All posts by medical

Physiology

Let cows’ physiology guide calving check schedule – Farm Forum

By Russ Daly Professor, SDSU Extension Veterinarian, State Public Health Veterinarian

The routine calving check is one of the most important tasks on the list of beef cattle producers during calving season.

Most producers have their own plan for how often they give their calving herd the once-over, but some may have not considered how their animals physiology should guide this schedule.

Incredible advances in technology have made it easier for producers to perform calving checks.

Wireless cameras in the calving barn mean producers can monitor cows and heifers without leaving the warmth of the house.

Devices strapped to the back end of cows can send an alert to a smartphone when the calving process commences, and drones can even be used to check up on cattle in remote areas.

Labor stages and calving: Significant events

While how cattle producers check their animals may have changed rapidly in recent years what they are watching for the stages of labor and calving have not changed.

The normal progression of labor should guide how often cattle producers walk out to the calving pen, or whip out the smartphone for a look.

Of course, the most optimal frequency of observation occurs when people dont miss events too important to miss.

Some examples are:

Cows or heifers spending too much time in Stage I labor (the preparatory stage of labor). This varies greatly among cattle based on their parity, but will normally last two-to-six hours.

Stage I labor lasting more than eight hours means a greater chance the calf will be stillborn or oxygen deprived at birth.

Cows or heifers spending too much time in or giving up on Stage II labor (the delivery stage).

Once the delivery phase begins, steady progress should be made, culminating in a live calf somewhere between 30 minutes and two hours after it commences.

Signs of distress in a calf during labor, such as a swollen tongue or signs of an abnormal (backwards, breech, etc.) birth.

A live-born calf that needs timely help starting to breathe, nurse or to be protected from cold, wet conditions.

How often should you check in?

A common rule of thumb is that cows and heifers should be checked every three hours.

Comparing this to the information above, however, would indicate that should be sufficient to determine whether a cow has been messing around (stage I labor) too long, but maybe not long enough to determine whether a cow has been in the delivery phase (stage II labor) for two hours.

Many cattle producers check their calving areas less frequently than every three hours on average. This is often a compromise among labor, time and the risk of losing a calf.

Most producers also realize, however, that certain factors can result in a group needing more or less frequent observation, such as:

First-calf heifers: More frequent checking vs. older cows.

How many cows are calving: More calving means more frequent checking.

Previous indications of dystocia problems: bigger calves than expected means more frequent checking.

Weather: cold wet weather means more frequent checking, in order to assist calves after birth.

The bottom line

All beef cattle producers want to maximize the number of live calves born. Offering timely assistance to cows and heifers having problems, and providing prompt attention to newborns are some of the ways this can be done during the calving season.

As such, erring on the side of checking calving areas more often rather than less often can be a good idea.

Go here to see the original:
Let cows' physiology guide calving check schedule - Farm Forum

Human Behavior

Can microbes make us better people? – Mother Nature Network (blog)

Why did human beings evolve to be nice to one another? From a scientific standpoint, it doesn't make much sense for us to go out of our way to help others, especially when we don't receive any direct benefit. But new research suggests there may be an evolutionary reason that kindness exists, and it may have more to do with microbes than genetics.

Most theories that attempt to explain the evolution of altruism focus on the individual; some people see the benefit of helping the community to help their own species. These theories assume that altruism is genetically encoded that some people just have bigger hearts than others, and that quality is determined by the genes passed down to them. But a new study has found that altruism may have less to do with the kindness in someone's heart and more to do with the number of microbes in their gut.

Researchers at Tel-Aviv University in Israel recently took a look at the role that microbes play in human behavior to determine the evolutionary benefit of altruistic behavior. We already know that viruses and bacteria can change a host's behavior. Rabies, for example, can make an individual more aggressive. There are certain parasites that can cause their insect hosts to commit suicide, and there are types of plasma that can manipulate their bacterial hosts into cooperating with one another.

The new study, which was published in a recent issue of Nature, proposed that microbes could make humans act altruistically, meaning it's microbes that explain and determine the evolution of human kindness.

Using a series of computer models, researchers tested a number of scenarios involving interactions between humans, some with altruism-inducing microbes and others without. They found that humans could not only be influenced by microbes to act altruistically, but that doing so would help promote the transfer of these microbes from one individual to another. In other words, microbes may make their human hosts act altruistically to give the microbe a better chance of spreading to the new host. That's evolution.

