140个实验室重复韩春雨技术，只有仇子龙说成功了 - 未名空间MITBBS历史存档

国际科技财经博客移民网络热点娱乐民生时事公众号

Redian新闻

>未名空间

>Biology - 生物学

140个实验室重复韩春雨技术，只有仇子龙说成功了

140个实验室重复韩春雨技术，只有仇子龙说成功了# Biology - 生物学

t*g2016-07-30 07:07

1 楼

一个recruiter 发信问有个职位我认不认识什么人可以refer的，还说他们有很好的
referral bonus。
请问如果我要把别人介绍给这个recruiter，该怎么操作？是把这个人的联系方式告诉
recruiter，还是把recruiter的联系方式告诉对方？如何操作能在将来candidate被幸
运录取后我能得到该得的那份referral bonus ?

P*R2016-07-30 07:07

2 楼

国际转基因技术协会原主席Montoliu博士建议不要再试图重复韩春雨实验结果
澳大利亚国立大学Gaetan Burgion今天撰写长文介绍他试图重复河北科大韩
春雨创立的NgAgo基因编辑技术的经过，得出结论：韩春雨的实验无法重复，而
且与韩在论文所说矛盾；《自然·生物技术》应要求韩公布原始数据；该技术显
然没有前途。
国际转基因技术协会创建者和原主席Lluis Montoliu博士根据这一结果以
及其本人实验室的实验结果，向国际转基因技术协会会员发出一封公开信，建议
停止继续试图验证韩春雨的实验，不要再浪费时间、金钱、人员和项目。
CRISPR谷歌群针对这项技术和韩春雨的文章的调查表明，140个调查回复中，
只有一个（中国神经所仇子龙？）回答该技术起作用，73个回答无效，63个回答
在验证。
From: [email protected]/* */ on behalf of Lluis
Montoliu To: ISTT List
Subject: [ISTT_list] Great disappointment with Ago: Long life to
CRISPR !
Date: Friday, July 29, 2016 9:49:22 AM
Dear colleagues,
the publication by Gao et al in May in Nature Biotechnology
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27136078 triggered an enormous
expectation. This Chinese team led by Chunyu Huan reported that the
Argonaute (Ago) protein from a rare haloarchaea, Natronobacterium
gregoryi, (NgAgo) would efficiently work for gene editing purposes in
human cells. Ago had been described as an DNA-guided endonucleases two
years before, through a Dutch-Spanish microbiologist collaborating
team (Swarts et al. 2014, Nature:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24531762).
On paper, the new (fourth) Gene Editing system looked great. An
endonuclease, using ssDNA guides (5' phosphorylated though) and not
RNA guides, without a PAM, requiring 24 nucleotides (and not 20nt),
hence with higher specificity, and apparently with fewer off-target
issues, since modifications in just one position of the DNA guide
resulted in >90% decrease of the protein activity.
On paper.
I must confess we read the Huan paper in my lab with some
disappointment, after two years battling, unsuccessfully, with Ago
from Thermus, through a collaboration with my friend and colleague J.
Berenguer, from the neighbouring reserch centre CBMSO, and one of the
co-authors of the Nature 2014 paper. We had been scooped. We
repeteadly failed to find any gene editing activity using Ago from
Thermus thermophilus (TtAgo) in mammalian cells, through a variety of
conditions and we didn't understand why, though we always suspected
that these proteins would not be too comfortable at "too cold"
temperatures as physiological +37C. After reading the Gao paper we
concluded we simply missed the right bug and congratulated them for
being smarter and lucky and for finding this archaea. Perhaps the
trick was in using NgAgo instead of TtAgo.
Shortly after NgAgo was released from Addgene, beginning of June, many
labs, including mine, jumped onto it to try experiencing the
anticipated great expectations and joy associated with this new tool
of prokaryotic origin. But soon it was clear that something wasn't
quite right. Rumours began spreading during June and July at congresses,
through social networks, list emails and discussions groups that NgAgo
didn't appear to work as reported. Actually, didn't work at all. Some
colleagues that I absolutely trust at scientitic and technological
levels started to indicate that they could not reproduce Huan's paper
results.
At the recent TAGC meeting (where IMGS was contributing to, merging in
along with other Genetics Societies) Gaetan Burgio, from ANU, Camberra,
Australia, presented some very preliminary data with a gel with some
intermediate bands that would suggest NgAgo would be working and
editing at the expected places. But, shortly thereafter, Gaetan
engaged his lab in an OpenScience project, tried to characterize all
these bands and.... found nothing. So, again, another evidence
confirming NgAgo is not working as a gene-editing tool.
Gaeatan just released today his experience using NgAgo, openly sharing
his failures and providing details and some explanations for them.
My experience with Natronobacterium gregoryi Argonaute (NgAgo) Gaetan
Burgio Group leader at JCSMR, ANU
https:[email protected]/* *//my-experience-with-natronobacterium-g
regoryi-argonaute-ngago-3ed8909b410c#.bo9y6mf9u
At first, KUDOS to Gaetan. Many thanks to him for sharing their
efforts trying to confirm some gene-editing activity associated with
NgAgo. There is apparently none. In his view, NgAgo might be working
as a ligase at physiological conditions. Similar to our negative
results using TtAgo it would appear that NgAgo requires some higher
temperatures to work as initially reported. This of course seeds some
doubts on the Gao et al. publication and Gaetan, among other, is
requesting to Nature Biotechnology to request the Huan's lab to reveal
and share their raw data. We will see this part of the history how it
develops...
But, now, the most important message to convey is: NgAgo does not work
for gene editing in mammalian cells. Be aware and do not waste your
time, your money, your peoople and projects. If anyone has any
positive hint suggesting Ago is indeed working as a genomic editor,
please share the results, for the sake of Open Science, as Gaetan
beautifully and most generously did. Many thanks to Gaetan!
Unfortunately, this is a great disappointment. But, it also highlights
the uniqueness and the robustness of the CRISPR-Cas systems.
Long life to CRISPR!
Lluis phone: +49621- 1703 6210/6204
___________________________
Dr. Lluis Montoliu
Investigador Cientifico - Research Scientist
CSIC Centro Nacional de Biotecnologia (CNB-CSIC)
Campus de Cantoblanco
C/ Darwin, 3
28049 Madrid (Spain)
Tel. +34-91-5854844 / Fax +34-91-5854506
e-mail: [email protected]/* */
WEB: http://www.cnb.csic.es/~montoliu/
U756 CIBERER: http://www.ciberer.es
Spanish EMMA node: http://www.infrafrontier.eu
ISTT: http://www.transtechsociety.org
At present, I would recommend everyone abandoning any project
involving the use of NgAgo. And avoid wasting time, money, animals and
people. Results are clear in many labs. The results we have in Madrid
are that TtAgo does not work in mammalian cells. The results that
Gaetan has in Australia are that NgAgo does not work in mammalian cells.
I know of many other colleagues who also tried and failed, but have
not reported these failures publicly. This is why I posted this message.
I think Ago might have some potential but we don't seem to have found
yet the adequate version of it (or the right bug).
As a side history, Francis Mojica struggled to find Grants to support
his pioneer experiments with CRISPR and got a couple of projects
turned down. That is why, instead of using Streptococcus pyogenes
(Doudna and Charpentier) or thermophilus (Siksnys), buga more
difficult and expensive to grow, he chose to work in Escherichia coli
CRISPR systems, and faced many difficulties, only to find out, many
years later that E.coli CRISPR-Cas system was of type I (not type II,
as Cas9) and, furthermore, was mostly inactive.
Please, let's focus in CRISPR-Cas9, Cpf1, C2c2,... et al... and leave
alone Ago while microbiologists don't find out the right one.
Lluis
(XYS20160729)

