Physiology

Low-intensity interval training can be as effective as HIIT but only if you spend more time working out – Metro Newspaper UK

Bradley Elliott, lecturer in physiology, University of Westminster

THOUGH we know exercise is important for our overall health, and that more is typically better, many of us dont have hours a day to devote to working out. This might be why fitness regimes like high-intensity interval training (HIIT) have become so popular in recent years.

Not only does HIIT promise to improve overall health and fitness, it can also be done in a short amount of time. But HIITs intensity might not be for everyone which is why slower, less intense workouts have started to gain popularity.

HIIT requires you to work all out for brief periods of 30-45 seconds, interspersed with recovery periods of about five minutes, repeated approximately 2-4 times. Because its done at such a high intensity, you can have a successful workout in as little as 15-20 minutes. It can even be done by older people and those with chronic health conditions like diabetes.

Though it might sound easy, those 30 seconds can feel like they last for ever if youre exercising as intensely as you possibly can. Simply put, HIIT can hurt and it might not be good for everyone.

Though uncommon, in my lab weve had people be ill, feel faint and very rarely pass out during a single 30-second super-maximal exercise. While the benefits still outweigh the risks for most people, HIIT has also been linked to greater risk of injury.

But LIIT (low-intensity interval training) has become a recent exercise phenomenon that claims you can still achieve similar fitness results to HIIT, but with lower risk of injury. Though there is currently no research on the effects of LIIT workouts, the idea is that you still perform exercises in intervals, but these exercises are done at a lower intensity and with shorter rest time in between.

Given the lack of research, to know if LIIT works we need to look at studies that have compared the effects of doing the same amount of exercise, but over different periods of time either short and intense workouts, or long and slow workouts. Research suggests body fat is reduced by similar amounts between high- and low-intensity exercise, but higher intensities improved overall fitness and blood pressure, suggesting greater long-term health benefits.

Both long, slow endurance training (such as walking and running) and HIIT have been found to improve aerobic fitness (heart and lung function) in healthy adults. Though HIIT typically leads to larger increases in aerobic fitness, both high- and low-intensity training can be beneficial to heart health. But because HIIT is so intense, research suggests leaving about three days between HIIT workouts to let your body recover.

People with bone and joint problems may not enjoy HIIT due to the heavy loading that it requires. And though HIIT is reasonably safe for people with heart problems, its worth knowing that heart attacks are five times more likely following a HIIT workout than other types of exercise in higher-risk cardiac patients. However, the benefits of any exercise often outweigh the risks, in both healthy people and those with health conditions.

For these reasons, LIIT claims to be one compromise that mixes elements of HIIT and traditional endurance training. The aim is to use interval training but reduce the intensity and lengthen active periods, making it easier for people looking to get in shape or keep active. While HIIT focuses on doing explosive, intense movements quickly with long recovery such as burpees, sprints or box-jumps until you feel you cant do any more a LIIT workout might also incorporate these moves, but would concentrate more on form than exhaustion, and with shorter gaps between exercises.

But is LIIT as effective as HIIT? If you simply replace a brief HIIT session with one of a lower intensity, then it probably wont be more effective, unless the session is longer in order to make up for the loss of intensity. Think of intensity and time as a trade-off. If you reduce the intensity of the exercise you perform, you must increase the duration that youre exercising to burn a similar amount of calories.

So if your usual HIIT session is 10-15 minutes, an equivalent LIIT session might need to be 30 minutes to be as effective and a continuous jogging session could be 60 minutes.

The amount of calories used during HIIT, LIIT or endurance workouts is roughly the same if you bear in mind this intensity-duration trade off. This has not only been shown in multiple studies, but also demonstrated by myself on live TV, where I showed 30 minutes of continuous cycling and a 90-second all-out cycle sprint used similar amounts of energy.

Endurance fitness is a great marker of health, and will improve with all these types of exercise but HIIT is more likely to improve muscle power. Because none of the above targets muscle strength and mass, if youre doing HIIT, LIIT or any other type of endurance training, consider adding some type of strength-based resistance training as well.

The most important takeaway is that getting enough exercise is important for overall health. The government advises adults of all abilities to do 150 minutes of continuous exercise a week or 75 minutes of intermittent-style exercise a week. When it comes to doing HIIT- or LIIT-based exercise, the choice is really yours. Try both, and even consider changing your routine up. Exercise is only effective when done consistently, so the activity you like most is probably the right exercise for you.

Read the rest here:
Low-intensity interval training can be as effective as HIIT but only if you spend more time working out - Metro Newspaper UK

Genetics

How ‘viral load’ and genetics could explain why young people have died from coronavirus – The Independent

The coronavirus pandemic has hit older people far harder than those who are younger, but scientists are yet to fully understand why this is.