Researchers also compared the altruism-inducing microbe theory with the possibility that niceness is simply encoded in our genes. In these models, they found that genetically-encoded altruism would not evolve over time as it would with a microbial influence. They also noted that while genetic kindness could persist from generation to generation, microbe-induced niceness is much more likely to spread to the next generation.

"I believe the most important aspect of the work is that it changes the way we think about altruism from centering on the animals (or humans) performing the altruistic acts to their microbes," Dr. Lilach Hadany, a researcher of population genetics and evolution theory at Tel Aviv University and a lead researcher for the study, told Phys.org.

The microbial theory explains why altruism tends to "spread" within a community. One act of kindness often causes a snowballing of such acts within a population. That wouldn't be caused by genetics, but it does make sense when you consider the possibility that altruism is caused by microbes.

Can microbes make us better people? It's certainly possible. And if we have to "catch" something while interacting with another human being, wouldn't it be nice if that something was a dose of kindness?

Continued here:
Can microbes make us better people? - Mother Nature Network (blog)

Genetics

Cosmic Dopamine: On Neuroquantum Theories of Psychiatric Genetics – Discover Magazine (blog)

Back in 2015, I ran a three part post (1,2,3) on Dr Kenneth Blum and his claim to be able to treat what he calls Reward Deficiency Syndrome (RDS) with nutritional supplements.

Today my interest was drawn to a 2015 paper from Blum and colleagues, called Neuroquantum Theories of Psychiatric Genetics: Can Physical Forces Induce Epigenetic Influence on Future Genomes?.

In this paper, Blum et al. put forward some novel proposals about possible links between physics, epigenetics, and neuroscience. For instance, the authors ask whether an early human getting high after eating a root might have provided the human race with a genetic memory of intoxication:

It is quite possible that a cave man ingesting Mandragova officianarum (mandrake root) a psychoactive substance with extreme aphrodisiacal powers may have experienced an effect, which passed through genetic memory to his offspring and later generations. The experience, which was stored as a pleasant one, may or may not be experienced later in the recipient offspring. Nevertheless, suitable extragenetic stimuli may have triggered consciousness of that stored pleasurable experience for future generations. Given that extra-genetic triggering action (possibly certain chemicals, toxins, etc. having epigenetic effects), the recipient offspring may believe it to be a fantasy or hallucination, whereas in reality, the experience may have its origin as far back as reordered history, or even as far back as the first intake of mandrake root.

This theory reminds me of the work of another speculative historian of genetic memory, a certain L. Ron Hubbard. Blum et al.s paper features several strange ideas such as this one.

To be fair, it does include some more sensible material, including expositions of pertinent topics in physics and philosophy. However, sadly, not all of this material is original. Yes, Ive been plagiarism hunting again.

For instance, Blum et al. opens with a series of paragraphs about cosmology which appear to be rather closely based on a pair of articles by Adam Frank and Zeeya Merali published in 2010 in this very Discover Magazine. Franks post is not cited at all; Meralis is, but not in such a way as to make it clear that the text has been adapted from it. Heres Turnitins analysis of the overlap between Blum et al. and Franks post:

Heres a paragraph from Frank:

The implicit understanding is that natures rules are eternal, unbreakable, and all-controlling. As Albert Einstein once said, learning to read the laws of physics is like reading the mind of God. Such thinking has animated much of the enterprise of physics ever since Isaac Newton formulated his laws of universal gravitation in 1687: one set of laws for both the heavens and the earth. The idea took full root a century ago, when Einstein developed his general theory of relativity. If we work hard enough, he suggested, we will eventually find the elegant and simple rules that undergird the entire universe. Physicists have taken it as an article of faith that the bedrock laws are there to be discovered, if only we are clever enough in looking for them. The dogged pursuit of that ultimate truth has led to many great discoveries, but recently it has begun to seem like a promise unkept.

And heres the corresponding text from Blum et al.:

It is implied that natures rules are eternal, unbreakable, and all controlling. Ideas like these have fueled much of the physics field since Isaac Newton had formulated his laws of universal gravitation in 1687. His concepts took root approximately a century ago, when Einstein had also developed his general relativity theory. However, careful scrutiny of the so called book of physics and the pursuit of this truth has led to many great physics discoveries, but unfortunately has begun to seem like an unkept promise in the clear understanding of our universe.

