Mendelian Genetics

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Mendelian Genetics KLUGMC03_038-060HR 10/18/06 1:01 PM Page 38 CHAPTER 3 Mendelian Genetics Gregor Johann Mendel, who in 1866 put forward the major postulates of transmission genetics as a result of experiments with the garden pea. C HAPTER C ONCEPTS ■ Inheritance is governed by information ■ During gamete formation, chromosomes other segregating homologs during gamete stored in discrete factors called genes. are distributed according to postulates first formation. ■ Genes are transmitted from generation described by Gregor Mendel, based on his ■ Genetic ratios, expressed as probabilities, to generation on vehicles called nineteenth-century research with the are subject to chance deviation and may be chromosomes. garden pea. evaluated statistically. ■ ■ Chromosomes, which exist in pairs, provide Mendelian postulates prescribe that ■ The analysis of pedigrees allows predictions the basis of biparental inheritance. homologous chromosomes segregate from involving the genetic nature of one another and assort independently with human traits. 38 KLUGMC03_038-060HR 10/18/06 1:01 PM Page 39 3.2 The Monohybrid Cross Reveals How One Trait Is Transmitted from Generation to Generation 39 lthough inheritance of biological traits has been recog- science for the next 16 years. Mendel received support from nized for thousands of years, the first significant the monastery for his studies and research throughout his life. insights into the mechanisms involved occurred about In 1856, Mendel performed his first set of hybridization A experiments with the garden pea. The research phase of his 135 years ago. In 1866, Gregor Johann Mendel published the results of a series of experiments that would lay the founda- career lasted until 1868, when he was elected abbot of the tion for the formal discipline of genetics. Mendel’s work went monastery. Although he retained his interest in genetics, his largely unnoticed until the turn of the century, but in the ensu- new responsibilities demanded most of his time. In 1884, ing years the concept of the gene as a distinct hereditary unit Mendel died of a kidney disorder. The local newspaper paid was established. The ways in which genes, as members of him the following tribute: chromosomes, are transmitted to offspring and control traits “His death deprives the poor of a benefactor, and were clarified. Research continued unabated throughout the mankind at large of a man of the noblest character, one twentieth century—indeed, studies in genetics, most recently who was a warm friend, a promoter of the natural at the molecular level, have remained continually at the fore- sciences, and an exemplary priest.” front of biological research since the early 1900s. When Mendel began his studies of inheritance using Pisum Mendel first reported the results of some simple genetic sativum, the garden pea, chromosomes and the role and mech- crosses between certain strains of the garden pea in 1865. anism of meiosis were totally unknown. Nevertheless, he Although his was not the first attempt to provide experimental determined that discrete units of inheritance exist and pre- evidence pertaining to inheritance, Mendel’s success where dicted their behavior during the formation of gametes. Subse- others failed can be attributed, at least in part, to his elegant quent investigators, with access to cytological data, were able model of experimental design and analysis. to relate their observations of chromosome behavior during Mendel showed remarkable insight into the methodology nec- meiosis to Mendel’s principles of inheritance. Once this corre- essary for good experimental biology. He chose an organism lation was made, Mendel’s postulates were accepted as the that is easy to grow and hybridize artificially. The pea plant is basis for the study of what is known as transmission genetics. self-fertilizing in nature but is easy to crossbreed experimental- ly. It reproduces well and grows to maturity in a single season. Mendel followed seven visible features (unit characters), each represented by two contrasting forms, or traits (Figure 3–1). How Do We Know? For the character stem height, for example, he experimented with the traits tall and dwarf. He selected six other visibly con- In this chapter, we focus on how Mendel was able to derive the trasting pairs of traits involving seed shape and color, pod shape essential postulates that explain inheritance. As you study this and color, and pod and flower arrangement. From local seed topic, you should try to answer several fundamental questions: merchants, Mendel obtained true-breeding strains—those in 1. How did Mendel know that unit factors existed as which each trait appeared unchanged generation after generation fundamental genetic components if he could not directly in self-fertilizing plants. observe them? There were several reasons for Mendel’s success. In addi- 2. How do we know that an organism expressing a dominant tion to his choice of a suitable organism, he restricted his trait is homozygous or heterozygous? examination to one or very few pairs of contrasting traits in each experiment. He also kept accurate quantitative records, a 3. In genetic data, how do we know that deviation from necessity in genetic experiments. From the analysis of the expected ratio is due to chance rather than another his data, Mendel derived certain postulates that became independent factor? principles of transmission genetics. 