Many of the elderly people who have died have had pre-existing health conditions such as heart disease, lung disease and diabetes, all of which make fighting the virus more difficult, but many have not had any such health problems, and occasionally the virus has caused the deaths of younger, apparently healthy people.

Researchers around the world are racing to learn how the virus behaves, which health factors put people most at risk, and are trying to work out whether there may be genetic traits that could mean some people respond to the infection differently to others.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

There are various theories to suggest why the virus is so unusually and devastatingly selective.

Some scientists have suggested the greater the amount of virus that infects an individual known as the viral load could make a large difference to how the body is able to respond to infection.

Put simply,the larger the dose of the virus a person gets, the worse the infection is, and the least promising the outcome.

A parallel school of thought is that genetic variations between humans differences in our DNA could affect how susceptible an individual is to the virus.

And another candidate for why apparently healthy young people are dying is they may have a highly reactive immune system, which is sent into overdrive fighting off the virus. In such a scenario, a huge inflammation storm could inadvertently overwhelm vital organs such as the lungs.

None of the theories compete with one another, and aspects of all of them, as well as innumerable other factors, could be at play in an individual case.

Viral load

No hype, just the advice and analysis you need

Dr Edward Parker of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, explained how a high viral load can impact humans. He said: After we are infected with a virus, it replicates in our bodys cells. The total amount of virus a person has inside them is referred to as their viral load. For Covid-19, early reports from China suggest the viral load is higher in patients with more severe disease, which is also the case for Sars and influenza.

The amount of virus we are exposed to at the start of an infection is referred to as the infectious dose. For influenza, we know that that initial exposure to more virus or a higher infectious dose appears to increase the chance of infection and illness. Studies in mice have also shown that repeated exposure to low doses may be just as infectious as a single high dose.

He added: So all in all, it is crucial for us to limit all possible exposures to Covid-19, whether these are to highly symptomatic individuals coughing up large quantities of virus or to asymptomatic individuals shedding small quantities. And if we are feeling unwell, we need to observe strict self-isolation measures to limit our chance of infecting others.

Professor Wendy Barclay, the head of the Department of Infectious Disease at Imperial College London, said existing knowledge of viral load means healthcare workers can be at greater risk of infection.

In general with respiratory viruses, the outcome of infection whether you get severely ill or only get a mild cold can sometimes be determined by how much virus actually got into your body and started the infection off. Its all about the size of the armies on each side of the battle, a very large virus army is difficult for our immune systems army to fight off.

So standing further away from someone when they breathe or cough out virus likely means fewer virus particles reach you and then you get infected with a lower dose and get less ill. Doctors who have to get very close to patients to take samples from them or to intubate them are at higher risk so need to wear masks.

Genetic differences between those infected

Scientists are currently preparing to scour Covid-19 patients genomes for DNA variations that might indicate why some people are more at risk than others.

The findings could then be used to identify groups most at risk of serious illness and those who might be protected, and this knowledge could then inform the hunt for effective treatments.

A huge effort to pool DNA research from patients around the world is now on, with the ultimate goal being to build a body of evidence from people with no underlying health issues, but who have reacted differently to infection by the virus.

One promising strand of research into why some people are more susceptible to the coronavirus is on the gene variation for the cell surface protein angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), found on the outer membranes of cells, and which the coronavirus uses to enter cells in the lungs and airways.

Variations in production of ACE2 could make it easier or more difficult for the virus to enter and infect cells.

We see huge differences in clinical outcomes and across countries. How much of that is explained by genetic susceptibility is a very open question, geneticist Andrea Ganna, of the University of Helsinkis Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland, told Science Magazine.

Another fascinating line of inquiry is whether different blood types could lead to differing levels of susceptibility to the disease.

A Chinese research team reported in a non-peer-reviewed article that people with type O blood may be protected from the virus, and those with type A blood could be at greater risk.

Were trying to figure out if those findings are robust, Stanford University human geneticist Manuel Rivas told Science Magazine.

The first results from the investigations into genetic differences and susceptibility are expected in less than two months time.

Continued here:
How 'viral load' and genetics could explain why young people have died from coronavirus - The Independent

Genetics

Here’s how scientists are tracking the genetic evolution of COVID-19 – The Conversation US

When you hear the term evolutionary tree, you may think of Charles Darwin and the study of the relationships between different species over the span of millions of years.

While the concept of an evolutionary tree originated in Darwins On the Origin of Species, one can apply this concept to anything that evolves, including viruses. Scientists can study the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 to learn more about how the genes of the virus function. It is also useful to make inferences about the spread of the virus around the world, and what type of vaccine may be most effective.

