Stories tagged University of Minnesota
Honeycrisp apples
in Diversity of Organisms and Biological Populations Change Over Time
Malus domestica 'Honeycrisp'
Courtesy Art Oglesby
Honeycrisp, my favorite apple
Around the end of September I eagerly visit an apple orchard to stock up on Honeycrisp apples. I first experienced Honeycrisp apples back when they were first released in 1991 because I lived next door to Jack Kelly and what is now part of Apple Jack Orchards. I was impressed by the "explosively crisp" snap as you bite into the apple and its sweet, juicy flavor that also has a hint of tartness. Here is a quote about the Honeycrisp apple from the University of Minnesota Extension:
Honeycrisp fruit is characterized by an exceptionally crisp and juicy texture. Its flesh is cream colored and coarse. The flavor is sub-acid and ranges from mild and well-balanced to strongly aromatic, depending on the degree of maturity. It has consistently ranked as one of the highest quality apples in the University of Minnesota sensory evaluations.
The Honeycrisp story is remarkable
I first read the amazing story about how the Honeycrisp was developed in the City Pages. James J. Luby and David S. Bedford, working within the Department of Horticultural Science University of Minnesota, have given a big boost to Minnesota's apple growers and the horticulture department.
Bedford calls it a "lifesaver." According to the university's office of technology commercialization, Honeycrisp has generated $6.3 million for the institution, placing it among the school's top five most lucrative inventions. (The U receives $1.35 a tree and splits royalty income in thirds, with one portion going to the inventors, another to the college and department where the faculty work, and the third into a general research fund.)
How the Honeycrisp apple is produced
Apple breeder David Bedford tastes between 500 and 600 apples every day. Bedford is trying to find the genetic gems from among the nearly 20,000 trees in the horticulture department's orchards. Only 15 or so have the "wow" that allows their genetics to advance to the next round. Hand pollinating select blossoms and using wax bags to prevent any stray pollination, produces the next generation of seeds. The ancestors of the Honeycrisp were in the crop of 1960. A bad freeze almost eliminated the genetic line in 1980. When the parent trees were killed by a 1 in 50 yr. freeze, the offspring were classified as unacceptable. Bedford decided to let them have a chance, and
A few years later, when the clones began bearing fruit, Bedford was shocked by the apples' crispness and juiciness, which reminded him of an Asian pear. "The thing I remember was that the texture was so unusual, I wasn't sure if it was good or bad," he says.
Read more about the Honeycrisp saga
The complete story is fascinating. You can read more by clicking the City Pages link. Probably the best description of the Honeycrisp apple sage is told at MinnesotaHarvest.net. An addendum within this webpage added this surprising quote:
Records and public releases from the University of Minnesota from 1991 to the present have identified the parentage of Honeycrisp as the cross 'Macoun' x 'Honeygold'. But recently completed DNA testing has determined that neither Macoun nor Honeygold are parents of Honeycrisp.
The testing determined for certain that Keepsake, another apple from the University of Minnesota's apple breeding program that was released in 1978, is one of the parents. But, despite extensive searching, the other parent has not been identified. There is no DNA match among any of the varieties that are thought to be possible parents.
The University's Research Center routinely crosses and plants thousands of seeds annually, moving them and the resulting seedling trees from place to place over a period of years, so there are multiple points where a mix-up could take place.
Tags : 
A display on adult stem cells, here at the SMM: In fact, this exhibit features Catherine Verfaillie herself. (Good looking out, BK)
Courtesy bryankennedyFollowing the results of an evaluation by a panel of experts at the University of Minnesota, the magazine New Scientist published an article last week announcing that some of the data used in a groundbreaking study on adult stem cells had been falsified.
The study, performed at the University of Minnesota under the supervision of Catherine Verfaillie, is part of a line of research that seemed to indicate that adult stem cells, taken from bone marrow, are pluripotent—that is that they have the potential to develop into any type of cell. Previously, only embryonic stem cells were thought to be pluripotent, and Verfaillie’s research looked like it could eventually offer an alternative to the ethically complicated use of embryonic cells for research (which requires the destruction of an embryo).
Unfortunately, other scientists had trouble replicating Verfaillie’s results, which were published in the journal Nature. New Scientist began examining the research done by Verfaillie and her team, and found that key images in the research appeared several times in papers for different experiments, and, in the case of a related study in the publication Blood, were used twice in the same paper, but had been visually altered slightly, and flipped 180 degrees. New Scientist reported their findings to the University, which began a formal investigation of the matter.
The University just recently completed the investigation, and found that data in the blood article had indeed been falsified (the images in particular), by a former PhD student of Verfaillies’, Morayma Reyes. The University and Catherine Verfaillie have asked Blood to redact the study.