4. How do we know how a trait is inherited in humans? The results of Mendel’s experiments were unappreciated until the turn of the century, well after his death. However, once Mendel’s publications were rediscovered by geneticists investi- 3.1 Mendel Used a Model gating the function and behavior of chromosomes, the implica- Experimental Approach to Study tions of his postulates were immediately apparent. He had discovered the basis for the transmission of hereditary traits! Patterns of Inheritance Johann Mendel was born in 1822 to a peasant family in the central European village of Heinzendorf. An excellent student 3.2 The Monohybrid Cross Reveals in high school, he studied philosophy for several years after- How One Trait Is Transmitted ward, and in 1843 he was admitted to the Augustinian from Generation to Generation Monastery of St. Thomas in Brno, now part of the Czech Republic, taking the name Gregor. In 1849, he was relieved of Mendel’s simplest crosses involved only one pair of contrast- pastoral duties and accepted a teaching appointment that last- ing traits. Each such experiment is a monohybrid cross, ed several years. From 1851 to 1853, he attended the Univer- which is made by mating true-breeding individuals from two sity of Vienna, where he studied physics and botany. He parent strains, each exhibiting one of the two contrasting forms returned to Brno in 1854, where he taught physics and natural of the character under study. Initially, we examine the first KLUGMC03_038-060HR 10/18/06 1:01 PM Page 40 40 Chapter 3 Mendelian Genetics Character Contrasting traits F1 results F2 results F2 ratio 5474 round round/wrinkled all round 2.96:1 1850 wrinkled Seeds 6022 yellow yellow/green all yellow 3.01:1 2001 green 882 full full/constricted all full 2.95:1 299 constricted Pods 428 green green/yellow all green 2.82:1 152 yellow Flower violet/white 705 violet color all violet 224 white 3.15:1 Flower 651 axial axial/terminal all axial 3.14:1 position 207 terminal Stem 787 tall tall/dwarf all tall 2.84:1 length 277 dwarf FIGURE 3-1 Seven pairs of contrasting traits and the results of Mendel’s seven monohybrid crosses of the garden pea (Pisum sativum). In each case, pollen derived from plants exhibiting one trait was used to fertilize the ova of plants exhibiting the other trait. In the F1 generation, one of the two traits was exhibited by all plants. The contrasting trait reappeared in approximately 1 4 of the F plants. > 2 generation of offspring of such a cross, and then we consider shown in Figure 3–1. In every case, the outcome was similar the results of selfing, the offspring of self-fertilizing individu- to the tall/dwarf cross just described. All F1 offspring were als from this first generation. The original parents constitute identical to one of the parents, but in the F2 offspring, an the P1 , or parental, generation, their offspring are the F1 , or approximate ratio of 3:1 was obtained. That is, three-fourths first filial generation, and the individuals resulting from the looked like the F1 plants, while one-fourth exhibited the con- selfed F1 generation are the F2 , or second filial generation. trasting trait, which had disappeared in the F1 generation. We can continue to follow subsequent generations. We will point out one further aspect of Mendel’s monohy- The cross between true-breeding pea plants with tall stems brid crosses. In each cross, the F1 and F2 patterns of inheri- and dwarf stems is representative of Mendel’s monohybrid tance were similar regardless of which P1 plant served as the crosses. Tall and dwarf are contrasting traits of the character source of pollen (sperm) and which served as the source of the of stem height. Unless tall or dwarf plants are crossed togeth- ovum (egg). The crosses could be made either way—pollination er or with another strain, they will undergo self-fertilization of dwarf plants by tall plants or vice versa. These are called and breed true, producing their respective traits generation reciprocal crosses. Therefore, the results of Mendel’s mono- after generation. However, when Mendel crossed tall plants hybrid crosses were not sex-dependent. with dwarf plants, the resulting F1 generation consisted only To explain these results, Mendel proposed the existence of of tall plants. When members of the F1 generation were particular unit factors for each trait. He suggested that these selfed, Mendel observed that 787 of 1064 F2 plants were tall, factors serve as the basic units of heredity and are passed while the remaining 277 were dwarf.
