Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Monday, June 6, 2016

Nenufar's founder makes shocking confession

Put “biohacking definition” into google search and what comes up?

bi·o·hack·ing
ˈbīōhakiNG/
noun
  1. the activity of exploiting genetic material experimentally without regard to accepted ethical standards, or for criminal purposes.

To be clear, I’m a biohacker.  

To some scientists, biohacker is a bad word. Shoddy, dangerous experiments in makeshift labs by relatively untrained people with more enthusiasm than academic training producing unverified results, and more like accusations assail us.  According to the definition above, biohackers are suspicious characters, perhaps some shadowy gang of unethical thugs.  Is this definition actually supported by facts?   Is the world really in danger of bizarre bio-organisms being created in biohacker labs and getting loose in the world to raise havoc?


Or - is biohacking rather an entry point to science, open to anyone who has the will to learn the theory and practice of biology and to put it into practice by developing practical applications?  What role if any does biohacking play in the advancement and evolution of science and technology?  Are biohackers any more or less ethical than scientists working in corporate environments?  If you are a scientist, researcher, biohacker, or just watching from the sidelines, what is your opinion of the biohacking movement?   Are you a biohacker? 

actual photos taken in a biohacking lab

Thursday, June 2, 2016

molecular biology lab tutorials

Here's some nice molecular biology lab tutorials and protocols from our friends at the-odin.com


How does the immune system responds to Ebola Virus?

Four Ebola patients received care at Emory University Hospital, presenting a unique opportunity to examine the cellular immune responses during acute Ebola virus infection. We found striking activation of both B and T cells in all four patients. Plasmablast frequencies were 10–50% of B cells, compared with less than 1% in healthy individuals. Many of these proliferating plasmablasts were IgG-positive, and this finding coincided with the presence of Ebola virus-specific IgG in the serum. Activated CD4 T cells ranged from 5 to 30%, compared with 1–2% in healthy controls. The most pronounced responses were seen in CD8 T cells, with over 50% of the CD8 T cells expressing markers of activation and proliferation. Taken together, these results suggest that all four patients developed robust immune responses during the acute phase of Ebola virus infection, a finding that would not have been predicted based on our current assumptions about the highly immunosuppressive nature of Ebola virus. Also, quite surprisingly, we found sustained immune activation after the virus was cleared from the plasma, observed most strikingly in the persistence of activated CD8 T cells, even 1 mo after the patients’ discharge from the hospital. These results suggest continued antigen stimulation after resolution of the disease. From these convalescent time points, we identified CD4 and CD8 T-cell responses to several Ebola virus proteins, most notably the viral nucleoprotein. Knowledge of the viral proteins targeted by T cells during natural infection should be useful in designing vaccines against Ebola virus.
read the paper here