Heredity, also called inheritance or biological inheritance, is the passing on of traits from parents to their offspring; either through asexual reproduction or sexual reproduction, the offspring cells or organisms acquire the genetic information of their parents. Through heredity, variations between individuals can accumulate and cause species to evolve by natural selection. The study of heredity in biology is genetics.

Overview
In humans, eye color is an example of an inherited characteristic: an individual might inherit the "brown-eye trait" from one of the parents. Inherited traits are controlled by genes and the complete set of genes within an organism's genome is called its genotype.The complete set of observable traits of the structure and behavior of an organism is called its phenotype. These traits arise from the interaction of the organism's genotype with the environment. As a result, many aspects of an organism's phenotype are not inherited. For example, suntanned skin comes from the interaction between a person's genotype and sunlight; thus, suntans are not passed on to people's children. However, some people tan more easily than others, due to differences in their genotype: a striking example is people with the inherited trait of albinism, who do not tan at all and are very sensitive to sunburn.Heritable traits are known to be passed from one generation to the next via DNA, a molecule that encodes genetic information. DNA is a long polymer that incorporates four types of bases, which are interchangeable. The Nucleic acid sequence (the sequence of bases along a particular DNA molecule) specifies the genetic information: this is comparable to a sequence of letters spelling out a passage of text. Before a cell divides through mitosis, the DNA is copied, so that each of the resulting two cells will inherit the DNA sequence. A portion of a DNA molecule that specifies a single functional unit is called a gene; different genes have different sequences of bases. Within cells, the long strands of DNA form condensed structures called chromosomes. Organisms inherit genetic material from their parents in the form of homologous chromosomes, containing a unique combination of DNA sequences that code for genes. The specific location of a DNA sequence within a chromosome is known as a locus. If the DNA sequence at a particular locus varies between individuals, the different forms of this sequence are called alleles. DNA sequences can change through mutations, producing new alleles. If a mutation occurs within a gene, the new allele may affect the trait that the gene controls, altering the phenotype of the organism.However, while this simple correspondence between an allele and a trait works in some cases, most traits are more complex and are controlled by multiple interacting genes within and among organisms. Developmental biologists suggest that complex interactions in genetic networks and communication among cells can lead to heritable variations that may underlie some of the mechanics in developmental plasticity and canalization.Recent findings have confirmed important examples of heritable changes that cannot be explained by direct agency of the DNA molecule. These phenomena are classed as epigenetic inheritance systems that are causally or independently evolving over genes. Research into modes and mechanisms of epigenetic inheritance is still in its scientific infancy, but this area of research has attracted much recent activity as it broadens the scope of heritability and evolutionary biology in general. DNA methylation marking chromatin, self-sustaining metabolic loops, gene silencing by RNA interference, and the three dimensional conformation of proteins (such as prions) are areas where epigenetic inheritance systems have been discovered at the organismic level. Heritability may also occur at even larger scales. For example, ecological inheritance through the process of niche construction is defined by the regular and repeated activities of organisms in their environment. This generates a legacy of effect that modifies and feeds back into the selection regime of subsequent generations. Descendants inherit genes plus environmental characteristics generated by the ecological actions of ancestors. Other examples of heritability in evolution that are not under the direct control of genes include the inheritance of cultural traits, group heritability, and symbiogenesis. These examples of heritability that operate above the gene are covered broadly under the title of multilevel or hierarchical selection, which has been a subject of intense debate in the history of evolutionary science.

Relation to theory of evolution
When Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in 1859, one of its major problems was the lack of an underlying mechanism for heredity. Darwin believed in a mix of blending inheritance and the inheritance of acquired traits (pangenesis). Blending inheritance would lead to uniformity across populations in only a few generations and then would remove variation from a population on which natural selection could act. This led to Darwin adopting some Lamarckian ideas in later editions of On the Origin of Species and his later biological works. Darwin's primary approach to heredity was to outline how it appeared to work (noticing that traits that were not expressed explicitly in the parent at the time of reproduction could be inherited, that certain traits could be sex-linked, etc.) rather than suggesting mechanisms.Darwin's initial model of heredity was adopted by, and then heavily modified by, his cousin Francis Galton, who laid the framework for the biometric school of heredity. Galton found no evidence to support the aspects of Darwin's pangenesis model, which relied on acquired traits.The inheritance of acquired traits was shown to have little basis in the 1880s when August Weismann cut the tails off many generations of mice and found that their offspring continued to develop tails.

History
Scientists in Antiquity had a variety of ideas about heredity: Theophrastus proposed that male flowers caused female flowers to ripen; Hippocrates speculated that "seeds" were produced by various body parts and transmitted to offspring at the time of conception; and Aristotle thought that male and female fluids mixed at conception. Aeschylus, in 458 BC, proposed the male as the parent, with the female as a "nurse for the young life sown within her".Ancient understandings of heredity transitioned to two debated doctrines in the 18th century. The Doctrine of Epigenesis and the Doctrine of Preformation were two distinct views of the understanding of heredity. The Doctrine of Epigenesis, originated by Aristotle, claimed that an embryo continually develops. The modifications of the parent's traits are passed off to an embryo during its lifetime. The foundation of this doctrine was based on the theory of inheritance of acquired traits. In direct opposition, the Doctrine of Preformation claimed that "like generates like" where the germ would evolve to yield offspring similar to the parents. The Preformationist view believed procreation was an act of revealing what had been created long before. However, this was disputed by the creation of the cell theory in the 19th century, where the fundamental unit of life is the cell, and not some preformed parts of an organism. Various hereditary mechanisms, including blending inheritance were also envisaged without being properly tested or quantified, and were later disputed. Nevertheless, people were able to develop domestic breeds of animals as well as crops through artificial selection. The inheritance of acquired traits also formed a part of early Lamarckian ideas on evolution.During the 18th century, Dutch microscopist Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632–1723) discovered "animalcules" in the sperm of humans and other animals. Some scientists speculated they saw a "little man" (homunculus) inside each sperm. These scientists formed a school of thought known as the "spermists". They contended the only contributions of the female to the next generation were the womb in which the homunculus grew, and prenatal influences of the womb. An opposing school of thought, the ovists, believed that the future human was in the egg, and that sperm merely stimulated the growth of the egg. Ovists thought women carried eggs containing boy and girl children, and that the gender of the offspring was determined well before conception.An early research initiative emerged in 1878 when Alpheus Hyatt led an investigation to study the laws of heredity through compiling data on family phenotypes (nose size, ear shape, etc.) and expression of pathological conditions and abnormal characteristics, particularly with respect to the age of appearance. One of the projects aims was to tabulate data to better understand why certain traits are consistently expressed while others are highly irregular.

Gregor Mendel: father of genetics
The idea of particulate inheritance of genes can be attributed to the Moravian monk Gregor Mendel who published his work on pea plants in 1865. However, his work was not widely known and was rediscovered in 1901. It was initially assumed that Mendelian inheritance only accounted for large (qualitative) differences, such as those seen by Mendel in his pea plants – and the idea of additive effect of (quantitative) genes was not realised until R.A. Fisher's (1918) paper, "The Correlation Between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance" Mendel's overall contribution gave scientists a useful overview that traits were inheritable. His pea plant demonstration became the foundation of the study of Mendelian Traits. These traits can be traced on a single locus.