I am a bioinformatician who studies the relationships between epidemics and viral evolution, and I am among the many researchers now studying the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 because it can help researchers and public health officials track the spread of the virus over time. What we are finding is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus appears to be mutating more slowly than the seasonal flu which may allow scientists to develop a vaccine.

Viruses evolve by mutating. That is, there are changes in their genetic code over time. The way it happens is a little like that game of telephone. Amy is the first player, and her word is CAT. She whispers her word to Ben, who accidentally hears MAT. Ben whispers his word to Carlos, who hears MAD. As the game of telephone goes on, the word will transform further and further away from its original form.

We can think of a biological genetic material as a sequence of letters, and over time, sequences mutate: The letters of the sequence can change. Scientists have developed various models of sequence evolution to help them study how mutations occur over time.

Much like our game of telephone, the genome sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus changes over time: Mutations occur randomly, and any changes that occur in a given virus will be inherited by all copies of the next generation. Then, much as we could try to decode how CAT became MAD, scientists can use models on genetic evolution to try to determine the most likely evolutionary history of the virus.

DNA sequencing is the process of experimentally finding the sequence of nucleotides (A, C, G and T) the chemical building blocks of genes of a piece of DNA. DNA sequencing is largely used to study human diseases and genetics, but in recent years, sequencing has become a routine part of viral point of care, and as sequencing becomes cheaper and cheaper, viral sequencing will become even more frequent as time progresses.

RNA is a molecule similar to DNA, and it is essentially a temporary copy of a short segment of DNA. Specifically, in the central dogma of biology, DNA is transcribed into RNA. SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus, meaning our DNA sequencing technologies cannot directly decode its sequence. However, scientists can first reverse transcribe the RNA of the virus into complementary DNA (or cDNA), which can then be sequenced.

Given a collection of viral genome sequences, we can use our models of sequence evolution to predict the viruss history, and we can use this to answer questions like, How fast do mutations occur? or Where in the genome do mutations occur? Knowing which genes are mutating frequently can be useful in drug design.

Tracking how viruses have changed in a location can also answer questions like, How many separate outbreaks exist in my community? This type of information can help public health officials contain the spread of the virus.

For COVID-19, there has been a global initiative to share viral genomes with all scientists. Given a collection of sequences with sample dates, scientists can infer the evolutionary history of the samples in real-time and use the information to infer the history of transmissions.

One such initiative is Nextstrain, an open-source project that provides users real-time reports of the spread of seasonal influenza, Ebola and many other infectious diseases. Most recently, it has been spearheading the evolutionary tracking of COVID-19 by providing a real-time analysis as well as a situation report meant to be readable by the general public. Further, the project enables the global population to benefit from its efforts by translating the situation report to many other languages.

As the amount of available information grows, scientists need faster tools to be able to crunch the numbers. My lab at UC San Diego, in collaboration with the System Energy Efficiency (SEE) Lab led by Professor Tajana imuni Rosing, is working to create new algorithms, software tools and computer hardware to make the real-time analysis of the COVID-19 epidemic more feasible.

Based on current data, it seems as though SARS-CoV-2 mutates much more slowly than the seasonal flu. Specifically, SARS-CoV-2 seems to have a mutation rate of less than 25 mutations per year, whereas the seasonal flu has a mutation rate of almost 50 mutations per year.

Given that the SARS-CoV-2 genome is almost twice as large as the seasonal flu genome, it seems as though the seasonal flu mutates roughly four times as fast as SARS-CoV-2. The fact that the seasonal flu mutates so quickly is precisely why it is able to evade our vaccines, so the significantly slower mutation rate of SARS-CoV-2 gives us hope for the potential development of effective long-lasting vaccines against the virus.

[Get facts about coronavirus and the latest research. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

See the article here:
Here's how scientists are tracking the genetic evolution of COVID-19 - The Conversation US

Genetics

Genetics shed light on origins of Irish strains of Covid-19 – The Irish Times

Since the Covid-19 virus strain was first identified in early 2020, scientists have been able to track its progress around the world.

The virus is very slowly evolving, but in making copies of itself in its human hosts, it can introduce occasional errors in its genome sequence to make a different sequence.

This means that strains are almost identical but, crucially, differ by the tiniest amount. These tiny differences can be used as a kind of tracker to show how the virus has spread.

Scientists around the world have analysed more than 2,500 publicly shared Covid-19 genomes and identified 100-150 mutations.

They have been able to identify that the outbreak in Washington state, which was one of the earliest places in the United States to record coronavirus cases, came from China in early January and a second strain came from Europe.