Verfaillie has stated that she was unaware of the problems with the published study, and while she didn’t believe that the data was deliberately falsified, she takes ultimate responsibility for the errors.
Reyes, who now works as an assistant professor at the University of Washington, denies that the images represent deliberately altered data, and blames the errors on inadequate supervision and training. She claims that she had neither the equipment (photo editing software) nor knowledge required to alter the images. The differences in the reoccurring images were likely the result of the inadvertent use of the image adjusting tools built into lab equipment, she says, and the duplication of a figure within the Blood paper was accidental. Reyes also feels that she has been treated unfairly by the University, and that the expert panel in the investigation demonstrated a clear “lack of expertise” in the field of stem cell biology.
Reyes’ full position can be read here. The University’s response can be found here.
The altered images, Reyes asserts, shouldn’t change the results of the paper, but the whole incident brings up some interesting issues on the process of vetting science. While the errors in the paper never should have made it past Verfaillie and the rest of her team, the process of peer review should have caught them anyway. Generally, before research is published in a scientific journal, the editors select several scientists in the particular field of the paper to evaluate and comment (often anonymously) on the paper. The review panel is meant to confirm that the methodology of the experiments and the interpretation of the results are sound. Research can then be recommended (or not) for publication.
Publishing research essentially formally submits it to the scientific community, and it’s common for other scientists to attempt to attempt to replicate experiments, especially if a study makes particularly striking claims (like adult stem cells being pluripotent). The work of other scientists in replicating results is, obviously, essential to the scientific method—in this case is was what finally drew attention to some of the irregularities in Verfaillie’s team’s work.
Reproducibility can be a tricky thing, though—difficulty in repeating results doesn’t necessarily mean that they aren’t reproducible. (Here’s a good article on repeating and reproducing results.) But the problems in reproducing these results drew attention to the questionable data, which brought up another aspect of scientific vetting: the University’s investigation into academic misconduct. If the problems with reproducibility seem to come from data being changed, added, or omitted to strengthen a conclusion, then there could be a serious problem. This sort of misconduct undermines scientific progress, and can call into question the reputation of the institution it came out of and the validity of other research performed there. And if Morayma Reyes seems a little extra defensive in her letter, it’s understandable, because being accused of academic is a big deal, and no good for your career and future work.
The subject of the research further complicates the situation—this isn’t the first time issues of academic dishonesty have come up with regards to stem cell research. In 2006, a Korean scientist’s claims that he had cloned human embryos (thereby eliminating the need to destroy new embryos for stem cells) turned out to be based on lies. There’s a fear that the potentially huge medical payoff of stem cell research, as well as the ethical debate surrounding the use of human embryonic stem cells, could lead to science that is less than completely thorough, or even situations like the Korean controversy. And that’s bad for science in general. There’s also the thought that errors that are unintentional (as may be the case with Reyes’ images) could be the result of “pathological science,” where results are steered in a particular direction by scientists because of “subjective effects, wishful thinking, or threshold interactions.” It doesn’t have the same ethical problems, but pathological results aren’t a whole lot better for science than straight-out misconduct, but it’s a serious potential pitfall with the benefits of stem cell research waiting out there.
So there you go. It looks like things are, for the most part, being handled appropriately in this situation, but it’s an interesting window into scientific process.
Any thoughts? Does it seem like the vetting process of science is lacking in some way? Or is it maybe too thorough? Professor Reyes, I imagine, would argue that too much has been made of this situation, and there are many who argue that the process of peer review limits the communication and dissemination of scientific ideas.
Or, even better, does it seem like I got something wrong here?
Let’s have it, Buzzketeers.
A new river adventure
Living near the Mississippi River is a treat. My wife and I often go to Hidden Falls to sit and watch the river flow. When I went to this years Stone Arch Festival I was pleased to discover a new river adventure. There is a new Water Power Park by St. Anthony Falls (click link for map and details). Here is a quote from their website.
Never before has the general public been able to walk on this piece of land and experience the power of the mighty Mississippi River as it flows over St. Anthony Falls. You feel the power of the river, the spray from the falls as you stand on one of the three overlooks with the skyline of downtown Minneapolis in the back round. (WaterPowerPark.com)
You can get really close to the water falls as you will witness in this video I shot.
The Outdoor StreamLab is cool
Another feature included in the Water Power Park is the Outdoor StreamLab. The Outdoor StreamLab is part of the University of Minnesota's St. Anthony Falls Laboratory. The mission of SAFL is to "
St. Anthony Falls Laboratory
Courtesy Art Oglesby
"conduct interdisciplinary fluid mechanics research aimed at developing science-based, sustainable, and practical solutions to major societal problems related to the environment, renewable energy, and health.