Modern development of genetics and heredity
In the 1930s, work by Fisher and others resulted in a combination of Mendelian and biometric schools into the modern evolutionary synthesis. The modern synthesis bridged the gap between experimental geneticists and naturalists; and between both and palaeontologists, stating that:
All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.
Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes, recombination ordered by natural selection. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction (not saltation).
Selection is overwhelmingly the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment. The role of genetic drift is equivocal; though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained.
The primacy of population thinking: the genetic diversity carried in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild was greater than expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.The idea that speciation occurs after populations are reproductively isolated has been much debated. In plants, polyploidy must be included in any view of speciation. Formulations such as 'evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another' were proposed rather later. The traditional view is that developmental biology ('evo-devo') played little part in the synthesis, but an account of Gavin de Beer's work by Stephen Jay Gould suggests he may be an exception.Almost all aspects of the synthesis have been challenged at times, with varying degrees of success. There is no doubt, however, that the synthesis was a great landmark in evolutionary biology. It cleared up many confusions, and was directly responsible for stimulating a great deal of research in the post-World War II era.
Trofim Lysenko however caused a backlash of what is now called Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union when he emphasised Lamarckian ideas on the inheritance of acquired traits. This movement affected agricultural research and led to food shortages in the 1960s and seriously affected the USSR.There is growing evidence that there is transgenerational inheritance of epigenetic changes in humans and other animals.

Common genetic disorders
Fragile X syndrome
Sickle cell disease
Phenylketonuria (PKU)
Haemophilia

Types
The description of a mode of biological inheritance consists of three main categories:

1. Number of involved loci
Monogenetic (also called "simple") – one locus
Oligogenic – few loci
Polygenetic – many loci2. Involved chromosomesAutosomal – loci are not situated on a sex chromosome
Gonosomal – loci are situated on a sex chromosome
X-chromosomal – loci are situated on the X-chromosome (the more common case)
Y-chromosomal – loci are situated on the Y-chromosome
Mitochondrial – loci are situated on the mitochondrial DNA3. Correlation genotype–phenotype
Dominant
Intermediate (also called "codominant")
Recessive
Overdominant
UnderdominantThese three categories are part of every exact description of a mode of inheritance in the above order. In addition, more specifications may be added as follows:

4. Coincidental and environmental interactionsPenetrance
Complete
Incomplete (percentual number)
Expressivity
Invariable
Variable
Heritability (in polygenetic and sometimes also in oligogenetic modes of inheritance)
Maternal or paternal imprinting phenomena (also see epigenetics)5. Sex-linked interactionsSex-linked inheritance (gonosomal loci)
Sex-limited phenotype expression (e.g., cryptorchism)
Inheritance through the maternal line (in case of mitochondrial DNA loci)
Inheritance through the paternal line (in case of Y-chromosomal loci)6. Locus–locus interactions
Epistasis with other loci (e.g., overdominance)
Gene coupling with other loci (also see crossing over)
Homozygotous lethal factors
Semi-lethal factorsDetermination and description of a mode of inheritance is also achieved primarily through statistical analysis of pedigree data. In case the involved loci are known, methods of molecular genetics can also be employed.

Dominant and recessive alleles
An allele is said to be dominant if it is always expressed in the appearance of an organism (phenotype) provided that at least one copy of it is present. For example, in peas the allele for green pods, G, is dominant to that for yellow pods, g. Thus pea plants with the pair of alleles either GG (homozygote) or Gg (heterozygote) will have green pods. The allele for yellow pods is recessive. The effects of this allele are only seen when it is present in both chromosomes, gg (homozygote). This derives from Zygosity, the degree to which both copies of a chromosome or gene have the same genetic sequence, in other words, the degree of similarity of the alleles in an organism.

See also
References
External links

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Heredity and Heritability
""Experiments in Plant Hybridization" (1866), by Johann Gregor Mendel", by A. Andrei at the Embryo Project Encyclopedia


Heterogamy is a term applied to a variety of distinct phenomena in different scientific domains. Usually having to do with some kind of difference, "hetero", in reproduction, "gamy". See below for more specific senses.

Science
Reproductive biology
In reproductive biology, heterogamy is the alternation of differently organized generations, applied to the alternation between parthenogenetic and a sexual generation. This type of heterogamy occurs for example in some aphids.
Alternately, heterogamy or heterogamous is often used as a synonym of heterogametic, meaning the presence of two unlike chromosomes in a sex. For example, XY males and ZW females are called the heterogamous sex.

Cell biology
In cell biology, heterogamy is a synonym of anisogamy, the condition of having differently sized male and female gametes produced by different sexes or mating types in a species.

Botany
In botany, a plant is heterogamous when it carries at least two different types of flowers in regard to their reproductive structures, for example male and female flowers or bisexual and female flowers. Stamens and carpels are not regularly present in each flower or floret.

Social science
In sociology, heterogamy refers to a marriage between two individuals that differ in a certain criterion, and is contrasted with homogamy for a marriage or union between partners that match according to that criterion. For example, ethnic heterogamy refers to marriages involving individuals of different ethnic groups. Age heterogamy refers to marriages involving partners of significantly different ages. Heterogamy and homogamy are also used to describe marriage or union between people of unlike and like sex (or gender) respectively.

See also

Heterogametic
Homogametic

== References ==


Hypoxia inducible lipid droplet-associated (Hilpda, also known as C7orf68 and HIG-2) is a protein that in humans is encoded by the HILPDA gene.

Discovery
HILPDA was originally discovered in a screen to identify new genes that are activated by low oxygen pressure (hypoxia) in human cervical cancer cells. The protein consists of 63 amino acids in humans and 64 amino acids in mice.

Expression
HILPDA is produced by numerous cells and tissues, including cancer cells, immune cells, fat cells, and liver cells. Low oxygen pressure (hypoxia), fatty acids, and beta-adrenergic agonists stimulate HILPDA expression.

Function
Nearly all cells have the ability to store excess energy as fat in special structures in the cell called lipid droplets. The formation and breakdown of lipid droplets is controlled by various enzymes and lipid droplet-associated proteins. One of the lipid droplet-associated proteins is HILPDA. HILPDA acts as a regulatory signal that blocks the breakdown of the fat stores in cells when the external fat supply is high or the availability of oxygen is low. In cells, HILPDA is located in the endoplasmic reticulum and around lipid droplets. Gain and loss-of-function studies have shown that HILPDA promotes fat storage in cancer cells, macrophages and liver cells. This effect is at least partly achieved by suppressing triglyceride breakdown by inhibiting the enzyme adipose triglyceride lipase. The binding of HILPDA to adipose triglyceride lipase occurs via the conserved N-terminal portion of HILPDA, which is similar to a region in the G0S2 protein.

Clinical significance
The deficiency of HILPDA in mice that are prone to develop atherosclerosis led to a reduction in atherosclerotic plaques, suggesting that HILPDA may be a potential therapeutic target for atherosclerosis. In addition, HILPDA may be targeted for the treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

== References ==


Hovlinc RNA is a self-cleaving ribozyme of about 168 nucleotides found in a very long noncoding RNA (vlincRNA) in humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas. The word "hovlinc" comes from "hominin vlincRNA-located" RNA. Hovlinc is only a fourth known case of a ribozyme in human. Self-cleavage activity of Hovlinc has been shown in human, chimpanzees and bonobos, but is absent in gorillas, raising questions about Hovlinc's biological function and evolution.
There are only a few known examples of ribozymes in human, including Hovlinc, Mammalian CPEB3 ribozyme, Hammerhead ribozyme (HH9 and HH10) and B2 SINE ribozyme. Presumably Hovlinc acquired its self-cleaving activity about 10 to 13 million of years ago, which coincides with the last common ancestor of humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees. Hovlinc presents catalytic activity in hominids but not in gorillas where a mutation abolished the self-cleavage activity.
Hovlinc is a very structured RNA that contains four stem loops joined in a central loop, it also features large pseudoknots that help to bring together the second and fourth helices, which helps the RNA to get the more compacted structure that allows catalytic activity.