The results are available on a public access platform called nextstrain.org where scientists share results from laboratory samples from those who contracted Covid-19.

Having analysed the nextstrain.org data, Irish scientist Prof James McInerney, the head of the school of life sciences at the University of Nottingham, has confirmed there is no single origin of viral strains in Ireland. However, he identified three potentially significant routes of transmission.

Testing laboratories in Dublin, Cork and Limerick each identified separate strains of the virus which were connected respectively to laboratories in Birmingham, Boston and Copenhagen.

While the strain identified in Dublin is associated with Birmingham, this does not mean the virus genome originated in Birmingham. Rather, it originated in the area covered by the testing laboratories based in the city.

This could include Cheltenham which is 80km south of Birmingham though there were cases in Dublin before thousands of Irish racegoers returned from the annual festival in early March.

Prof McInerney stressed it is not possible to say with any certainty that Cheltenham might have been a reservoir for the virus. The strain present in both Dublin and Birmingham could have originated in the Irish capital and been introduced to the UK, he noted.

All I can say is that there is a link we dont know the direction of transmission, only that there is a strong link.

The strain identified with Cork is the same as that from Boston which is understandable given the strong Irish links with the city. Massachusetts is a hot spot in the US for the illness with more than 7,000 cases and 122 deaths to date.

The direction of travel is unknown here too, so it might be the case that the Boston strain of the virus originated in Cork.

The third strain, which has been identified in Limerick, is the same as the one identified in laboratories in Copenhagen.

Prof McInerney said the connection with Copenhagen is more puzzling. It could be that somebody from Copenhagen brought the illness to Ireland, somebody from Ireland picked it up in Copenhagen or that the disease was picked up in a third country.

The bottom line is that Ireland is an open country. The links between this tiny sample of viruses is linked to international travel. This is normal in the early stages of an outbreak. You will see internal links later in the outbreak, he said.

We shouldnt be surprised that there isnt a single source for Ireland and the virus follows the traditional movement of our people.

Many people have blamed the decision by the Government not to shut down flights from northern Italy during the early days of the pandemic as a factor in the spread of the illness in Ireland, but Prof McInerney said there has not been enough genome sequencing done yet to make a definitive judgment on whether or not that was a factor.

The first 13 confirmed cases of coronavirus in Ireland were all people who had returned from northern Italy or who had contact with such people.

Since the first outbreak, foreign travel has become less a significant factor as the virus has spread throughout the community by person-to-person transmission.

Of the 3,894 cases confirmed so far, the percentage of those who contracted the virus abroad has dropped to 18 per cent.

Kevin Mitchell, associate professor of genetics and neuroscience at Trinity College Dublin, said the lineages of the virus make it easier to track its mutations and will help to understand how it travels within countries as well as between countries.

Its very useful for understanding how the virus is spreading. At early stages, it has mostly been being introduced by travel. But now it has changed to community spread in many places. Knowing what phase it is in informs the public health measures that should be taken, he said.

See more here:
Genetics shed light on origins of Irish strains of Covid-19 - The Irish Times

Genetics

Animal Genetics Market: Increase in Meat Consumption and Demand for High Quality Proteins to Drive Growth – BioSpace

Transparency Market Research (TMR) has published a new report titled Animal Genetics Market - Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends, and Forecast, 20182026. According to the report, the global animal genetics market was valued at US$ 4,740.5 Mn in 2017. It is projected to expand at a CAGR of 6.0% from 2018 to 2026. Increase in meat consumption, demand for high quality proteins, and rise in purchasing power are likely to drive the animal genetics market from 2018 to 2026.

Genetic diversity provides the raw material for breed improvement and for the adaptation of livestock populations to changing environments and changing demands. Developments in genomic tools have allowed scientists to apply genome-wide information in the investigation of various aspects of livestock species. The animal genetics industry has witnessed robust expansion in the last two decades, particularly in developing countries where consumption of animal source food increased rapidly.

Request a PDF Sample - https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=S&rep_id=18995

Purchasing power is considered to be a key driver for livestock products. Lower-and middle-income consumers have a strong influence on consumption trends, as the effect of increased income on diet is greatest in this group. Increasing income in developing countries is an important factor that drives the consumption of livestock products, particularly meat. Poultry and dairy products have been found to have higher income elasticities of demand than other animal-source foods, i.e., the consumption levels are more responsive to income. This effect is particularly strong in low-income populations.

Furthermore, the animal genetics industry is pursuing alternative solutions in the fight against animal disease and suffering. These include using data and health-focused breeding indices and exploring breakthrough technology, including gene editing, which is likely to have a significant impact on farming and animal well-being. Adoption of semen sexing technology and IVF (invitro fertilization) is rising rapidly across dairy and beef herds. Access to such technology helps farmers to accelerate genetic progress in their herds.