Its perhaps not the worst case of plagiarism Ive seen, but its still clear that Blum et al. reused text from Discover and edited it.

Maybe, though, we cant hold the authors responsible for this copying. Perhaps they were merely unconsciously acting out an inherited genetic memory a memory formed millions of years ago, the day one monkey first copied the behaviour of another?

h/tSmut Clyde; see also his coverage of Blums cheese-based imagery.

Blum, K., Braverman, E., Waite, R., Archer, T., Thanos, P., Badgaiyan, R., Febo, M., Dushaj, K., Li, M., & Gold, M. (2015). Neuroquantum Theories of Psychiatric Genetics: Can Physical Forces Induce Epigenetic Influence on Future Genomes? NeuroQuantology, 13 (1) DOI: 10.14704/nq.2015.13.1.799

Continued here:
Cosmic Dopamine: On Neuroquantum Theories of Psychiatric Genetics - Discover Magazine (blog)

Genetics

Why some people make stupid choices? Genetics may hold the answer – Genetic Literacy Project

The premise of the Darwin Awards, [which are annuallygiven tothose who improve our gene pool by removing themselves from it,] is that common sense is heritable. In other words, we pass it on to our kids. But do we?

Genetics influence all these things. In fact the first law of behavior genetics, says Stuart Ritchie, who recently wrote a book on the scientific study of intelligence, is that all human psychological traits are partly heritable.

For instance, risky behavioris partly genetic. An identical and fraternal twin study published in Behavior Genetics suggests that 60 percent of differences in mens desire for new, unusual,and risky experiences (sensation seeking) is heritable.

Because so many genes make up a given polygenic trait, however, the precise genetic equation of common sense and other characteristics is unknownAnother way genetics may affect common sense is through our environment.

For example, a study published in Emotion, Space,and Society explains that environmental factors can change the way DNA is folded, thereby affecting traits such as mood regulation and impulse control.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: Is Common Sense Genetic?

For more background on the Genetic Literacy Project, read GLP on Wikipedia.

Read this article:
Why some people make stupid choices? Genetics may hold the answer - Genetic Literacy Project

Genetics

Cancer Genetics, Inc. closed with a change of 16.42% in the Previous Trading Session – Free Observer

Cancer Genetics, Inc. (CGIX) belongs to the Healthcare sector with an industry focus on Medical Laboratories & Research, with Mr. Panna Sharma as Chief Exec. Officer, Pres and Director.

The company has been one of the biggest innovators in Medical Laboratories & Research employing approximately 223 full time employees.

Key Statistics:

Financials:

The company reported an impressive total revenue of 27.05 Million in the last fiscal year.

If you look at the companys income statement over the past years, you will see that the company is constantly posting gross profit: In 2014, CGIX earned gross profit of 1.75 Million, in 2015 3.94 Million gross profit, while in 2016 Cancer Genetics, Inc. (CGIX) produced 9.95 Million profit.

Currently the shares of Cancer Genetics, Inc. (CGIX) has a trading volume of 1.87 Million shares, with an average trading volume of 970625 shares with shares dropping to a 52 week low of $1.1 on Nov 4, 2016, and the companys shares hitting a 52 week high on Mar 24, 2017 of $3.95.

Looking at the current price of the stock and the 52 week high and low, it suggests that the stock is likely to go Down in the future.

Earnings per share (EPS) breaks down the profitability of the company on a single share basis, and for Cancer Genetics, Inc. the EPS stands at -0.23 for the previous quarter, while the analysts predicted the EPS of the stock to be -0.28, suggesting the stock exceeded the analysts expectations.

Another critical number in evaluating a stock is P/E or the price to earnings ratio.

The TTM operating margin is -65.9%. The return on invested capital at -54.5%, which is good, compared to its peers.

The Free Cash Flow or FCF margin is 0%, which means that the business has healthy reserve funds for contingencies that may arise.

Stock is currently moving with a positive distance from the 200 day simple moving average of approximately 103.68%, and has a solid year to date (YTD) performance of 188.89% which means the stock is constantly adding to its value from the previous fiscal year end price.

Future Expectations:

The target price for Cancer Genetics, Inc. (CGIX) is $6/share according to the consensus of analysts working on the stock, with an expected EPS of $-0.22/share for the current quarter.

The companys expected revenue in the current quarter to be 7.1 Million, seeing a projected current quarter growth of 53.2%, and per annum growth estimates over the next 5 year period of around 40%.