Visitors to the Water Power Park can view researchers at work in the OSL. This link to the Outdoor StreamLab image gallery will give you a good preview. Click this to see a current aerial image of the Outdoor StreamLab that is refreshed every 30 minutes from SAFL's rooftop camera
Eutrophication: Agricultural run-off rich in fertilizers stimulates rampant growth of algae.
Courtesy NASA
Human populations effect lakes
Human sewage and fertilizer runoff effects the health of lakes. It often causes huge algal blooms, kills fish, and creates other problems.
Long term study of "cultural eutrophication" released
For 37 years researchers have examined the best ways to control this "cultural eutrophication" process of lakes by varying the levels of phosphorous and nitrogen added to the lake.
After completing one of the longest running experiments ever done on a lake, researchers from the University of Alberta, University of Minnesota and the Freshwater Institute, contend that nitrogen control, in which the European Union and many other jurisdictions around the world are investing millions of dollars, is not effective and in fact, may actually increase the problem of cultural eutrophication.
Time to rethink current practices for healthy lakes
"David Schindler, professor of ecology at the University of Alberta, and one of the leading water researchers in the world, wants to change current practice in controlling nitrogen runoff by stating that
"Controlling nitrogen does not correct the polluted lakes, and in fact, may actually aggravate the problem and make it worse."
This study done by the University of Alberta, University of Minnesota and the Freshwater Institute appears in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Source: PhysOrg.com
Jane Goodall, the internationally-known chimp researcher, will be making a pair of public appreances at the University of Minnesota on Saturday. Here's a link to the details. Both events are free and open to the public.
A direct route
Researcher William Frey II (Regions Hospital and the University of Minnesota) has stirred up conversation recently about a possible new method of administering drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. For the past 20 years, Frey has been researching and developing a nasal spray to deliver drugs directly to the brain. Other methods of delivery (such as intravenous and oral) do not allow certain drugs to cross the brain's protective blood-brain barrier.
The nasal spray method, reviewed in Drug Delivery Technology, bypasses the blood-brain barrier by delivering the drug to the nerve endings in the upper portion of the nose. These nerves lead directly to the central nervous system.
A promising development
Frey plans to test the method for the delivery of deferoximine, a drug that removes toxic amounts of iron from the body. Some scientists believe that a high level of certain metals in the brain can cause damage to brain cells , which may be part of what leads to Alzheimer's disease. If the drug's safety is proven in animal studies, Frey hopes to test the nose-to-brain delivery of deferoximine in humans.
Researchers do not yet know if this type of drug delivery could treat symptoms of Alzheimer's or if it may lead to a cure for the disease. Clinical trials in humans may be more than a year away, but Frey's discovery, along with other advances in research, offers hope for keeping patients healthy in the future.
Sources:
Drug Delivery Technology. "Nose-to-brain delivery." 5(4):64-72, 2005.
TwinCities.com. "Nose to brain is a promising path in Alzheimer's fight." 2 Feb 2008.
Posted by Meredith Craven, a communications assistant in the Academic Health Center Office of Clinical Research at the University of Minnesota
A burger a day?
With a diet soda, please!
Courtesy ebruli
Researchers from the University of Minnesota School of Public Health have found that adults who eat two or more servings of meat a day increase their risk of developing metabolic syndrome by 25% compared with those who eat meat twice a week. The study, published in Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association also linked a greater risk of developing metabolic syndrome with eating fried foods and drinking diet soda.
What is metabolic syndrome?
Metabolic syndrome is a group of cardiovascular disease and diabetes risk factors including:
- elevated waist circumference (a waist measurement larger than 35 inches for women or 40 inches for men);
- high blood pressure:
- elevated triglycerides (the chemical form in which most fat exists in food and in the body);
- low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL or “good”) cholesterol;
- and high fasting glucose (blood sugar) levels.
If a person has three or more of these risk factors, their risk of developing diabetes and cardiovascular disease increases.
The study
The U of M findings came from a study of 9,514 participants from four U.S. communities in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study , funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers divided the group based on an assessment of their food intake. One group ate a "Western-pattern diet" with many refined grains, processed meat, fried foods, red meat, eggs and soda, and an overall lack of fish, fruit, vegetables and whole grain products. Another group ate a "prudent-pattern diet" with vegetables, fruit, fish and seafood, poultry and whole grains, and low fat dairy.
After following the the participants for nine years, almost 40% of study participants had three or more risk factors for metabolic syndrome. When researchers analyzed the results based on specific foods, meat, fried foods, and diet soda were red flags for an increased risk for metabolic syndrome. The good news? They found that regular consumption of low-fat dairy products was beneficial in avoiding the same risk factors.
The authors acknowledge that more research is needed to determine how these specific foods, particularly diet soda, raise risk factors.
The lesson? Follow a balanced diet, include low-fat dairy, exercise, and eat your vegetables!