Request for Custom Research - https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=CR&rep_id=18995

Live animals segment to account for major share

In terms of product type, the live animals segment accounted for a dominant share of the animal genetics market in 2017. Growing urban population coupled with changes in consumer preference resulted in greater demand for assured food safety and quality. These developments favored large-scale production and processing of live animals. Moreover, increasing demand for meat has further propelled the segment. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, demand for food is expected to double food production in order to feed the global population, which is estimated to reach around 9.1 billion by 2050. Cost-effective production of safe, high-quality, animal protein is necessary to cater to this surge in demand.

Market in Asia Pacific to expand at a significant pace

North America held a major share of the global market, in terms of revenue. It is expected to maintain its position during the forecast period. North America is home to several key market players, such as Zoetis, Inc., Neogen Corporation, and VetGen, who have their headquarters in the U.S., where they generate significant sales. Hence, North America is a leading market for animal genetics, globally. High awareness about latest technologies and higher purchasing power are anticipated to boost the animal genetics market in North America. The animal genetics market in Asia Pacific is expected to expand at a rapid pace, primarily due to increasing disposable income, rising population and increasing urbanization. Asia Pacific is home to major pork producing countries such as China, Russia, and Japan.

Request for Discount on this Report - https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=D&rep_id=18995

Key players such as Genus plc, CRV Holding B.V., and Neogen Corporation to lead the market

The report also provides profiles of other major players operating in the global animal genetics market. Major players include Zoetis, Inc., Groupe Grimaud, Topigs Norsvin, VetGen, Animal Genetics Inc., and Hendrix Genetics BV.

About Us

Transparency Market Research is a next-generation market intelligence provider, offering fact-based solutions to business leaders, consultants, and strategy professionals.

Our reports are single-point solutions for businesses to grow, evolve, and mature. Our real-time data collection methods along with ability to track more than one million high growth niche products are aligned with your aims. The detailed and proprietary statistical models used by our analysts offer insights for making right decision in the shortest span of time. For organizations that require specific but comprehensive information we offer customized solutions through ad hoc reports. These requests are delivered with the perfect combination of right sense of fact-oriented problem solving methodologies and leveraging existing data repositories.

TMR believes that unison of solutions for clients-specific problems with right methodology of research is the key tohelp enterprises reach right decision.

ContactTransparency Market ResearchState Tower,90 State Street,Suite 700Albany NY - 12207United StatesUSA - Canada Toll Free: 866-552-3453Email:sales@transparencymarketresearch.comWebsite:https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com

View post:
Animal Genetics Market: Increase in Meat Consumption and Demand for High Quality Proteins to Drive Growth - BioSpace

Genetics

Indians do not have genetic protection against coronavirus, published research incorrectly interpreted – Deccan Herald

An opinion piece published onLivemintby Sandipan Debclaimedthat COVID-19 will not affect Indians as they have the genetics for a sturdier immune system.

When questioned on Twitter, the author, also a founder of Swarajya Magazine, cited a Nature Asia article titled, More immunity in Indian genes, as his source.

The Nature Asia article (2008), based on the research study by Du and colleagues (2008), published in the journal Genes & Immunity was conducted by a team of scientists from the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA), USA, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, India (AIIMS), and National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP), USA.

CLAIM

More immunity in Indian genes The title of Nature Asia magazine article.

Our bodies have one of the toughest immune systems in the world. We have grown up surrounded by so much filth and pollution that our natural resilience is much stronger than people in the developed world. Sandipan Deb in Livemint.

For latest updates on coronavirus outbreak, click here

VERDICT

False.

FACT-CHECK

1. The Livemint article is based on a superficial understanding of the title of the Nature Asia article, not its text.

The Nature Asia article is titled More immunity genes in Indians. However, the article itself does not make any such claims that, on the basis of the research study quoted, that Indians will be protected from the coronavirus pandemic or other infections due to their biologically inherited resilience. It simply states that Indians may have more genes linked with immunity as per the data. Also, one of the authors of the article and the research study Rajalingam Raja wrote, Whether having more activating KIR genes is an advantage or disadvantage for Indians remains to be elucidated.

This means that the genes tested through this study are not a piece of conclusive evidence that the contested tougher immunity will be an advantage for Indians in any way.