Recommended publications
  • 書 名 等 発行年 出版社 受賞年 備考 N1 Ueber Das Zustandekommen Der
    書 名 等 発行年 出版社 受賞年 備考 Ueber das Zustandekommen der Diphtherie-immunitat und der Tetanus-Immunitat bei thieren / Emil Adolf N1 1890 Georg thieme 1901 von Behring N2 Diphtherie und tetanus immunitaet / Emil Adolf von Behring und Kitasato 19-- [Akitomo Matsuki] 1901 Malarial fever its cause, prevention and treatment containing full details for the use of travellers, University press of N3 1902 1902 sportsmen, soldiers, and residents in malarious places / by Ronald Ross liverpool Ueber die Anwendung von concentrirten chemischen Lichtstrahlen in der Medicin / von Prof. Dr. Niels N4 1899 F.C.W.Vogel 1903 Ryberg Finsen Mit 4 Abbildungen und 2 Tafeln Twenty-five years of objective study of the higher nervous activity (behaviour) of animals / Ivan N5 Petrovitch Pavlov ; translated and edited by W. Horsley Gantt ; with the collaboration of G. Volborth ; and c1928 International Publishing 1904 an introduction by Walter B. Cannon Conditioned reflexes : an investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex / by Ivan Oxford University N6 1927 1904 Petrovitch Pavlov ; translated and edited by G.V. Anrep Press N7 Die Ätiologie und die Bekämpfung der Tuberkulose / Robert Koch ; eingeleitet von M. Kirchner 1912 J.A.Barth 1905 N8 Neue Darstellung vom histologischen Bau des Centralnervensystems / von Santiago Ramón y Cajal 1893 Veit 1906 Traité des fiévres palustres : avec la description des microbes du paludisme / par Charles Louis Alphonse N9 1884 Octave Doin 1907 Laveran N10 Embryologie des Scorpions / von Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov 1870 Wilhelm Engelmann 1908 Immunität bei Infektionskrankheiten / Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov ; einzig autorisierte übersetzung von Julius N11 1902 Gustav Fischer 1908 Meyer Die experimentelle Chemotherapie der Spirillosen : Syphilis, Rückfallfieber, Hühnerspirillose, Frambösie / N12 1910 J.Springer 1908 von Paul Ehrlich und S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Non-Human Primates in Research in Primates Non-Human of Use The
    The use of non-human primates in research The use of non-human primates in research A working group report chaired by Sir David Weatherall FRS FMedSci Report sponsored by: Academy of Medical Sciences Medical Research Council The Royal Society Wellcome Trust 10 Carlton House Terrace 20 Park Crescent 6-9 Carlton House Terrace 215 Euston Road London, SW1Y 5AH London, W1B 1AL London, SW1Y 5AG London, NW1 2BE December 2006 December Tel: +44(0)20 7969 5288 Tel: +44(0)20 7636 5422 Tel: +44(0)20 7451 2590 Tel: +44(0)20 7611 8888 Fax: +44(0)20 7969 5298 Fax: +44(0)20 7436 6179 Fax: +44(0)20 7451 2692 Fax: +44(0)20 7611 8545 Email: E-mail: E-mail: E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Web: www.acmedsci.ac.uk Web: www.mrc.ac.uk Web: www.royalsoc.ac.uk Web: www.wellcome.ac.uk December 2006 The use of non-human primates in research A working group report chaired by Sir David Weatheall FRS FMedSci December 2006 Sponsors’ statement The use of non-human primates continues to be one the most contentious areas of biological and medical research. The publication of this independent report into the scientific basis for the past, current and future role of non-human primates in research is both a necessary and timely contribution to the debate. We emphasise that members of the working group have worked independently of the four sponsoring organisations. Our organisations did not provide input into the report’s content, conclusions or recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • JUAN MANUEL 2016 NOBEL PEACE PRIZE RECIPIENT Culture Friendship Justice
