Cat 2008 paper analysis

Cat 2008 paper analysis

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Cat 2008 paper analysis

In my last post, I had mentioned that I was going to start a paper analysis of the 2008 paper by Rongfeng (Rong) Cao and Xiaohua Wang (Wang) of the Max-Planck-Institute of Developmental Biology in Germany. They wrote about, and analyzed, the use of DNA methylation to study transposable elements in human genomic DNA. This is really interesting stuff! But for some reason, the abstract and introduction of the paper is full of mistakes.

Let’s take a look at this:

“The human genome is highly methylated in order to establish and mntn an epigenetic state that helps to suppress transposable element expression. In contrast, a limited amount of transposable elements are active in adult tissues and even though, they can be readily activated at specific loci and cause somatic mutations.”

Transposable elements have two forms: those that insert themselves into the genome and other that do not. In the original paper they analyzed the presence or absence of LINE1 elements in the genomes of human individuals. In the past, I had seen some papers stating that the majority of transposable elements are in the human genome, but that there were very few active transposable elements. This is wrong. It is well known that transposable elements are very abundant in the human genome, they are just very inactive. These elements have had no time to mobilize to all the different parts of the genome due to strong epigenetic control of their expression.

So there is no need for a study such as that reported by Cao and Wang to find out that the human genome is highly methylated. This is an issue that has been known for decades and has been discussed in different publications. I am not going to go through all the references now. And I am not going to list all the different types of transposable elements that are present in the human genome, this is not the purpose of my blog and would be too time consuming.

Some time ago a paper was published where an interesting question was asked, “What is the most important human mutation?” This is an important question, but an answer can only be given with the support of solid facts and evidence. The study did not have solid evidence, this is a classic example of scientific misconduct.

To put it simply, DNA methylation and repressive histone modifications are strongly linked to transcription. Therefore, if there is a study where it is stated that a particular gene is repressed due to DNA methylation and this is not contradicted by other studies, then this study is telling us a lie. It is a form of scientific fraud.

The paper in question is one of the most highly cited papers in the history of scientific literature, there is no reason to doubt that it is the first and only paper to clm that DNA methylation is the most important human mutation.

When this question was asked, a paper was not known. When I started reading the paper it was clear to me that this is the study in question. After reading the paper I have a clear understanding of why it is important to read this particular paper. I could not figure out why this was published. Is it because it gives more weight to the studies that have been performed in the past. Yes, it does.

The scientific community is the community where the facts are known and not the popularity of the study.

I will make my case in a minute. First I will provide some information about this paper that is important.

In the paper, the authors state that DNA methylation is important for proper embryonic development, it is a well-established fact. To determine the significance of this, a new DNA methylation analysis method was used. This new method was compared to a previously published method.

A new method can of course have many advantages. The authors were able to show that the DNA methylation analysis using their new method was a more sensitive and accurate analysis than the previous method.

If one wants to test this new method, it is easy to see why they are the first to publish their new DNA methylation analysis method. Since they are the first to publish the new method, they would be the first to perform this test.

What is the advantage of publishing a new method, or at least a new analysis method? The authors of this paper did not need to go to the trouble of doing the analysis. They already had data on the same group of subjects that had been done using the previously published method. They did not need to repeat the study. They did not need to make new subjects. They did not need to measure more variables. They already had the data.

The advantage of publishing a new method is that in the future, researchers can rely on the validity of the results produced using the new method.

The authors already mentioned their previous publication on this subject. If one reads that publication it is obvious that they already had data in their hands.

The authors used this same data from the previous study. One may ask: Why do the authors feel it is necessary to go back to these data?

Some authors are famous for clming that they don’t need to look at their data, or data on the same subject. In other words, the authors are clming that the same old data is just as good as any other data. I am sure there are people who will clm that any data on the same subject are exactly the same. Others will clm that any analysis is exactly the same. In the latter case, a new analysis method may lead to new data. In the former case, a new method might lead to the same old data.

In the case of this paper, the authors already had the same data that they published on before. They did not need new data. They were already doing the study that they clm that they are going to do in the future. The problem is that they did not publish it in a journal that allowed the data to be shared and used by others. They published it in a journal that required them to share their data. This will cause problems when they try to do the study later. They will have to share their data, and others will have to use their new analysis method. If they clm that their new method is better than the old one, they need to publish it to have confidence that it will be a real improvement.

The authors clm that the new method is superior to the old method. They did not need to test this in a new study. If they don’t have confidence in the new method, they could just have sd that their old data are good enough. However, they have created this situation where they clm that they need a new method, but in a way that they don’t need it.

This article is free to read. It is my attempt to point out the problems with data publication. I hope that you can take this opportunity to read this paper and think about the issues that are being rsed. If you have comments about this article, I will be happy to hear them.

Share this: Eml













Watch the video: CAT 2008: LRDI question. CUT off Marks (August 2022).

Video, Sitemap-Video, Sitemap-Videos