2. The Nature Asiaarticle is based on a research study based on a single gene polymorphism in various ethnicities.

The Nature Asia article is based on a research study which relies upon a single gene KIR2DL5 polymorphism in many ethnicities including Indian, East Asian, white (Caucasian) and black (African Americans), suggesting that the gene is not unique to Indians only. Also, no evidence suggests that the presence of gene translates to gene expression or phenotypic change (e.g. higher immunity) in this case.

Nature Asia article based its claim on a gene polymorphism study by Du and colleagues (2008). Genetic polymorphism is the occurrence of multiple forms of a single gene which is expressed in the same population as a trait or a phenotype (Bull, 2004). It is similar, but not the same, as varying levels of pigmentation in eyes, hair or skin colour.

The study quoted showed the nature of polymorphism of one gene KIR2DL5 in four ethnic groups: Caucasians (European race, mostly white), Asian-Indians (South Asians), African-Americans and Asians (East Asians, i.e. Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese and Filipino).

Read:Coronavirus India update: State-wise total number of confirmed cases, deaths

KIR2DL5 (or CD158f) is the last identified KIR gene (the inhibitory receptor expressed on the surface of immune cells), with KIR2DL4, it makes up a structurally divergent lineage conserved in different primate species such as humans. The percentage frequency of this KIR2DL5 gene in Indians is used as an indicator of higher immunity.

The graph from the research study illustrates that the percentage frequency of KIR2DL5 (A and B, polymorphic forms of KIR2DL5 gene) is higher in Asian Indians than the other ethnic populations studied. However, the graph below from the same study suggests that the Individuals carrying the KIR2DL5 gene vary substantially among populations ranging in frequency from 35-85%. Thus, as per the authors conclusions, higher immunity can be found in every ethnicity ranging from 35-85% population, not just in Indians.

Also Read:

Hence, with such large variability in genes in each population, it is impossible to deduce that the researchers certainly found the KIR2DL5 gene more frequently in Indian ethnicities, as compared to other ethnicities.

Also, the research paper doesnt claim that this higher frequency in Asian-Indians population is linked to a better immune system or more natural killer cells in the body. In fact, there are no conclusions drawn on any ethnic group being genetically superior or inferior regarding immunity.

3. Is the occurrence of genes (KIR2DL5 gene) linked with immunity synonymous with its traits (tougher immunity)?

The occurrence of more genes in a population isnt always synonymous with better traits. This is mainly because a greater amount of genes doesnt always translate to a protein abundance, which consequently becomes a trait. That is, the presence of genes doesnt always lead to the presence of characteristic traits related to the expression of the gene.

Sometimes, polymorphic changes in natural killer cells can also be associated with a susceptibility towards certain diseases (Orange, 2002). Thus, more correlative studies should be conducted where a higher frequency of KIR2DL5 gene results in an increased immunity regardless of ethnicity.

4. Smaller sample size

The beneficial effects of higher frequency of a polymorphic gene in a population can only be established after detailed protein, genomics and evolutionary studies with large sample size. But in this study, only 96 Indian genomes were studied as opposed to 250 Caucasians. Hence, these higher percent frequencies of polymorphs KIR2DL5 gene could also be an artefact resulting from a smaller sample size.

Only 96 non-randomised samples for the Asian-Indian group were sourced from New Delhi, which is a minuscule representation for the Indian population. These sample sizes were further reduced after identification of KIR2DL5 positive individuals.

Also Read:Pune: Dead woman's test samples found coronavirus positive

Also, the Nature Asia article further claims that Indians gained the activating KIR (killer cell immunoglobulin-like receptors) genes because of natural selection to survive the environmental challenges during their pre-historic coastal migrations from Africa. This conclusion is not based on any evidence.

Similar claim in The Printopinion piece

Dr Mehra, former Dean of AIIMS, in his opinion piece in The Print mentions the results from the same study that includes SK Sharma of AIIMS, to make his claims about the genetic advantage of Indians over Caucasians with respect to immunity against the coronavirus. Additionally, Dr Mehra also included other factors that may give Indians advantage broad-based immunity due to overexposure to other pathogens, and epigenetic factors such as environment and consumption of Indian spices in cuisine. However, since the novelty of the virus and the increasing pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in India, these claims remain without any research or evidence in Science.

CONCLUSION

The Nature Asia article published a misleading title on the basis of a genetics study which was termed inconclusive by the authors in their own research study. This title formed the basis of the Livemint article by Mr Deb.

The Nature Asia authors generalised their misleading article about Natural Killer cells (NK) to immunity genes. Natural killer cells are a small component of what makes up human immunity, not the expansive immune system.

Also Read:Old video falsely viral as Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi flouting coronavirus lockdown

Later, in the Livemint article, the Nature Asia article was used to claim a blanket superiority of the immune system of Indians. Mr Deb stated that Indians immune system is more robust than the people in the developed world to tackle the coronavirus pandemic.