References
External links
Hovlinc family in Rfam


Human germline engineering is the process by which the genome of an individual is edited in such a way that the change is heritable. This is achieved by altering the genes of the germ cells, which then mature into genetically modified eggs and sperm. For safety, ethical, and social reasons, there is broad agreement among the scientific community and the public that germline editing for reproduction is a red line that should not be crossed at this point in time. There are differing public sentiments, however, on whether it may be performed in the future depending on whether the intent would be therapeutic or non-therapeutic.Using germline editing for reproduction is prohibited by law in more than 70 countries and by a binding international treaty of the Council of Europe. However, in November 2015, a group of Chinese scientists used the gene-editing technique CRISPR/Cas9 to edit single-celled, non-viable embryos to see the effectiveness of this technique. This attempt was rather unsuccessful; only a small fraction of the embryos successfully incorporated the new genetic material and many of the embryos contained a large number of random mutations. The non-viable embryos that were used contained an extra set of chromosomes, which may have been problematic. In 2016, another similar study was performed in China which also used non-viable embryos with extra sets of chromosomes. This study showed very similar results to the first; there were successful integrations of the desired gene, yet the majority of the attempts failed, or produced undesirable mutations.
In November 2018, researcher He Jiankui claimed that he had created the first human genetically edited babies, known by their pseudonyms, Lulu and Nana. In May 2019, lawyers in China reported, in light of the purported creation by He Jiankui of the first gene-edited humans, the drafting of regulations that anyone manipulating the human genome by gene-editing techniques, like CRISPR, would be held responsible for any related adverse consequences.

Techniques
CRISPR-Cas9
In general, CRISPR-Cas9 is the most effective gene-editing technique to date. The CRISPR-Cas9 system consists of an enzyme called Cas9 and a special piece of guide RNA (gRNA). Cas9 acts as a pair of ‘molecular scissors’ that can cut the DNA at a specific location in the genome so that DNA can be added or removed. The guide RNA is a piece of RNA with complementary bases to those at the target location, so that it will only bind there and no other regions of the genome. The Cas9 follows the guide RNA to the same location in the DNA sequence and makes a cut across both strands of the DNA. At this stage, the cell recognizes that the DNA is damaged and tries to repair it.  Scientists can use the DNA repair machinery to introduce changes to one or more genes in the genome of a cell of interest.
Although the CRISPR/Cas9 can be used in humans, it is more commonly used by scientists in other animal models or cell culture systems, including in experiments to learn more about genes that could be involved in human diseases. Clinical trials are being conducted on somatic cells, but CRISPR could make it possible to modify the DNA of spermatogonial stem cells. This could be used to eliminate certain diseases in humans, or at least significantly decrease a disease's frequency until it eventually disappears over generations. Cancer survivors theoretically would be able to have their genes modified by the CRISPR/Cas9 so that certain diseases or mutations will not be passed down to their offspring. This could possibly eliminate cancer predispositions in humans. Researchers hope that they can use the system in the future to treat currently incurable diseases by altering the genome altogether.

PGD
Another way to modify the human genome involves analyzing human embryos to identify genes associated with disease, and selecting embryos that have the desired genetic makeup. This is called PGD, or Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis.  IVF, or in vitro fertilization, is often used to obtain embryos for evaluation of the genome – alternatively, oocytes can be screened prior to fertilization. The technique was first used in 1989.
PGD is used primarily to select embryos for implantation when there are possible genetic defects, allowing mutated or disease-related alleles to be identified and excluded from selection. It is especially useful when one or both parents carry a heritable genetic disease. PGD can also be used to select for embryos of a certain sex, which is useful to avoid sex-linked genetic disorders like hemophilia, which is more common in males. Infants born with traits selected by PGD are sometimes considered to be designer babies.One application of PGD is the selection of ‘savior siblings’, children who are born to provide a transplant (of an organ or group of cells) to a sibling with a usually life-threatening disease. Savior siblings are conceived through IVF and then screened using PGD to analyze genetic similarity to the child needing a transplant, in order to reduce the risk of rejection.

Detailed description
Embryos for PGD are obtained from IVF procedures in which the oocyte is artificially fertilized by sperm. Oocytes from the woman are harvested following controlled ovarian hyper stimulation (COH), which involves fertility treatments to induce production of multiple oocytes. After harvesting the oocytes, they are fertilized in vitro, either during incubation with multiple sperm cells in culture, or via intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), where sperm is directly injected into the oocyte. Such tests include amniocentesis, ultrasounds, and other preimplantation genetic diagnostic tests. These tests are quite common, and reliable, as we talk about them today; however, in the past when they were first introduced, they too were scrutinized. The resulting embryos are usually cultured for 3–6 days, allowing them to reach the blastomere or blastocyst stage. Once embryos reach the desired stage of development, cells are biopsied and genetically screened. The screening procedure varies based on the nature of the disorder being investigated.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a process in which DNA sequences are amplified to produce many more copies of the same segment, allowing screening of large samples and identification of specific genes. The process is often used when screening for monogenic disorders, such as cystic fibrosis.
Another screening technique, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) uses fluorescent probes which specifically bind to highly complementary sequences on chromosomes, which can then be identified using fluorescence microscopy. FISH is often used when screening for chromosomal abnormalities such as aneuploidy, making it a useful tool when screening for disorders such as Down syndrome.Following screening, embryos with the desired trait (or lacking an undesired trait such as a mutation) are transferred into the mother's uterus, then allowed to develop naturally.

Conceivable uses
Human germline engineering could be used to heritably cure genetic disorders and other diseases, and to give specific traits to human babies. For example, The Berlin Patient has a genetic mutation in the CCR5 gene (which codes for a protein on the surface of white blood cells, targeted by the HIV virus) that deactivates the expression of CCR5, conferring innate resistance to HIV. HIV/AIDS carries a large disease burden and is incurable (see Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS). One proposal is to genetically modify human embryos to give the CCR5 Δ32 allele to people.
Another use would be to cure genetic disorders. In the first study published regarding human germline engineering, the researchers attempted to edit the HBB gene which codes for the human β-globin protein. Mutations in the HBB gene result in the disorder β-thalassaemia, which can be fatal. Perfect editing of the genome in patients who have these HBB mutations would result in copies of the gene which do not possess any mutations, effectively curing the disease. If the germline could be edited, this normal copy of the HBB genes could be passed on to future generations.

Designer babies
The non-therapeutic use of human germline engineering would be eugenic modifications to humans which would result in what are known as "designer babies". The concept of a "designer baby" is that its entire genetic composition could be selected for. In an extreme case, people would be able to effectively create the offspring that they want, with a genotype of their choosing. Not only does human germline engineering allow for the selection of specific traits, but it also allows for enhancement of these traits. Using human germline editing for selection and enhancement is currently very heavily scrutinized, and the main driving force behind the movement of trying to ban human germline engineering.In a 2019 animal study with Liang Guang Small Spotted pigs, increased muscle mass was achieved with precise editing of the myostatin signal peptide. Myostatin is a negative regulator of muscle growth, so through mutating the signal peptide regions of the gene, muscle growth could be promoted in the experimental pigs. The Myostatin genes in 955 pig embryos were mutated at several locations with CRISPR and implanted into five surrogates, resulting in 16 piglets. It was found that only specific mutations to the myostatin signal peptide resulted in increased muscle mass in the piglets mainly due to an increase in muscle fibers. A similar animal study created a knockout in the myostatin gene in mice, which also increased their muscle mass. This showed that muscle mass could be increased with germline editing, which is likely applicable to humans because humans also have the myostatin gene to regulate muscle growth. Human germline engineering may then result in intentionally increased muscle mass, with applications such as gene doping.

State of research
Human germline engineering is a widely debated topic, and in more than 40 countries, it is formally outlawed. While there is no current legislation explicitly prohibiting germline engineering in the United States, the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2016 bans the use of US FDA funds to engage in research regarding human germline modification. In April 2015, a research team published an experiment in which they used CRISPR to edit a gene that is associated with blood disease in non-living human embryos. This experiment was unsuccessful, but gene editing tools are used in labs.
Scientists using the CRISPR/Cas9 system to modify genetic materials have run into issues when it comes to mammalian alterations due to the complex diploid cells. Studies have been done in microorganisms regarding loss of function genetic screening and some studies have been done using mice as a subject. Because RNA processes differ between bacteria and mammalian cells, scientists have had difficulties coding for mRNA's translated data without the interference of RNA. Studies have been done using the Cas9 nuclease that uses a single guide RNA to allow for larger knockout regions in mice, and this was successful. Altering the genetic sequence of mammals is also widely debated, and this creates a difficult FDA regulation standard for such studies.