x*n2016-07-30 07:07

3 楼

refer要refer成功了，才会给你bonus。
如果是both win， why not？

P*R2016-07-30 07:07

4 楼

CRISPR谷歌群针对这项技术和韩春雨的文章的调查表明，140个调查回复中，
只有一个（中国神经所仇子龙？）回答该技术起作用，73个回答无效，63个回答
在验证。

t*g2016-07-30 07:07

5 楼

是啊，我是要refer别人，所以才问如何操作。
因为以前找工作时有个印象，申请recruiter给你介绍的职位时要通过recruiter，这样
被用人单位接收后这个recruiter才能拿到相应的bonus，否则recruiter会很不高兴。
所以不知道是不是我想推荐别人成功拿bonus的时候也有类似的讲究。

【在 x*********n 的大作中提到】

: refer要refer成功了，才会给你bonus。
: 如果是both win， why not？

g*n2016-07-30 07:07

6 楼

科学不是民意调查。几个人做了实验，调查一下就行了？科学结果要经过同行评审的，
发表了才算数。
不要以老资格和权威（协会创建者和原主席）来指手画脚。科学上没有权威。

e*t2016-07-30 07:07

7 楼

问recruiter

【在 t**g 的大作中提到】

: 是啊，我是要refer别人，所以才问如何操作。
: 因为以前找工作时有个印象，申请recruiter给你介绍的职位时要通过recruiter，这样
: 被用人单位接收后这个recruiter才能拿到相应的bonus，否则recruiter会很不高兴。
: 所以不知道是不是我想推荐别人成功拿bonus的时候也有类似的讲究。

j*i2016-07-30 07:07

8 楼

仇子龙可能要出丑了他所用的方法跟别人没有区别而别人却没有看到indel 他那个所
谓的indel是在293细胞中看到的在293细胞中 kras和p53这两癌基因很可能本身就带有
突变