Original post:
Cancer Genetics, Inc. closed with a change of 16.42% in the Previous Trading Session - Free Observer

Genetics

Genetics of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) – News-Medical.net

Over the last decade, the inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) - Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis (UC) have been key areas of research into complex disease genetics.

More than 100 genes have been identified that increase the risk of these conditions developing, confirming that a strong genetic element is involved. Although scientists still do not understand exactly what causes Crohns and UC to develop, it is known that the bowel inflammation tends to arise in response to bacteria in the gut among people who are genetically pre-disposed to the conditions.

In 2006, all 22,000 genes of the human genome across 6,000 individuals were scanned by researchers. As reported in Nature Genetics, the scientists said that around 50% of the people had Crohns disease and the remainder did not, showing that genetics is a key element in the development of these diseases. They also said that identifying the predisposing genes could lead to the development of new treatment approaches. Several initiatives are now in place to use todays scientific technologies and knowledge to help achieve this goal and two of these are described in more detail below.

The Crohns & Colitis Foundation (CCFA) has launched a project called the IBD Genetics Initiative, which involves leading scientists in the field who hope to use science and technology to discover new ways of curing or preventing the development of Crohn's disease.

To date, 165 IBD-associated genes have been identified, but their functions are not yet understood. The goals of the IBD Genetics Initiative are to:

So far, the initiative has led to the discovery of at least two gene pathways that can already be targeted using existing drugs, with one already having been confirmed as safe for use in humans.

In a world-wide collaboration over recent years, the IIBDGC has been gathering large datasets from a wide variety of countries in order to discover IBD-associated genes and also explore what the associations mean. The consortiums latest article involved twelve groups of research analysts who used advanced statistical methods to identify patterns across the genes.

This provided new understanding about IBD risk that could not be provided by single locus analysis. Specifically, the research led to the finding that, as well as IBD genetically resembling other immune conditions, it is especially closely associated with particular inflammatory disorders such as psoriasis. The risk of IBD is not just associated with immune system changes, but with a certain subset of immune cells and signals. The risk is not only associated with susceptibility to bacterial infection, but in particular, with susceptibility to bacteria from the family that includes tuberculosis and leprosy.

The IIBDGC says that times have changed compared to five years ago, with disease gene discovery no longer being the challenging aspect; the focus of future studies should be to examine the new associations found and transform any findings into a deeper understanding of biology.

Reviewed by Susha Cheriyedath, MSc

Read more from the original source:
Genetics of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) - News-Medical.net

Embryology

The Ida Hudson Callaway Building: LC’s New Beacon of Pride – The Hilltop News

By Meagan Lennon

Many LaGrange College student s, myself included, were skeptical when construction first began. I recall thinking, Why do we need a new science building? The current one is perfectly fine.

Little did I know that I would be so wrong.

Dr. Arthur Sikora used a chemical reaction to cut the ribbon at the grand opening.

With its spacious laboratories, state-of-the-art technology, and modern design, the new Ida Callaway Hudson Lab Science Building provides the best accommodations for students and professors alike. Comparatively, the memories of the old building seem like ancient history since the new building has been completed. As Dr. William Paschal, professor of anatomy and physiology, neurobiology, and embryology, says, We no longer have to share space. There is so much more room to maneuver and see.

In the old building, most of the classes had to share the same lab space, but now every class has its own lab. The lab spaces in the old building were crowded, and they could hardly fit an entire class. However, in the Ida, each lab space can fit up to twenty-four students with space to spare.

We now have neat equipment that is typically found at research universities, and we dont have to share.

Everything in the new building is state-of-the-art and perfect for the budding scientist. According to Dr. Nickie Cauthen, the science department chair and professor of genetics, biology, and molecular biology, We now have neat equipment that is typically found at research universities, and we dont have to share.

Dr. William Paschal leads his lab on the first day of school.

In the chemistry labs, each lab group has a dedicated drawer for beakers, test tubes, and other equipment, and lab partners can safely conduct experiments without worrying about volatile gases under the new hoods. In the anatomy lab, each table has its own snorkel so the lab does not reek of the dissection specimen.

Professors can also use special microscopes to project specimens onto the projection screen. This addition makes it easier for students to understand what the professor is talking about during the lecture or the laboratory session.