Lack of clear international regulation
The lack of clear international regulation has led to researchers across the globe attempting to create an international framework of ethical guidelines. Current framework lacks the requisite treaties among nations to create a mechanism for international enforcement. At the first International Summit on Human Gene Editing in December 2015 the collaboration of scientists issued the first international guidelines on genetic research. These guidelines allow for the pre-clinical research into the editing of genetic sequences in human cells granted the embryos are not used to implant pregnancy. Genetic alteration of somatic cells for therapeutic proposes was also considered an ethically acceptable field of research in part due to the lack of ability of somatic cells to transfer genetic material to subsequent generations. However citing the lack of social consensus, and the risk of inaccurate gene editing the conference called for restraint on any germline modifications on implanted embryos intended for pregnancy.
With the international outcry in response to the first recorded case of human germ line edited embryos being implanted by researcher He Jiankui, scientists have continued discussion on the best possible mechanism for enforcement of an international framework. On March 13, 2019 researchers Eric Lander, Françoise Baylis, Feng Zhang, Emmanuelle Charpentier, Paul Bergfrom along with others across the globe published a call for a framework that does not foreclose any outcome but includes a voluntary pledge by nations along with a coordinating body to monitor the application of pledged nations in a moratorium on human germline editing with an attempt to reach social consensus before moving forward into further research. The World Health Organization announced on December 18, 2018 plans to convene an intentional committee on clinical germline editing.

He Jiankui controversy and research
On 25 November 2018, two days before the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong, He Jiankui, a Chinese researcher of the Southern University of Science and Technology, released a video on YouTube announcing that he and his colleagues have “created” the world's first genetically altered babies, Lulu and Nana.
He explained the details of his experiment in his address at the Hong Kong conference. He and his team had recruited eight couples through an HIV volunteer group named Baihualin (BHL) China League (one couple later withdrew from the research). All the male participants are HIV-positive, and all female participants are HIV-negative. The participants' sperm was “washed off” to get rid of HIV and then injected into eggs collected from the female participants. By using clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)-Cas9, a gene editing technique, they disabled a gene called CCR5 in the embryos, aiming to close the protein doorway that allows HIV to enter a cell and make the subjects immune to the HIV virus. The process led to at least one successful pregnancy and the birth of the twin baby girls, Lulu and Nana. Researcher Alcino J. Silva has discovered an impact the CCR5 gene has on the memory function the brain.A major concern has been that He Jiankui's attempts to cripple CCR5, the gene for a protein on immune cells that HIV uses to infect the cells, also made “off-target” changes elsewhere in the girls' genomes. Those changes could cause cancer or other problems. He contends that the babies have no such off-target mutations, although some scientists are skeptical of the evidence offered so far.People inherit two copies of CCR5, one from each parent. He chose the gene as a target because he knew that about 1% of Northern European populations are born with both copies missing 32 base pairs, resulting in a truncated protein that does not reach the cell surface. These people, known as CCR5Δ32 homozygotes, appear healthy and are highly resistant to HIV infection.
In the embryos, He's team designed CRISPR to cut CCR5 at the base pair at one end of the natural deletion. The error-prone cell-repair mechanism, which CRISPR depends on to finish knocking out genes, then deleted 15 base pairs in one of Lulu's copies of the gene, but none in the other. With one normal CCR5, she is expected to have no protection from HIV. Nana, according to the data He presented in a slide at an international genome-editing summit held in November 2018 in Hong Kong, China, had bases added to one CCR5 copy and deleted from the other, which likely would cripple both genes and provide HIV resistance.
He added the genes for the CRISPR machinery almost immediately after each embryo was created through in vitro fertilization, but several researchers who closely studied the slide caution that it may have done its editing after Nana's embryo was already past the one-cell stage. That means she could be a genetic “mosaic” who has some unaffected cells with normal CCR5—and ultimately might have no protection from HIV.
Aside from the primary HIV concerns, the gene edits may have inadvertently altered cognitive function. Researchers showed in 2016 that knocking out one or both CCR5s in mice enhances their memory and cognition. A subsequent study that crippled CCR5 in mice found that, compared with control animals, the mutants recovered from strokes more quickly and had improved motor and cognitive functions following traumatic brain injury. The later study, in the 21 February issue of Cell, also included an analysis of 68 stroke patients who had one copy of CCR5 with the HIV resistance mutation; it concluded they had improved recovery, too.
On the night of November 26, 122 Chinese scientists issued a statement strongly condemning He's action as unethical. They stated that while CRISPR-Cas is not a new technology, it involves serious off-target risks and associated ethical considerations, and so should not be used to produce gene-altered babies. They described He's experiment as “crazy” and “a huge blow to the global reputation and development of Chinese science”. The Scientific Ethics Committee of the Academic Divisions of the Chinese Academy of Sciences posted a statement declaring their opposition to any clinical use of genome editing on human embryos, noting that “the theory is not reliable, the technology is deficient, the risks are uncontrollable, and ethics and regulations prohibit the action”.  The Chinese Academy of Engineering released a statement on November 28, calling on scientists to improve self-discipline and self-regulation, and to abide by corresponding ethical principles, laws, and regulations. Finally, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences published a correspondence in The Lancet, stating that they are “opposed to any clinical operation of human embryo genome editing for reproductive purposes."

Major studies of influence
The first known publication of research into human germline editing was by a group of Chinese scientists in April 2015 in the Journal "Protein and Cell". The scientists used tripronuclear (3PN) zygotes, zygotes fertilized by two sperm and therefore non-viable, to investigate CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human cells, something that had never been attempted before. The scientists found that while CRISPR/Cas9 could effectively cleave the β-globin gene (HBB), the efficiency of homologous recombination directed repair of HBB was highly inefficient and did not do so in a majority of the trials. Problems arose such as off target cleavage and the competitive recombination of the endogenous delta-globin with the HBB led to unexpected mutation. The results of the study indicated that repair of HBB in the embryos occurred preferentially through alternative pathways. In the end only 4 of the 54 zygotes carried the intended genetic information, and even then the successfully edited embryos were mosaics containing the preferential genetic code and the mutation. The conclusion of the scientists was that further effort was needed in to improve the precision and efficiency of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing.In March 2017, a group of Chinese scientists claimed to have edited three normal viable human embryos out of six total in the experiment. The study showed that CRISPR/Cas9 is could effectively be used as a gene-editing tool in human 2PN zygotes, which could lead potentially pregnancy viable if implanted. The scientists used injection of Cas9 protein complexed with the relevant sgRNAs and homology donors into human embryos. The scientists found homologous recombination-mediated alteration in HBB and G6PD. The scientists also noted the limitations of their study and called for further research.In August 2017, a group of scientists from Oregon published an article in Nature journal detailing the successful use of CRISPR to edit out a mutation responsible for congenital heart disease.  The study looked at heterozygous MYBPC3 mutation in human embryos. The study claimed precise CRISPR/Cas9 and homology-directed repair response with high accuracy and precision. Double-strand breaks at the mutant paternal allele were repaired using the homologous wild-type gene. By modifying the cell cycle stage at which the DSB was induced, they were able to avoid mosaicism, which had been seen in earlier similar studies, in cleaving embryos and achieve a large percentage of homozygous embryos carrying the wild-type MYBPC3 gene without evidence of unintended mutations. The scientists concluded that the technique may be used for the correction of mutations in human embryos. The claims of this study were however pushed back on by critics who argued the evidence was overall unpersuasive.In June 2018, a group of scientists published and article in "Nature" journal indicating a potential link for edited cells having increased potential turn cancerous. The scientists reported that genome editing by CRISPR/Cas9 induced DNA damage response and the cell cycle stopped. The study was conducted in human retinal pigment epithelial cells, and the use of CRISPR led to a selection against cells with a functional p53 pathway. The conclusion of the study would suggest that p53 inhibition might increase efficiency of human germline editing and that p53 function would need to be watched when developing CRISPR/Cas9 based therapy.In November 2018, a group of Chinese scientists published research in the journal "Molecular Therapy" detailing their use of CRISPR/Cas9 technology to correct a single mistaken amino acid successfully in 16 out of 18 attempts in a human embryo. The unusual level of precision was achieved by the use of a base editor (BE) system which was constructed by fusing the deaminase to the dCas9 protein. The BE system efficiently edits the targeted C to T or G to A without the use of a donor and without DBS formation. The study focused on the FBN1 mutation that is causative for Marfan syndrome. The study provides proof positive for the corrective value of gene therapy for the FBN1 mutation in both somatic cells and germline cells. The study is noted for its relative precision which is a departure from past results of CRISPR/Cas9 studies.