Such dangerous opinion pieces with no understanding of the genetics of immunity have the potential to drive people to be careless with the protocols issued by the government on social distancing and other precautions or to encourage reckless behaviour during a critical situation.

Read more here:
Indians do not have genetic protection against coronavirus, published research incorrectly interpreted - Deccan Herald

Genetics

Genetics expert condemns FG over alleged invitation of Chinese doctors to fight COVID-19 pandemic – Vanguard

A genetics expert of Novena University, Delta State, Prof Cyril Otoikhian

A genetics expert of Novena University, Delta State, Prof Cyril Otoikhian, has joined some Nigerians and organisations to condemn the Federal Government over the alleged invitation of Chinese doctors to lead in fight spread of Coronavirus, COVID-19, pandemic in the country.

Otoikhian who is Founder of EO Foundation, a non-governmental organisation that advocates stop on sickle cell transfer in Africa, said it is dangerous importing doctors and materials from countries with a

high burden of the virus that has killed thousands of their citizens, which calls for total rejection.

According to him Nigerian medical doctors and other health professionals have the expertise to tackle the spread of the virus if they will be equipped with necessary materials and incentives.

He said: Importing doctors and materials from a biochemical war zone to our country that is yet to record genuine and authenticated case is dangerous and may result in waking up the sleeping kettle of poisonous substances called COVID-19.

Our doctors are professional enough to handle any eventuality. All that we expect from the Federal Government and the Ministry of Health is to make available all necessary equipment and stop top government representatives from travelling to war zones.

It will be recalled that the Nigeria Union of Journalists, NUJ, also in a statement expressed worry and cautioned the Federal Government on bringing in Chinese medical doctors to the virus.

It also pleaded with the government to rescind its plan and stop the Chinese medial team from coming to the country, which alleged that the rapid increase of infected persons and deaths in Italy caused by the virus was during the arrival of Chinese doctors in that country.

Also, the Nigerian Association of Resident Doctors, NARD, decried the alleged move by the Federal Government to invite an 18-man Chinese team of medical experts made up of doctors and nurses to render assistance to Nigerians to stop the spread of the virus.

However, the Director-General, National Orientation Agency, NOA, Garba Abari, recently refuted claims and assertions made by some people and organizations over the alleged invitation of Chinese medical experts to lead in the fight against the deadly virus in Nigeria.

According to Abari the Chinese medical experts are only coming to share their experience on the approaches they used in the fighting outbreaks of the COVID-19 crisis in their country with the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control, NCDC.

Vanguard

Related

Read more here:
Genetics expert condemns FG over alleged invitation of Chinese doctors to fight COVID-19 pandemic - Vanguard

Genetics

Those Who Purchased Cancer Genetics (NASDAQ:CGIX) Shares Five Years Ago Have A 99% Loss To Show For It – Simply Wall St

This week we saw the Cancer Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CGIX) share price climb by 17%. But that doesnt change the fact that the returns over the last half decade have been stomach churning. Like a ship taking on water, the share price has sunk 99% in that time. Its true that the recent bounce could signal the company is turning over a new leaf, but we are not so sure. The fundamental business performance will ultimately determine if the turnaround can be sustained.

We really hope anyone holding through that price crash has a diversified portfolio. Even when you lose money, you dont have to lose the lesson.

Check out our latest analysis for Cancer Genetics

Because Cancer Genetics made a loss in the last twelve months, we think the market is probably more focussed on revenue and revenue growth, at least for now. When a company doesnt make profits, wed generally expect to see good revenue growth. Some companies are willing to postpone profitability to grow revenue faster, but in that case one does expect good top-line growth.

Over five years, Cancer Genetics grew its revenue at 14% per year. Thats a pretty good rate for a long time period. So the stock price fall of 59% per year seems pretty steep. The market can be a harsh master when your company is losing money and revenue growth disappoints.

You can see below how earnings and revenue have changed over time (discover the exact values by clicking on the image).

This free interactive report on Cancer Geneticss balance sheet strength is a great place to start, if you want to investigate the stock further.

We regret to report that Cancer Genetics shareholders are down 61% for the year. Unfortunately, thats worse than the broader market decline of 14%. Having said that, its inevitable that some stocks will be oversold in a falling market. The key is to keep your eyes on the fundamental developments. Regrettably, last years performance caps off a bad run, with the shareholders facing a total loss of 59% per year over five years. Generally speaking long term share price weakness can be a bad sign, though contrarian investors might want to research the stock in hope of a turnaround. Its always interesting to track share price performance over the longer term. But to understand Cancer Genetics better, we need to consider many other factors. For example, weve discovered 6 warning signs for Cancer Genetics (4 are a bit concerning!) that you should be aware of before investing here.