    Friendship Volume 135, № 1 Character Culture JUAN MANUEL SANTOS 2016 NOBEL PEACE PRIZE RECIPIENT Justice LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT Dear Brothers, It is an honor and a privilege as your president to have the challenges us and, perhaps, makes us question our own opportunity to share my message with you in each edition strongly held beliefs. But it also serves to open our minds of the Quarterly. I generally try to align my comments and our hearts to our fellow neighbor. It has to start with specific items highlighted in each publication. This with a desire to listen, to understand, and to be tolerant time, however, I want to return to the theme “living our of different points of view and a desire to be reasonable, Principles,” which I touched upon in a previous article. As patient and respectful.” you may recall, I attempted to outline and describe how Kelly concludes that it is the diversity of Southwest’s utilization of the Four Founding Principles could help people and “treating others like you would want to be undergraduates make good decisions and build better treated” that has made the organization successful. In a men. It occurred to me that the application of our values similar way, Stephen Covey’s widely read “Seven Habits of to undergraduates only is too limiting. These Principles are Highly Effective People” takes a “values-based” approach to indeed critical for each of us at this particularly turbulent organizational success. time in our society. For DU to be a successful organization, we too, must As I was flying back recently from the Delta Upsilon be able to work effectively with our varied constituents: International Fraternity Board of Directors meeting in undergraduates, parents, alumni, higher education Arizona, I glanced through the February 2017 edition professionals, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • OUTLINE 12 IV. Mendel's Work D. the Dihybrid Cross 1. Qualitative Results 2
    OUTLINE 12 IV. Mendel's Work D. The dihybrid cross 1. qualitative results 2. quantitative results E. Summary of Mendel's Rules V. Probability Theory and Patterns of Inheritance A. Definitions B. Rules for probability 1. independent outcomes 2. the product rule 3. single event; multiple outcomes 4. the addition rule C. Application to the dihybrid cross VI. Extensions of Mendel’s Rules Fig 14.2 A monohybrid cross Fig 14.3 P Homozygous P P Heterozygous p P p P PP Pp p Pp pp Genotypes: PP, Pp, pp genotype ratio: 1:2:1 Phenotypes: Purple, white phenotype ratio: 3:1 Fig. 14.6 A Test Cross Table 14.1 Fig. 14.7 A Dihybrid Cross Mendel’s Laws (as he stated them) Law of unit factors “Inherited characters are controlled by discrete factors in pairs” Law of segregation “When gametes are formed, the factors segregate…and recombine in the next generation.” Law of dominance: “of the two factors controlling a trait, one may dominate the other.” Law of independent assortment: “one pair of factors can segregate from a second pair of factors.” When all outcomes of an event are equally likely, the probability that a particular outcome will occur is #ways to obtain that outcome / total # possible outcomes Examples: In a coin toss P[heads] - 1/2 (or 0.5) In tossing one die P[2] = 1/6 In tossing one die P[even #] = 3/6 Drawing a card P[Queen of spades] = 1/52 The “AND” rule Probability of observing event 1 AND event 2 = the product of their independent probabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • INTRODUCTION to GENETICS Table of Contents Heredity, Historical
    INTRODUCTION TO GENETICS Table of Contents Heredity, historical perspectives | The Monk and his peas | Principle of segregation Dihybrid Crosses | Mutations | Genetic Terms | Links Heredity, Historical Perspective | Back to Top For much of human history people were unaware of the scientific details of how babies were conceived and how heredity worked. Clearly they were conceived, and clearly there was some hereditary connection between parents and children, but the mechanisms were not readily apparent. The Greek philosophers had a variety of ideas: Theophrastus proposed that male flowers caused female flowers to ripen; Hippocrates speculated that "seeds" were produced by various body parts and transmitted to offspring at the time of conception, and Aristotle thought that male and female semen mixed at conception. Aeschylus, in 458 BC, proposed the male as the parent, with the female as a "nurse for the young life sown within her". During the 1700s, Dutch microscopist Anton van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) discovered "animalcules" in the sperm of humans and other animals. Some scientists speculated they saw a "little man" (homunculus) inside each sperm. These scientists formed a school of thought known as the "spermists". They contended the only contributions of the female to the next generation were the womb in which the homunculus grew, and prenatal influences of the womb. An opposing school of thought, the ovists, believed that the future human was in the egg, and that sperm merely stimulated the growth of the egg. Ovists thought women carried eggs containing boy and girl children, and that the gender of the offspring was determined well before conception.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Organizations and Major Discoveries in Twentieth-Century Science: a Case Study of Excellence in Biomedical Research