Ethical and moral debates
As early in the history of biotechnology as 1990, there have been scientists opposed to attempts to modify the human germline using these new tools, and such concerns have continued as technology progressed. In March 2015, with the advent of new techniques like CRISPR, a group of scientists urged a worldwide moratorium on clinical use of gene editing technologies to edit the human genome in a way that can be inherited.  In April 2015, researchers reported results of basic research to edit the DNA of non-viable human embryos using CRISPR, creating controversy.A committee of the American National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine gave support to human genome editing in 2017 once answers have been found to safety and efficiency problems "but only for serious conditions under stringent oversight." The American Medical Association's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs stated that "genetic interventions to enhance traits should be considered permissible only in severely restricted situations: (1) clear and meaningful benefits to the fetus or child; (2) no trade-off with other characteristics or traits; and (3) equal access to the genetic technology, irrespective of income or other socioeconomic characteristics."Several religious positions have been published with regards to human germline engineering. According to them, many see germline modification as being more moral than the alternative, which would be either discarding of the embryo, or birth of a diseased human. The main conditions when it comes to whether or not it is morally and ethically acceptable lie within the intent of the modification, and the conditions in which the engineering is done.Ethical claims about germline engineering include beliefs that every fetus has a right to remain genetically unmodified, that parents hold the right to genetically modify their offspring, and that every child has the right to be born free of preventable diseases. For parents, genetic engineering could be seen as another child enhancement technique to add to diet, exercise, education, training, cosmetics, and plastic surgery. Another theorist claims that moral concerns limit but do not prohibit germline engineering.

Consent
One issue related to human genome editing relates to the impact of the technology on future individuals whose genes are modified without their consent. Clinical ethics accepts the idea that parents are, almost always, the most appropriate surrogate medical decision makers for their children until the children develop their own autonomy and decision-making capacity. This is based on the assumption that, except under rare circumstances, parents have the most to lose or gain from a decision and will ultimately make decisions that reflects the future values and beliefs of their children. According to this assumption, it could be assumed that parents are the most appropriate decision makers for their future children as well. However, there are anecdotal reports of children and adults who disagree with the medical decisions made by a parent during pregnancy or early childhood, such as when death was a possible outcome. There are also published patient stories by individuals who feel that they would not wish to change or remove their own medical condition if given the choice and individuals who disagree with medical decisions made by their parents during childhood.Other scientists and philosophers have noted that the issue of the lack of prior consent applies as well to individuals born via traditional sexual reproduction. Philosopher David Pearce further argues that “old-fashioned sexual reproduction is itself an untested genetic experiment”, often compromising a child's wellbeing and pro-social capacities even if the child grows in a healthy environment. According to Pearce, “the question of [human germline engineering] comes down to an analysis of risk-reward ratios - and our basic ethical values, themselves shaped by our evolutionary past.” Bioethicist Julian Savulescu in turn proposes the principle of procreative beneficence, according to which “couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information”. Some ethicists argue that the principle of procreative beneficence would justify or even require genetically enhancing one's children.A relevant issue concerns “off target effects”, large genomes may contain identical or homologous DNA sequences, and the enzyme complex CRISPR/Cas9 may unintentionally cleave these DNA sequences causing mutations that may lead to cell death. The mutations can cause important genes to be turned on or off, such as genetic anti-cancer mechanisms, that could speed up disease exasperation.

Unequal distribution of benefits
The other ethical concern is the potential for “designer babies”, or the creation of humans with "perfect", or "desirable" traits. There is a debate as to if this is morally acceptable as well. Such debate ranges from the ethical obligation to use safe and efficient technology to prevent disease to seeing some actual benefit in genetic disabilities.
There are concerns that the introduction of desirable traits in a certain part of the population (instead of the entire population) could cause economic inequalities (“positional” good). However, this is not the case if a same desirable trait would be introduced over the entire population (similar to vaccines).Another ethical concern pertains to potential unequal distribution of benefits, even in the case of genome editing being inexpensive. For example, corporations may be able to take unfair advantage of patent law or other ways of restricting access to genome editing and thereby may increase the inequalities. There are already disputes in the courts where CRISPR-Cas9 patents and access issues are being negotiated.

Therapeutic and non-therapeutic use
There remains debate on if the permissibility of human germline engineering for reproduction is dependent on the use, being either a therapeutic or non-therapeutic application. In a survey by the UK's Royal Society, 76% of participants in the UK supported therapeutic human germline engineering to prevent or correct disease, however for non-therapeutic edits such as enhancing intelligence or altering eye or hair color in embryos, there was only 40% and 31% support, respectively. There was a similar result in a study at the University of Bogota, Colombia, where students as well as professors generally agreed that therapeutic genome editing is acceptable, while non-therapeutic genome editing is not.There is also debate on if there can be a defined distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic germline editing. An example would be if two embryos are predicted to grow up to be very short in height. Boy 1 will be short because of a mutation in his Human Growth Hormone gene, while boy 2 will be short because his parents are very short. Editing the embryo of boy 1 to make him of average height would be a therapeutic germline edit, while editing the embryo of boy 2 to be of average height would be a non-therapeutic germline edit. In both cases with no editing of the boys' genomes they would both grow up to be very short, which would decrease their wellbeing in life. Likewise editing both of the boys' genomes would allow them to grow up to be of average height. In this scenario, editing for the same phenotype for being of average height falls under both therapeutic and non-therapeutic germline engineering.

Current global policy
There is distinction in some country policies, including but not limited to official regulation and legislation, between human germline engineering for reproductive use and for laboratory research. As of October 2020, there are 96 countries that have policies involving the use of germline engineering in human cells.

Reproductive use
Reproductive use of human germline engineering involves implanting the edited embryo to be born. 70 countries currently explicitly prohibit the use of human germline engineering for use in reproduction, while 5 countries prohibit it for reproduction with exceptions. No countries permit the use of human germline engineering for reproduction.Countries that explicitly prohibit any use of human germline engineering for reproduction are: Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay, and the VaticanCountries that explicitly prohibit (with exceptions) the use of human germline engineering for reproduction are: Belgium, Colombia, Italy, Panama, and the United Arab Emirates

Laboratory research
Laboratory research use involves human germline engineering restricted to in vitro use, where edited cells will not be implanted to be born. 19 countries currently explicitly prohibit any use of human germline engineering for in vitro use, while 4 prohibit it with exceptions, and 11 permit it.Countries that explicitly prohibit any use of germline engineering for in vitro use are: Albania, Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Germany, Greece, Lebanon, Malaysia, Malta, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, and the VaticanCountries that explicitly prohibit (with exceptions) the use of germline engineering for in vitro use are: Colombia, Finland, Italy, and PanamaCountries that explicitly permit the use of germline engineering for in vitro use are: Burundi, China, Congo, India, Iran, Ireland, Japan, Norway, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States

See also
Human genetic engineering
Gene therapy
Germinal choice technology
Human genetic enhancement
CRISPR
Designer Baby

References
Further reading
Enriquez, Juan; Gullans, Steve (2015). Evolving Ourselves: How Unnatural Selection is Changing Life on Earth. One World Publications. ISBN 978-1780748412.
Metzl, Jamie (2020). Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.
"Special Issue: Human Germline Editing". Bioethics. 34 (1). 2020.
Venter, Craig (2014). Life at the Speed of Light: From the Double Helix to the Dawn of Digital Life. United Kingdom: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0143125907.