We will like Cancer Genetics better if we see some big insider buys. While we wait, check out this free list of growing companies with considerable, recent, insider buying.

Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on US exchanges.

If you spot an error that warrants correction, please contact the editor at editorial-team@simplywallst.com. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. Simply Wall St has no position in the stocks mentioned.

We aim to bring you long-term focused research analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Thank you for reading.

Go here to see the original:
Those Who Purchased Cancer Genetics (NASDAQ:CGIX) Shares Five Years Ago Have A 99% Loss To Show For It - Simply Wall St

Genetics

When Will Fulgent Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:FLGT) Breakeven? – Simply Wall St

Fulgent Genetics, Inc.s (NASDAQ:FLGT): Fulgent Genetics, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides genetic testing services to physicians with clinically actionable diagnostic information. The US$206m market-cap company announced a latest loss of -US$411.0k on 31 December 2019 for its most recent financial year result. As path to profitability is the topic on FLGTs investors mind, Ive decided to gauge market sentiment. In this article, I will touch on the expectations for FLGTs growth and when analysts expect the company to become profitable.

See our latest analysis for Fulgent Genetics

According to the 2 industry analysts covering FLGT, the consensus is breakeven is near. They expect the company to post a final loss in 2020, before turning a profit of US$3.4m in 2021. FLGT is therefore projected to breakeven around a couple of months from now! In order to meet this breakeven date, I calculated the rate at which FLGT must grow year-on-year. It turns out an average annual growth rate of 147% is expected, which is extremely buoyant. If this rate turns out to be too aggressive, FLGT may become profitable much later than analysts predict.

Underlying developments driving FLGTs growth isnt the focus of this broad overview, however, bear in mind that generally a high forecast growth rate is not unusual for a company that is currently undergoing an investment period.

One thing Id like to point out is that FLGT has no debt on its balance sheet, which is quite unusual for a cash-burning loss-making, growth company, which typically has high debt relative to its equity. This means that FLGT has been operating purely on its equity investment and has no debt burden. This aspect reduces the risk around investing in the loss-making company.

This article is not intended to be a comprehensive analysis on FLGT, so if you are interested in understanding the company at a deeper level, take a look at FLGTs company page on Simply Wall St. Ive also put together a list of relevant aspects you should further research:

If you spot an error that warrants correction, please contact the editor at editorial-team@simplywallst.com. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. Simply Wall St has no position in the stocks mentioned.

We aim to bring you long-term focused research analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Thank you for reading.

Read the original:
When Will Fulgent Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ:FLGT) Breakeven? - Simply Wall St

Embryology

4-H Incubation and Embryology online program – Times Herald-Record

MIDDLETOWN Cornell Cooperative Extension Orange County 4-H Program will be beginning a new online series called Incubation and Embryology Online hosted by Maggie Smith, 4-H Animal Science Program Manager.

Typically, Incubation and Embryology is a Program that 4-H would partner with local schools to implement in grades one through three to spend twenty-five days learning all about the importance of incubation and embryology. Teachers and students would participate in this great hands-on science activity and physically watch the transformation of embryo to chick.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and schools being closed, Maggie Smith and the Orange County 4-H Youth Development team are working to bring their programming to youth and families who are now spending most of their time home and social distancing. Smith will be completing the entire Incubation and Embryology Program herself and creating videos for youth to be able to watch and learn.

Incubation and Embryology Online will be separated into two 15-20 minute video recordings twice a week and will be viewable on Cornell Cooperative Extension Orange Countys YouTube Channel, social media accounts and website at cceorangecounty.org/resources/incubation-and-embryology-2020. Videos will be launched Tuesdays and Thursdays at 11 a.m.

Here is the entire class date and lesson schedule for the Incubation and Embryology Online Program:

April 7 Introduction to Incubation and Embryology for Chickens and Ducks

April 14 Parts of the Egg

April 16 Candling our Chicken and Duck Eggs

April 21 Science Experiments with Eggs

April 23 Getting our Brooder Boxes Ready

April 28 Watching our Chicken Eggs Hatch!

April 30 Play Date and Chick Facts

May 5 Watching our Duck Eggs Hatch!

May 7 Play Date and Duckling Facts

For more information, follow on the CCE Facebook page, Orange County 4-H Facebook page, by visiting cceorangecounty.org and their YouTube channel: CCE Orange.

For more information call Cornell Cooperative Extension Orange County at 344-1234.

See the rest here:
4-H Incubation and Embryology online program - Times Herald-Record