P*R2016-07-30 07:07

9 楼

负结果也要发表？
仇子龙的声明算不算发表？

【在 g*****n 的大作中提到】

: 科学不是民意调查。几个人做了实验，调查一下就行了？科学结果要经过同行评审的，
: 发表了才算数。
: 不要以老资格和权威（协会创建者和原主席）来指手画脚。科学上没有权威。

P*R2016-07-30 07:07

10 楼

仇哥是投机分子，烧香引出鬼，偷鸡不成蚀把米。

【在 j******i 的大作中提到】

: 仇子龙可能要出丑了他所用的方法跟别人没有区别而别人却没有看到indel 他那个所
: 谓的indel是在293细胞中看到的在293细胞中 kras和p53这两癌基因很可能本身就带有
: 突变

s*y2016-07-30 07:07

11 楼

仇怎么做出来的，很好奇啊

P*R2016-07-30 07:07

12 楼

估计仇哥星期一又会发一个声明。

【在 s*********y 的大作中提到】

: 仇怎么做出来的，很好奇啊

r*e2016-07-30 07:07

13 楼

这些也是同行嘛。做不出来当然可以质疑。
文责自负，老韩发的文章自己要负责回答同行的疑问。这是科学，不是艺术。你发表文
章说这样这样，同行要是想重复，必须得能重复。而且这个发现是个实验工具，好用了
大家都要用。现在谁也用不成，还不能说吗？难道还要质疑人家大牛实验室不会实验技
巧？

【在 g*****n 的大作中提到】

P*R2016-07-30 07:07

14 楼

文责自负：
工具书
1、对稿件内容及表述的正确性承担责任的一种制度。即署名发表的著作、文章或报道
，如出现政治、学术、技术性错误或史实情况，由原作者本人承担责任。
2、署名发表的著作或文章、报道，如出现政治或学术、技术性错误或失实情况，由原
作者本人承担责任。
学术文献
1、论文一经发表署名者即应对论文负法律、政治、科学和道义上的责任。如果论文中
存在剽窃、抄袭的内容或者在政治、科学和技术上存在错误那么署名者就应完全负责。
2、作者在政治上、道义上和社会效果上负有的责任。给语言机漏很多的书稿开绿灯则
是编辑渎职的一种表现，两者不能混同。

P*R2016-07-30 07:07

15 楼

NBT 对作者的要求：
http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/authorship.html

m*a2016-07-30 07:07

16 楼

评论也要来个同行评审？文字不够优美还不让发是发？
按照你这说法版上全是指手画脚的，哈哈。

【在 g*****n 的大作中提到】

w*n2016-07-30 07:07

17 楼

仇脑袋有包，癌细胞大多p53突变，不仅在癌细胞，甚至部分小鼠都有突变，选p53，呵
呵。

【在 P****R 的大作中提到】

: NBT 对作者的要求：
: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/authorship.html

X*82016-07-30 07:07

18 楼

估计也没有什么严格的科学训练。

【在 w******n 的大作中提到】

: 仇脑袋有包，癌细胞大多p53突变，不仅在癌细胞，甚至部分小鼠都有突变，选p53，呵
: 呵。

P*R2016-07-30 07:07

19 楼

不急，先看看仇哥会不会再发一个声明澄清他的实验室的确重复出来了。

【在 w******n 的大作中提到】

: 仇脑袋有包，癌细胞大多p53突变，不仅在癌细胞，甚至部分小鼠都有突变，选p53，呵
: 呵。

P*R2016-07-30 07:07

20 楼

仇现在转口风还来得及，将来和韩春雨一起吊在歪脖子树上就惨了。

【在 j******i 的大作中提到】

g*r2016-07-30 07:07

21 楼

仇回旋转圜的空间大了去了，毕竟又没晒data。本来他的声明就是在说：韩的设计和体
系，貌似不work; 哥的设计和体系，貌似稍work。所以最好的情况下可以说：体系特异
性 - 原体系本来该work，哥的更work。最坏的情况下也可以说：所有的本就不work。
有些貌似稍work,其实不work。了事。

P*R2016-07-30 07:07

22 楼

所以说仇哥是投机分子嘛。在这个风口上做这种事情，也会被大家看不起。所以就
看仇哥下一步动作了。

【在 g******r 的大作中提到】

: 仇回旋转圜的空间大了去了，毕竟又没晒data。本来他的声明就是在说：韩的设计和体
: 系，貌似不work; 哥的设计和体系，貌似稍work。所以最好的情况下可以说：体系特异
: 性 - 原体系本来该work，哥的更work。最坏的情况下也可以说：所有的本就不work。
: 有些貌似稍work,其实不work。了事。