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Hollingsworth, Joseph Rogers Working Paper Research organizations and major discoveries in twentieth-century science: A case study of excellence in biomedical research WZB Discussion Paper, No. P 02-003 Provided in Cooperation with: WZB Berlin Social Science Center Suggested Citation: Hollingsworth, Joseph Rogers (2002) : Research organizations and major discoveries in twentieth-century science: A case study of excellence in biomedical research, WZB Discussion Paper, No. P 02-003, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB), Berlin This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/50229 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu P 02 – 003 RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS AND MAJOR DISCOVERIES IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY SCIENCE: A CASE STUDY OF EXCELLENCE IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH J.
    [Show full text]
  • Virus and Cancer: a Controversial Theory
    CONTRIBUTIONS to SCIENCE, 1 (1): 87-98 (1999) Institut d’Estudis Catalans, Barcelona Francesc Duran Reynals (Barcelona, 1899-New Haven, USA, 1958) Virus and cancer: a controversial theory Thomas F. Glick1* and Antoni Roca Rosell2* 1 Department of History, Boston University, USA 2 Centre de Recerca d’Història de la Tècnica, ETSEIB-UPC, Barcelona Francesc Duran Reynals was most likely the first Catalan to had been rector of the University of Barcelona and, for a few become a research scientist of world renown [1]. months, minister of justice of the Spanish government, pre- Around 1900 both science and technology were well rep- cisely during the year in which Francesc was born. As for his resented in Catalan society. But those with the highest pro- mother, Agnès Reynals i Maillol, she was a daughter of files were the applied fields, such as industrial technology, Estanislau Reynals i Rabassa (1822-1876), also a jurist and medicine, or surgery. The weak initiatives of the Spanish an important protagonist of the political organization of state in this area (demonstrated in, for example, a very small Catalan conservatism and of economic protectionism. university with no outlets for research) practically prevented Francesc’s father, Manuel, died prematurely in 1906, just af- the existence of any relevant academic world [2]. At the na- ter the death, equally premature, of his wife. Their five sons tional level science and higher education policy were cen- –of whom Francesc was the youngest-were placed in the tered on the University of Madrid, but in the first decades of care of their mother’s three sisters, Paulita, Pilar and Anna the century the establishment of research centers was in fact Reynals, and their niece, Paulita Farriols i Reynals, who considered.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture No. IV
    Course: Fundamentals of Genetics Class: - Ist Year, IInd Semester Lecture No. IV Title of topic: - Monohybrid crosses, Di-hybrid crosses, Test cross and Back cross Prepared by- Vinod Kumar, Assistant Professor, (PB & G) College of Agriculture, Powarkheda Monohybrid crosses:—Crosses between parents that differed in a single characteristic. The character (S) being studied in a monohybrid cross are governed by two or multiple variations for a single locus. The Mendel’s first law i.e. Law of segregation or purity of gametes can be explained by considering the monohybrid ratio i.e. by studying inheritance of only one character. For example: In pea, round seed shape is dominant over wrinkled seed shape. Generation Parental Parents Female X Male Phenotype Round X Wrinkled Genotype RR X rr Gametes R r Generation F1 Rr (Heterozygous) Round On selfing: Parents Female X Male Phenotype Round X round Genotype Rr X Rr Gametes R r R r Generation F2 ♂ R r ♀ RR Rr R Round Round r Rr rr Round Wrinkled Phenotype ratio: 3 round : 1 wrinkled