Hybrizyme is a term coined to indicate novel or normally rare gene variants (or alleles) that are associated with hybrid zones, geographic areas where two related taxa (e.g. species or subspecies) meet, mate, and produce hybrid offspring. The hybrizyme phenomenon is widespread and these alleles occur commonly, if not in all hybrid zones. Initially considered to be caused by elevated rates of mutation in hybrids, the most probable hypothesis infers that they are the result of negative (purifying) selection. Namely, in the center of the hybrid zone, negative selection purges alleles against hybrid disadvantage (e.g. hybrid inviability or infertility). Stated differently, any allele that will decrease reproductive isolation is favored and any linked alleles (genetic markers) also increase their frequency by genetic hitchhiking. If the linked alleles used to be rare variants in the parental taxa, they will become more common in the area where the hybrids are formed.

Etymology
Originally hybrizymes were defined as "unexpected allelic electromorphs associated with hybrid zones", a formal term proposed by renowned conservation geneticist and biogeographer David S. Woodruff in 1988. By suggesting a new definition for a phenomenon that had been previously widely observed Woodruff's interpretation bypasses the etiological connotation of alternative terms and avoids inappropriate context. Namely, previous studies referred to allozymes that were observed at high frequency in hybrid zones, but are absent or rare in parental taxa as "the rare allele phenomenon". These alleles can have increased frequencies up to a point of the allele becoming the most common one in the hybrid zone, rendering the term "the rare allele phenomenon" deceptive. Despite this, these two terms have been used interchangeably in literature.

Widespread phenomenon
Hybrid populations display the hybrizyme phenomenon by having increased frequencies of certain alleles that are rare or non-existent outside of the hybrid zone. The hybrizyme phenomenon is widespread in hybrid zones of species of snails, crickets, lizards, salamanders, rodents, fish and birds. Intriguingly, the increased frequency of some of these alleles can have a pronounced effect making them 3-20 times more common in hybrids than in non-hybrid populations.Early studies focused on detecting electromorphs for loci that code regulatory and non-regulatory enzymes from several functional classes using allozyme electrophoresis and usually involved loci that were polymorphic in parental populations. The phenomenon has also been detected in a broad range of genetic markers such as intron haplotypes, microsatellites, ribosomal DNA spacer variants, and anonymous SNPs.

Mutational origin
Multiple hypotheses have been proposed to explain the mutational (molecular) origin of hybrizymes. They include gene conversion, transposable element activity, post-translational modification, mutations. and intragenic recombination. Some of these hypotheses are rejected by research in the past couple of years, but there is an unambiguous explanation for the mutational origin of hybrizymes. The two hypotheses most often discussed are increased mutation rates and intragenic recombination.

Mutation
Under the mutational hypothesis, hybrizymes likely arise due to simple point mutations. Sequencing data have indicated this and imply low likelihood that hybrizymes arise as a result of transposition or recombination. Research on pocket gophers and Japanese freshwater crabs confirms that the phenomenon is possibly caused by simple nucleotide substitutions. However, the hypothesis has several weaknesses. It does not explain why normally rare alleles are restricted to a hybrid zone, why polymorphic loci are affected more or offers a mechanism that explains the high frequency of even the rarest variants.

Intragenic recombination
Intragenic recombination, under certain circumstances, might create new allelic variants at rates higher than the ones associated with regular mutational processes. Under this hypothesis the variant allele would be a mosaic of the parental alleles. The likelihood of this hypothesis was disputed, through sequencing studies. Although there is yet no specific explanation for hybrizymes, it is not excluded that hybrizymes are generated by the combined effect of recombination and mutation events, with any recombination trace concealed by succeeding mutations. However, research on Acer species implies that high recombination rates are possible due to acceleration of genetic variation after hybridization. Furthermore, results are found that indicate that recurrent mutation is unlikely and that support the hypothesis of recombination.

Cause of maintenance
Several hypotheses have been proposed to account the high frequency of hybrizymes in hybrid zones such as genetic drift, elevated rates of nucleotide substitutions. or positive selection on alleles which are mildly deleterious in parental taxa. Still, some faced a certain degree of unpredictability; specifically under the mutational hypothesis the overall substitution rates are elevated and many variants are expected versus having only one allele reaching high frequency and, at the same time, positive selection on deleterious alleles seems ambiguous.
Selection does not need to be directed to the hybrizyme, but to other genes with which the hybrizyme is linked, placing genetic hitchhiking in perspective. In other words, hybrid zones are maintained primarily by balance between gene flow and hybrid inferiority. In the centre of hybrid zones, the process of constant creation of low-fitness recombinant genotypes will favor any allele that will decrease reproductive isolation, consequently elevating the hybrid fitness. So, a likely mechanism would be negative or purifying selection against poorly fit multilocus genotypes. Therefore, the hybrizymes that increase in frequency could be modifier alleles or genetic markers that increase via hitchhiking. It is not excluded that the targets of selection are the barrier loci, loci that resist homogenization with the other genome during gene flow among diverging species, making them the most different parts of the genome between divergent populations.If allelic variation at these loci is considered, there might be alleles that have differential effect on reproductive isolation or hybrid disadvantage, leading to selection of those who have lower severity. The exact origin and mechanism that maintains these alleles at a high frequency is still a subject of debate and additional studies, such as Next Generation Sequencing analysis of the genomic regions involved in the phenomenon as a more trustworthy pathway to identify genes that impact the level of reproductive isolation.

Adaptive novelty
Hybridization might expand the prospect of adaptive radiation to the point where positive selection on recombinant hybrid genotypes surpasses the intrinsic selection against them. Therefore, the selection schemes in hybrid swarms ensures that relatively strong endogenous selection would not quench such potential. Additionally, partial postzygotic reproductive isolation usually involves multiple genes and segregation and recombination of genes creates broadly varying reproductive compatibility in hybrid populations. Consequently, there will be recurrent removal of disadvantageous alleles for reproductive isolation and relative stabilization of hybrid zones, possibly slowing down the path of complete speciation by reinforcement.With the continual selection against hybrid disadvantage, crossing-over might, over time, interrupt existing linkages and establish new. This generates a shift in selection pressure on loci which are in linkage with these genes and will contribute to further changes in allele frequencies on a genome scale. The "rare allele phenomenon" might be an indication of this process. Even with the continuous effect of relatively strong endogenous selection against hybrids, a hybrid population might be an example where selection against reproductive isolation results in creating variable recombinant genotypes. Sometimes, this phenomenon might assist in creating a complex of adaptive traits that lead to adaptive novelty.

== References ==


Hypervariable may refer to:

Hypervariable sequence, a segment of a chromosome characterised by considerable variation in the number of tandem repeats at one or more loci
Hypervariable locus, a locus with many alleles; especially those whose variation is due to variable numbers of tandem repeats
Hypervariable region (HVR), a chromosomal segment characterized by multiple alleles within a population for a single genetic locus


Integrons are genetic mechanisms that allow bacteria to adapt and evolve rapidly through the stockpiling and expression of new genes. These genes are embedded in a specific genetic structure called gene cassette (a term that is lately changing to integron cassette) that generally carries one promoterless open reading frame (ORF) together with a recombination site (attC). Integron cassettes are incorporated to the attI site of the integron platform by site-specific recombination reactions mediated by the integrase.

Discovery
Integrons were initially discovered on conjugative plasmids through their role in antibiotic resistance. Indeed, these mobile integrons, as they are now known, can carry a variety of cassettes containing genes that are almost exclusively related to antibiotic resistance. Further studies have come to the conclusion that integrons are chromosomal elements, and that their mobilisation onto plasmids has been fostered by transposons and selected by the intensive use of antibiotics. The function of the majority of cassettes found in chromosomal integrons remains unknown.

