thoroughly discredited, as I explained in the previous comment. As discussed above, the only fully reported experiment, that of Dr. Burgio, served to prove one of Han's findings.

The orchestrated attacks on Han in Chinese cyberspace by a small anonymous gang is disruptive of scientific and societal norms. A rational person can easily identify the logical breakdown in their deductions. The incredible stories told by these anonymous IDs are quickly dismissed as pure fabrication and defamation in China. Yet as they spread the products of their illogical minds across the internet, the gullible may regard their crude fiction as insider information. Beware.





韩春雨事件
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-684007-995439.html

上一篇:NATURE新闻论韩氏NgAgo以及我的评论
下一篇:NATURE上韩春雨NgAgo评论(2)

16 蔡小宁 许培扬 李颖业 吕喆 田云川 符建 吉宗祥 姚小鸥 强涛 gaorenye kes xlianggg NaughtyGuy tanbow yunpeng3 XLONG001

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (11 个评论)

数据加载中...

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备14006957 )

GMT+8, 2020-1-29 01:15

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部