Genotypic ratio: 1 RR : 2Rr : 1rr Two different alleles of the same gene i.e. ‘R’ and ‘r’ were brought together in the hybrid (F1). Even though the hybrid was round seeded in the next generation (F2) it produced both round and wrinkled seeded progeny. Thus both the alleles for round shape (R) and wrinkled shape (r) remained together in the hybrid without contaminating each other. In F2 generation (selfing of (F1) hybrid), the different phenotypes could be recovered because the two alleles in F1 remained pure and did not contaminate each other thus producing two types of gametes from F1 i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • ZOOLOGY GENETICS Topic: Back Cross & Test Cross
    ZOOLOGY GENETICS Topic: Back Cross & Test Cross Introduction The characteristics of the offspring of Mendel’s crosses can be predicted from the genotype of the parents through knowledge of dominant and recessive genes i.e., TT for tall and tt for dwarf traits. Mendel wanted to know whether the genotype of the individual be determined just from its phenotype. For recessive phenotype, it is possible, because it has only one genotype for example, tt for dwarf trait. But, the phenotypically dominant individuals show two types of genotypes – homozygous dominant (TT) and heterozygous dominant (Tt). In order to determine the genotypes of such phenotypes, Mendel employed two types of crosses viz., back cross and test cross. Without the knowledge of the genotype, just by crossing experiment, one can determine the genotype of the given phenotype with the help of these crosses. BACK CROSS Backcross is a cross of a hybrid (F1) with any one of its parents i.e. homozygous dominant or homozygous recessive parent. It is used in horticulture, animal breeding and in production of gene knockout organisms. These are performed in Monohybrid and Dihybrid crosses. 1. Monohybrid Back Cross:- In a monohybrid cross of homozygous tall (TT) and homozygous dwarf (tt) pea plants, the F1 progeny are heterozygous tall (Tt). When the F1 heterozygote (hybrid) is crossed either with its dominant parent or with its recessive parent, it is known as back cross and the results obtained from such a cross is as follows:- a. Back Cross with Homozygous Dominant Parent:- The F1 heterozygote (Tt) gives rise to two kinds of gametes viz., gametes with dominant factor for tall character (T) and gametes with recessive factor for dwarf character (t).
    [Show full text]
  • Nobel Laureates in Physiology Or Medicine
    All Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine 1901 Emil A. von Behring Germany ”for his work on serum therapy, especially its application against diphtheria, by which he has opened a new road in the domain of medical science and thereby placed in the hands of the physician a victorious weapon against illness and deaths” 1902 Sir Ronald Ross Great Britain ”for his work on malaria, by which he has shown how it enters the organism and thereby has laid the foundation for successful research on this disease and methods of combating it” 1903 Niels R. Finsen Denmark ”in recognition of his contribution to the treatment of diseases, especially lupus vulgaris, with concentrated light radiation, whereby he has opened a new avenue for medical science” 1904 Ivan P. Pavlov Russia ”in recognition of his work on the physiology of digestion, through which knowledge on vital aspects of the subject has been transformed and enlarged” 1905 Robert Koch Germany ”for his investigations and discoveries in relation to tuberculosis” 1906 Camillo Golgi Italy "in recognition of their work on the structure of the nervous system" Santiago Ramon y Cajal Spain 1907 Charles L. A. Laveran France "in recognition of his work on the role played by protozoa in causing diseases" 1908 Paul Ehrlich Germany "in recognition of their work on immunity" Elie Metchniko France 1909 Emil Theodor Kocher Switzerland "for his work on the physiology, pathology and surgery of the thyroid gland" 1910 Albrecht Kossel Germany "in recognition of the contributions to our knowledge of cell chemistry made through his work on proteins, including the nucleic substances" 1911 Allvar Gullstrand Sweden "for his work on the dioptrics of the eye" 1912 Alexis Carrel France "in recognition of his work on vascular suture and the transplantation of blood vessels and organs" 1913 Charles R.
