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



已有 7776 次阅读 2016-8-10 05:39 |个人分类:反民科|系统分类:论文交流

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


BURGIO实验的失败是对韩春雨论文的部分验证。韩的论文指出只有当 NgAgo 蛋白在表达时导引才能被装载,他明示的流程是在 NgAgo 之后 多次转染 gDNA。逻辑上,根据韩春雨的论文,如果只是同时注入两者,则非常可能失败(否则韩为什么要强调先后)。BURGIO博士一次性地同时将 NgAgo 与 gDNA 注入老鼠受精卵,新的鼠种没有横空出世令人失望(注一)。但这正是我们从阅读韩春雨论文应该期待的结果。

迄今为止,只有两位实名人士在中国站出来针对韩,一个是方舟子,另外一人我在前面没有提到名字。如我之前所说,两人都已经被完全否定为缺乏可信度。如上所述,目前唯一被完整报道的实验 -- BURGIO博士的 -- 实际验证了韩的一个发现(韩说要多次,BURGIO发现一次不行)



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.


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?)


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.


下一篇:从韩春雨实验谈纯水pH 值>7

12 蔡小宁 许培扬 田云川 李颖业 吴炬 符建 赵振华 吴世凯 梅志平 姚小鸥 李学宽 xlianggg

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (13 个评论)


Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备14006957 )

GMT+8, 2020-1-24 08:03

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社