Integron function
Cassette maintenance requires that they be integrated within a replicative element (chromosome, plasmids). The integrase encoded by the integron preferentially catalyses two types of recombination reaction: 1) attC x attC, which results in cassette excision, 2) attI x attC, which allows integration of the cassette at the attI site of the integron. Once inserted, the cassette is maintained during cell division. Successive integrations of gene cassettes result in the formation of a series of cassettes. The cassette integrated last is then the one closest to the Pc promoter at the attI site. The IntI-catalysed mode of recombination involves structured single-stranded DNA and gives the attC site recognition mode unique characteristics. The integration of gene cassettes within an integron also provides a Pc promoter that allows expression of all cassettes in the array, much like an operon. The level of gene expression of a cassette is then a function of the number and nature of the cassettes that precede it. In 2009, Didier Mazel and his team showed that the expression of the IntI integrase was controlled by the bacterial SOS response, thus coupling this adaptive apparatus to the stress response in bacteria.

Structure
An integron is minimally composed of:
a gene encoding for a site-specific recombinase: intI, belonging to the integrase family
a proximal recombination site: attI, which is recognized by the integrase and at which gene cassettes may be inserted
a promoter: Pc, which directs transcription of cassette-encoded genes

Gene cassettes
Additionally, an integron will usually contain one or more gene cassettes that have been incorporated into it. The gene cassettes may encode genes for antibiotic resistance, although most genes in integrons are uncharacterized. An attC sequence (also called 59-be) is a repeat that flanks cassettes and enables cassettes to be integrated at the attI site, excised and undergo horizontal gene transfer.

Occurrence
Integrons may be found as part of mobile genetic elements such as plasmids and transposons. Integrons can also be found in chromosomes.

Terminology
The term super-integron was first applied in 1998 (but without definition) to the integron with a long cassette array on the small chromosome of Vibrio cholerae. The term has since been used for integrons of various cassette array lengths or for integrons on bacterial chromosomes (versus, for example, plasmids).  Use of "super-integron" is now discouraged since its meaning is unclear.In more modern usage, an integron located on a bacterial chromosome is termed a sedentary chromosomal integron, and one associated with transposons or plasmids is called a mobile integron.

References
Medical terms

Further reading
Collis, CM; Kim, MJ; Partridge, SR; Stokes, HW; Hall, RM (2002). "Characterization of the Class 3 Integron and the Site-Specific Recombination System It Determines". Journal of Bacteriology. 184 (11): 3017–3026. doi:10.1128/jb.184.11.3017-3026.2002. PMC 135066. PMID 12003943.
Tosini, F; Visca, P; Luzzi, I; Dionisi, AM; Pezzella, C; Petrucca, A; Carattoli, A (1998). "Class 1 integron-borne multiple-antibiotic resistance carried by IncFI and IncL/M plasmids in Salmonella enterica serotype typhimurium". Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 42 (12): 3053–8. doi:10.1128/aac.42.12.3053. PMC 105998. PMID 9835490.
Mazel, D (2006). "Integrons: agents of bacterial evolution". Nature Reviews Microbiology. 4 (8): 608–620. doi:10.1038/nrmicro1462. PMID 16845431. S2CID 4407151.

External links
IntegronFinder - A tool to detect integrons in bacterial genomes
INTEGRALL - The Integron Database


Interleukin 17F (IL-17F) is signaling protein that is in human is encoded by the IL17F gene and is considered a pro-inflammatory cytokine. This protein belongs to the interleukin 17 family and is mainly produced by the T helper 17 cells after their stimulation with interleukin 23. However, IL-17F can be also produced by a wide range of cell types, including innate immune cells and epithelial cells.The IL17F gene is located on chromosome 6p12 and was discovered in 2001. This cytokine can be secreted as disulfide-linked homodimer or heterodimer.

Function and signaling
IL-17F is involved in the development of inflammation and host defense against infection by inducing the expression of genes that encode other proinflammatory cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor, interleukin 1, interleukin 6 and some members of the colony-stimulating factor family. IL-17F can also induce expression of chemokines, such as CXCL1, CXCL5, interleukin 8, CCL7 and others, thereby promoting inflammation and neutrophil recruitment. IL-17F signaling can also lead to antimicrobial peptide and matrix metalloproteinase production. The target cells of IL-17F are epithelial cells, fibroblasts, keratinocytes, synoviocytes and endothelial cells. These cells express IL-17RA and IL-17RC, which are the receptors IL-17F binds. IL-17F shows a broad tissue expression pattern, including the lungs, where it may be associated with the pathogenesis of asthma. IL-17F employs Act1 and TRAF6 as its signal transducers to induce the expression of the pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines in many different cell types. IL-17F signaling also activates the MAP kinase pathway and leads to the activation of NF-κB, MAPK-AP-1 and C/EBP.IL-17F is highly (55%) homologous to interleukin-17A (IL-17A). These two molecules bind to the same receptors and are very likely to have similar biological functions. IL-17A and IL-17F are often co-expressed. However, IL-17F is a weaker inducer of pro-inflammatory cytokine expression and is produced by a wider range of cell types than IL-17A. Another difference lies in the binding affinities for their receptors: IL-17A binds more strongly to IL-17RA, IL-17F to IL-17RC.The interleukin 17 family members are among the effector cytokines of Th17 immune response. This immune response protects hosts from pathogens at epithelial and mucosal tissues including the skin, lung, and intestine. The Th17-type immune response is directed primarily against extracellular bacteria. IL-17F as an effector cytokine of Th17 cells is involved in host defense against bacterial infections. It has many mechanisms by which it helps resist bacteria. IL-17F has the ability to stimulate the production of defensins and other antimicrobial peptides; it can also resist bacteria through production of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines that attract neutrophils and other effector cells.

Clinical significance
IL-17F is a proinflammatory cytokine associated with many diseases. It very often plays crucial role in autoimmune diseases.
One of the diseases associated with IL-17F is psoriasis. Levels of IL-17F, as well as the levels of IL-17A, are increased in psoriatic skin and in synovial cells in psoriatic arthritis. IL-17F is capable of inducing cartilage matrix release and can inhibit the synthesis of new cartilage matrix. The monoclonal antibody bimekizumab against IL-17A and IL-17F is approved in Europe for the treatment of psoriasis; it may also be useful in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis.IL-17F plays an important role in asthma and allergic airway inflammation. IL-17F has been well characterized both in vitro and in vivo to have a pro-inflammatory role in asthma. IL-17F was originally found in bronchoalveolar lavage cells from patients with allergic asthma upon ragweed allergen stimulation. The expression level of IL-17F correlates with the severity of the disease. Overexpression of this cytokine in the airway is associated with neutrophilia, secretion of many cytokines, increased airway activity and mucus hypersecretion.IL-17F is also involved in the pathogenesis of intestinal inflammation. Expression of IL-17F in colon is associated with inflammatory bowel disease, and this inducible IL-17F expression is significantly higher in Crohn's disease than in ulcerative colitis.Increased expression of IL-17F is also found in neuronal inflammation—specifically, in active lesion sites in experimental autoimmune encephalitis, an animal model of multiple sclerosis. IL-17F together with IL-17A contributes to chronic inflammation.IL-17F may also be involved in tumorigenesis and associated with the tumor microenvironment (TME), as pro-tumor and anti-tumor functions have been ascribed to the related protein IL-17A has. However, a role for IL-17F in tumor development has not been well described.