Although the Ida is truly something to marvel, its space and its technology are not its sole captivating features. It was built with professors and students in mind. Students can use multiple study rooms and we love being able to write on the whiteboard walls that separate the classrooms from the offices. As Dr. Cauthen states, When we were the old building, it was rare to see students outside of class times. But now? The students want to hang around.

The whiteboard walls are directly outside of the offices, so if we are struggling with a concept, we can draw out what we understand and ask the professor any questions. I have taken advantage of the whiteboard feature many times, and it is perhaps one of my favorite things about the Ida.

When we were the old building, it was rare to see students outside of class times. But now? The students want to hang around.

Dr. Cauthen states, We are hoping that the new building will draw in new students.

Meagan Lennon, 19, is a sophomore biology major.

The building itself is more than equipped to handle incoming students because, as Dr. Cauthen claimed, We dont have to worry about overcrowding, and we have room to grow.

Students of all majors can appreciate the spacious hallways and the technologically advanced lab rooms. Professors can provide students with extra help on the whiteboard walls that line the hallways. And the extra study space is more accessible to groups. The Ida Callaway Hudson Lab Sciences Building stands as a beacon of pride on our historic and prestigious campus.

Like Loading...

View post:
The Ida Hudson Callaway Building: LC's New Beacon of Pride - The Hilltop News

Anatomy

Scoop: GREY’S ANATOMY on ABC – Thursday, April 13, 2017 – Broadway World

On the episode In the Air Tonight Meredith and Nathan have to confront their feelings when they are are stuck sitting next to each other on a plane, on Greys Anatomy, THURSDAY, APRIL 13 (8:00-9:01 p.m. EDT), on The ABC Television Network.

Greys Anatomy stars Ellen Pompeo as Meredith Grey, Justin Chambers as Alex Karev, Chandra Wilson as Miranda Bailey, James Pickens Jr. as Richard Webber, Kevin McKidd as Owen Hunt, Jessica Capshaw as Arizona Robbins, Jesse Williams as Jackson Avery, Sarah Drew as April Kepner, Caterina Scorsone as Amelia Shepherd, Camilla Luddington as Jo Wilson, Jerrika Hinton as Stephanie Edwards, Kelly McCreary as Maggie Pierce, Jason George as Ben Warren, Martin Henderson as Nathan Riggs and Giacomo Gianniotti as Andrew DeLuca.

Greys Anatomy was created and is executive produced by Shonda Rhimes (Scandal, How to Get Away with Murder), Betsy Beers (Scandal, How to Get Away with Murder) and Mark Gordon (Saving Private Ryan). William Harper, Stacy McKee, Zoanne Clack and Debbie Allen are executive producers. Greys Anatomy is produced by ABC Studios.

In the Air Tonight was written by Stacy McKee and directed by Chandra Wilson.

Greys Anatomy is broadcasted in 720 Progressive (720P), ABCs selected HTV format, with 5.1-channel surround sound.

The rest is here:
Scoop: GREY'S ANATOMY on ABC - Thursday, April 13, 2017 - Broadway World

Anatomy

Anatomy of a Goal: Ola Kamara’s Chip – Massive Report

Welcome to the first Anatomy of a Goal, where each week we dissect one goal (or near goal) from the previous weeks Columbus Crew SC match.

For week four on the 2017 MLS Season, we take a look at Ola Kamaras 19th minute chipped goal that put Crew SC up 2-1 as part of the 3-2 win over the Portland Timbers on Saturday.

Heres a look at the finish from the Columbus forward.

First, lets set the scene. Up to this point in the game, Crew SC had dominated possession while Portland looked to defend, high press, and counter. The Timbers first goal came off of a direct attack and the Black & Golds first goal came from a Justin Meram rebound on a corner kick.

The build up to Kamaras chip goal starts with an Alvas Powell throw-in.

In the above image, you can see that Portland has five players in position to receive the throw-in (Federico Higuain is pointing to the sixth man/safety valve). Realistically, Powell has three options: Fanendo Adi, Dairon Asprilla, and Diego Valeri. In what looks like a designed play, Powell makes the deep throw to Adi who immediately heads the ball in the direction of Valeri.

Jonathan Mensah is easily able to cut off the headed ball and makes a simple pass to Artur, who immediately turns the ball upfield.