    [Show full text]
  • Ssfaoggi 201306
    SOCIETA’ DI SCIENZE FARMACOLOGICHE APPLICATE SOCIETY FOR APPLIED PHARMACOLOGICAL SSFAoggi SCIENCES Notiziario di Medicina Farmaceutica Giugno 2013 Bimestrale della Società di Scienze Farmacologiche Applicate Fondata nel 1964 numero 37 Dove sono i nuovi antibiotici? Sommario: La comunità mondiale sta correndo un grosso rischio: questo ci ricordano due editoriali, Editoriale 1 pubblicati su The Lancet e sul British Medical Journal, che riportiamo alle pagine 21 e 22. La resistenza agli antibiotici è un grave problema: The Lancet ci ricorda che fu addirittura Novità in Farmacovigilanza messa in evidenza dallo stesso Alexander Fleming nel 1945, il quale temeva che l’abuso Parte prima 2 della penicillina potesse selezionare ceppi resistenti. Il British Medical Journal evidenzia che molte pratiche mediche e chirurgiche (dall’uso Novità in Farmacovigilanza della chemioterapia agli interventi invasivi in ortopedia e cardiochirurgia) sono possibili Parte seconda 4 grazie alla profilassi con antibiotici. E quindi, la resistenza agli antibiotici non è un solo un problema degli infettivologi, ma sta diventando un problema dei chirurghi, degli oncologi, e Il Decreto Balduzzi 6 di tutto il sistema sanitario. Alcune previsioni sono drammatiche: l’intervento di protesi dell’anca, che è diventato una Farmaci a brevetto scaduto 12 routine per la popolazione anziana, potrebbe essere colpito in modo significativo da com- plicanze infettive, passando dall’1% dei pazienti di oggi fino al 40%-50% dei pazienti nel Affari Istituzionali 12 prossimo futuro, con oltre un terzo di essi in pericolo di vita. Uno scenario davvero preoc- 5a Edizione Master Bicocca 13 cupante. Di fronte a queste previsioni, che ci vengono ormai ripetute ad intervalli regolari, stupisce Master Bicocca 2013: i numeri 13 la mancanza di incentivi per la ricerca di nuovi antibiotici.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Organizations and Major Discoveries in Twentieth-Century Science: a Case Study of Excellence in Biomedical Research Hollingsworth, J
    www.ssoar.info Research organizations and major discoveries in twentieth-century science: a case study of excellence in biomedical research Hollingsworth, J. Rogers Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Arbeitspapier / working paper Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: SSG Sozialwissenschaften, USB Köln Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Hollingsworth, J. R. (2002). Research organizations and major discoveries in twentieth-century science: a case study of excellence in biomedical research. (Papers / Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, 02-003). Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung gGmbH. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-112976 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer Deposit-Lizenz (Keine This document is made available under Deposit Licence (No Weiterverbreitung - keine Bearbeitung) zur Verfügung gestellt. Redistribution - no modifications). We grant a non-exclusive, non- Gewährt wird ein nicht exklusives, nicht übertragbares, transferable, individual and limited right to using this document. persönliches und beschränktes Recht auf Nutzung dieses This document is solely intended for your personal, non- Dokuments. Dieses Dokument ist ausschließlich für commercial use. All of the copies of this documents must retain den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen Gebrauch bestimmt. all copyright information and other information regarding legal Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments müssen alle protection. You are not allowed
    [Show full text]