Sources and additional information:
"Dietary Intake and the Development of the Metabolic Syndrome. The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study." Pamela L. Lutsey, Lyn M. Steffen and June Stevens. Circulation; published online Jan 22, 2008.
University of Minnesota Academic Health Center
Posted by Meredith Craven, a communications assistant in the Academic Health Center Office of Clinical Research at the University of Minnesota
Decellularization: A rat heart as the cells are removed (left three images) and replaced (right two images) over time.
Courtesy Thomas Matthiesen, University of Minnesota
Science fiction?
Did you know that nearly 5 million people live with heart failure? More surprisingly, approximately 50,000 United States patients die annually waiting for a donor heart.
University of Minnesota researchers recently announced they have created a beating heart in the laboratory. It sounds like science fiction, but it is a real medical breakthrough. The researchers removed the tissue from a dead rat heart and replaced it with living cells from newborn rats. With the help of electrical signals, the entire heart began to beat.
"Ghost hearts"
The researchers used a detergent to remove the cells from the rat hearts. This left behind only the nonliving fibers that give the heart its shape. The result was a white, rubbery, 3-D “skeleton”. This structure, called the extracellular matrix, allows cells to attach and grow into tissue, and gives the heart muscle something to pull against. The researchers injected cells from newborn rats into the left ventricle and pumped oxygen and nutrients through the structure of blood vessels. They helped the process by sending electrical signals through the new tissue. In eight days, the hearts were pumping – some continued beating for 40 days.
The supply of donor organs is limited and the risks for infection or rejection of the transplanted organ can be high. If the technique is perfected, doctors may be able to use patients’ own stem cells to recellularize a donor heart.
The next steps
The University of Minnesota research team has successfully decellularized pig hearts, and hopes that other types of organs can be created in the future.
Dead heart transformed into a living heart
Tissue engineering has allowed a dead rat heart to be stripped of its cellular material, then after injecting the remaining scaffold material with with new cardiac cells, the cells organized themselves until the heart became alive.
A "crazy idea" at the University of Minnesota that could not get federal funding yielded "unbelievable" results after getting funding from the University of Minnesota and from the Medtronic Research Foundation.
New source for replacement organs
The accomplishment gave a significant boost to medicine’s dream of growing human organs to replace damaged ones. Organ transplants usually require replacement organs that fulfill extreme compatibility issues. By using the patients own cells in the rebuilt organs scientists hope to eliminate the need for patients to take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of their lives.
Growing human hearts at least 10 years away, if ever
The next step will be to use these techniques on pig hearts. Pig hearts are similar enough to a humans that parts from them have already been used in humans.
"Although this is only a first step requiring considerable follow-up development, the study nevertheless represents an exciting breakthrough that will eventually make the prospect of repairing damaged hearts a reality and will also be an approach that can be extended to other organs." Dr Jon Frampton Wellcome Trust Senior Fellow at the University of Birmingham
Source articles
TwinCities.com
New York Times
BBC News
USA Today
Nature Medicine journal's Perfusion-decellularized matrix: using nature's platform to engineer a bioartificial heart (abstract)
Geese flying in a "V": Image courtesy Greg7 via Flickr.The University of Minnesota is conducting a new campaign called “Driven to Discover”. While new ad campaigns are not typical fodder for a current science web site, this particular campaign is interesting in that it is featuring some of the current research taking place at the University of Minnesota and answers questions like, “When will it be possible for human beings to fly?” and “My dog exhibits strange behavior shortly before a thunderstorm begin. Can dogs sense a change in weather?”
One current question that I often wondered: Why do ducks and geese fly in a “V” formation is a recently answered question.
These birds are just doing the avian equivalent of a NASCAR driver’s slipstreaming (or drafting). Geese and ducks are relatively large birds, and they affect the air they fly through just as a race car does. Each bird creates a slight uplift at the tips of their wings during flight. By flying behind and slightly above another bird’s wing tip, birds experience an updraft. These trailing birds gain an advantage and expend less energy than they would if they were flying by themselves. Studies have shown that a bird in a flock flying the same speed as a bird flying alone flaps its wings half as often.
Scott Lanyon, Director, Bell Museum of Natural History and Professor, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior.
Check out the current and older campaign to see some of the really interesting questions people asked. You can even sign up for a monthly newsletter featuring this information. It’s fun reading.
Recent comments
What's going on with science careers?
Are Midwestern winters getting warmer? Why or why not? Share your thoughts on local climate change.
Write your own label for the plant pathogens
Are Midwestern winters getting warmer? Why or why not? Share your thoughts on local climate change.
Subscribe
I want to learn about
Science Buzz and all related activitiesScience Museum of Minnesota, 2004-2008,
except where otherwise noted.
Copyright Information
Add a new comment