The image above shows where this goal really begins. If you notice Higuain, his head is turned downfield rather than looking at Artur. At this moment, hes aware that Powell has not tracked back on defense and Zarek Valentin is pushed far up the field watching Ethan Finaly, leaving Kamara downfield and marked only by the Timbers center backs.

As Artur dribbles upfield, still un-pressured by Diego Chara, Higuain continues to look at Kamaras positioning. Higuain knows exactly where Kamara is at all times during this play.

Here, you can see that Chara begins to pressure Artur, and Artur can see two options: Harrison Afful or Finlay. Artur opts for the pass upfield to Finaly but makes his decision and pass too late, allowing Chara to deflect the ball right into the path of Valeri.

Valeri heads the ball back into the general direction of Chara and Sebastin Blanco. However, Afful makes a great hustle play to out-jump Chara (who is two inches taller than Afful), and head the ball downfield in the direction of Higuain. If Afful gets beaten by Chara, the ball likely makes its way to Blanco, who only has to beat Jonathan to get in on goal.

Above, Higuain is waiting for the ball that Afful was able to put right in his path. He knows the ball is going to get to him so hes looking to see EXACTLY where Kamara is. Higuain likely notices that Powell is still not back on defense and Kamara is only marked by the two center backs. You can just see Valentins shadow above Higuains head. Valentin has arguably moved too far up the field to track Finaly and provide an outlet pass.

Higuain receives the ball on a bad bounce, maybe controlling the ball with his arm, but hes already made his mind up to send a long ball into the path of the sprinting Kamara. Higuain controls the ball, and fires a second-touch-volley down the field and over the head of Kamara and the Portland center backs.

This image shows exactly how open Kamara was whenever Higuain turned his head in the seconds leading up to this pass. The forward is only marked by the two center-backs. Kamara splits the center-backs, and puts his run close enough to Lawrence Olum that Olum doesnt have the speed to get in front of Kamara.

Kamara can now see that hes going to get the first touch on the ball. The decision he has to make is whether to hit a one-touch-volley over the head of Jake Gleeson, who he can see is very far off of his line, or to take a touch and try to beat Gleeson 1 v 1. Both Olum and Roy Miller peel off of Kamara to try and get into a goal-side position. Olum immediately heads toward the goal, while Miller makes a bent run, trying to coax Kamar into a second touch. On the replay, it looks like Gleeson isnt sure whether to come out or stay back. Both defenders head toward the goal so Gleeson stays out.

By this point, Kamara has decided to knock a one-time chip over Gleeson before Olum or Miller can get in position for a clearance. Kamara is running toward a ball that is traveling left and away from the goal. On this shot, he displays excellent control of his body. Kamara maintains his run away from the goal, slowing down only long enough to make sure he connects with the ball. Then, he expertly uses his left foot (dont forget, Ola is right-footed) to redirect the ball over Gleeson and into back of the net.

Findings:

And that, is this weeks Anatomy of a Goal. This one showed some pretty impressive stuff from Crew SC and ultimately played a large part in three points at home.

See the rest here:
Anatomy of a Goal: Ola Kamara's Chip - Massive Report

Anatomy

Matthew Morrison Joins ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ See On-Set Pics and Video – Variety

Matthew Morrison has been cast onGreys Anatomy.

ABC confirmedtoVarietythat the Glee alum is joining the medical drama in aguest role. However, the network kept details on his character and storyline under wraps.

Morrisonwas recently spotted in on-set pictures, which surfaced on a Twitter fan account this past weekend. In the photos, hes filming with Greys Anatomy vet Justin Chambers, plus star and director Kevin McKidd. The images depict Morrison and Chambers on a street and near a cab.

Morrison also teased a new gig on his Instagram story, but did not specify the new show. He did say thathed be playing a character named Dr. Paul Stadler.

Actors Justin Chambers & Matthew Morrison with director Kevin McKidd on the set of #GreysAnatomy episode 13.23, wrote one fan account on Saturday, with a picture of the two actors.

Things we learned today: #GreysAnatomy ep 13.23 has some medical event that Alex & Dr. Paul Stadler played by Matthew Morrison go to, wrote the same fan account on Friday.

Morrisonis best known for starring on Glee for its entire run, which ended in 2015. He recently had a memorable guest role on TV Lands Younger. He also had an arc on The Good Wife. He is repped by CAA.

Go here to read the rest:
Matthew Morrison Joins 'Grey's Anatomy' See On-Set Pics and Video - Variety