== References ==


Island Conservation is a non-profit organization with the mission to prevent extinctions by removing invasive species from islands. Island Conservation has therefore focused its efforts on islands with species categorized as Critically Endangered and Endangered on the IUCN's Red List. Working in partnership with local communities, government management agencies, and conservation organizations, Island Conservation develops plans and implements the removal of invasive alien species, and conducts field research to document the benefits of the work and to inform future projects.
Island Conservation's approach is now being shown to have a wider beneficial effect on the marine systems surrounding its project areas. In addition, invasive vertebrate eradication has now been shown to have many benefits besides conservation of species. Specifically, the approach has been found to align with 13 UN Sustainable Development Goals and 42 associated targets encompassing marine and terrestrial biodiversity conservation, promotion of local and global partnerships, economic development, climate change mitigation, human health and sanitation and sustainable production and consumption.To date Island Conservation has deployed teams to protect 1,195 populations of 487 species and subspecies on 64 islands.The work of Island Conservation is not without controversy, This is documented in the book Battle at the End of Eden. Restoring islands requires removing whole populations of an invasive species. There is an ethical question of whether humankind has the right to remove one species to save others. However, a 2019 study suggests that if eradications of invasive animals were conducted on just 169 islands, the survival prospects of 9.4% of the Earth's most highly threatened terrestrial insular vertebrates would be improved.

History
Island Conservation was founded by Bernie Tershy and Don Croll, both Professors at UCSC's Long Marine Lab. These scientists learned about the story of Clipperton Island which had been visited by ornithologist Ken Stager of the Los Angeles County Museum in 1958. Appalled at the depredations visited by feral pigs upon the island's brown booby and masked booby colonies (reduced to 500 and 150 birds, respectively), Stager procured a shotgun and removed all 58 pigs. By 2003, the colonies numbered 25,000 brown boobies and 112,000 masked boobies, the world's second-largest brown booby colony and largest masked booby colony.Much of organization's early focus was working in Mexico in conjunction with its sister organization, Grupo de Ecología y Conservación de Islas, in the Gulf of California and off the Pacific Coast.  Subsequently, Island Conservation expanded its geographic scope to the Channel Islands of California, Pacific Coast of Canada, The Aleutians Islands, Hawaiian Islands, and finally to the Pacific, Caribbean, and South America.
Island Conservation has a strong scientific grounding. Over 160 peer-reviewed publications in major journals such as Biological Conservation, Conservation Biology and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences have been authored or co-authored by Island Conservation staff and contractors.

Partnerships
As Island Conservation does not have management responsibility over any islands itself, all projects are in partnership with the island owner/manager, island users, local communities and regulatory authorities. Since its founding in 1994, the organization has developed partnerships with over 100 organizations. Partners include conservation organizations, government agencies, regulatory agencies, scientific institutions, and international conservation consortiums. Island Conservation is a member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Alliance for Zero Extinction, and has a Memorandum of Understanding with the US Fish & Wildlife Service, and BirdLife International, amongst others.

Advisory Council
The organization's founding Advisory Board is composed of prominent scientists, practitioners, and authors in the fields of conservation biology and invasive species including Paul Ehrlich, José Sarukhán Kermez, Russell Mittermeier, Harold Mooney, David Quammen, Peter Raven, Michael Soulé, and Edward O. Wilson.

Programs
North America
In this region, Island Conservation currently works in the United States and Canada. In the United States, the Anacapa Island Restoration Project was completed in 2002 and benefited the Scripps's murrelet, Cassin's auklet, and Anacapa Deer Mouse. The Lehua Island Restoration Project was completed in 2006 which benefited Newell's shearwater and black-footed albatross. Subsequently, projects completed include the Hawadax Island Restoration Project in 2008, the San Nicolas Island Project in 2010, and the Palmyra Island Restoration Project in 2011.
Key federal government partnerships in North America include in the US Department of Interior, USFWS, NPS, the US Department of Agriculture-APHIS, National Wildlife Research Center, NOAA, Parks Canada Agency, and Environment and Climate Change Canada.  Island Conservation is working with the following non-governmental organizations: Coastal Conservation Association (CA), Bird Studies Canada, American Bird Conservancy, The Nature Conservancy, and Grupo de Ecología y Conservación de Islas.

Pacific
Since 2010, Island Conservation has contributed to the development and implementation of island restoration projects in Australia (Lord Howe Island  and Norfolk Island), French Polynesia (Tetiꞌaroa Restoration Project in 2022, Acteon-Gambier Archipelago Restoration Project in 2015), Tonga (Late Island and numerous small islets), Republic of Palau (including within the Rock Islands Southern Lagoon World Heritage Area), Federated States of Micronesia (Ulithi Lagoon), and New Caledonia (Walpole Island). Island Conservation is an active member of the Pacific Invasives Partnership. Other key partnerships include Invasive Species Council, BirdLife International, New Zealand Department of Conservation, SPREP and the Ornithological Society of French Polynesia.

Caribbean
In this region, Island Conservation works primarily in Puerto Rico, The Commonwealth of The Bahamas, and the Dominican Republic. In May 2012, Island Conservation and the Bahamas National Trust worked together to remove invasive house mice from Allen Cay to protect native species including the Allen Cays rock iguana and Audubon's shearwater. Since 2008, Island Conservation and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have worked together to remove invasive vertebrates from Desecheo National Wildlife Refuge in Puerto Rico, primarily benefiting the Higo Chumbo cactus, three endemic reptiles, two endemic invertebrates, and to recover globally significant seabird colonies of brown boobies, red footed boobies, and bridled terns. Future work will focus on important seabird populations, key reptile groups including West Indian Rock Iguanas, and the restoration of Mona Island, Alto Velo, and offshore cays in the Puerto Rican Bank and The Bahamas. Key partnerships include the USFWS, Puerto Rico DNER, the Bahamas National Trust, and the Dominican Republic Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources.

South America
In this region, Island Conservation works primarily in Ecuador and Chile. In Ecuador, the Rábida Island Restoration Project was completed in 2010. A gecko (Phyllodactylus sp.) found during monitoring in late 2012 was only recorded from subfossils estimated at more than 5,700 years old. Live Rábida Island endemic land snails (Bulimulus (Naesiotus) rabidensis), not seen since collected over 100 years ago, were also collected in late 2012. This was followed in 2012 by the Pinzon and Plaza Sur Island Restoration Project primarily benefiting the Pinzón giant tortoise, Opuntia galapageia, Galápagos land iguana. As a result of the project, Pinzon Giant Tortoise hatched from eggs and were surviving in the wild for the first time in more than 150 years
In 2019, The Directorate of Galápagos National Park with Island Conservation used drones to eradicate invasive rats from North Seymour Island - this was the first time such an approach has been used on vertebrates in the wild.  The expectation is that this innovation will pave the way for cheaper invasive species eradications in the future on small and mid-sized islands. The current focus in Ecuador is Floreana Island with 55 IUCN threatened species present and 13 extirpated species that could be reintroduced after invasive mammals are eradicated. Partners include: The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, Ministry of Environment (Galápagos National Park Directorate, Galápagos Biosecurity Agency), the Ministry of Agriculture, the Floreana Parish Council and the Galapagos Government Council.
In 2009 Chile, Island Conservation initiated formal collaborations with CONAF, the country's protected areas agency, to further restoration of islands under their administration. In January 2014, the Choros Island Restoration Project was completed benefiting the Humboldt penguin, Peruvian diving petrel, and the local eco-tourism industry. The focus of future work includes the Humboldt Penguin National Reserve and the Juan Fernández Archipelago.

Conservation Innovation
From its earliest days, Island Conservation has prided itself on innovating its tools and approach to eradication projects.  Island Conservation implemented its first helicopter-based aerial broadcast eradication on Anacapa Island in 2001 refining technology developed in New Zealand for agriculture and pest control, this has been replicated on more than 10 international island restoration projects since. Island Conservation has developed practices for holding native species in captivity for re-release and mitigating risks to species, including the successful capture and release of endemic mice on Anacapa and hawks on Pinzon.In 2010, Island Conservation partnered with the U.S. Humane Society to remove feral cats from San Nicolas Island  for relocation to a sanctuary on the mainland California. New tools including a remote trap monitoring system, digital data collection system, and statistical decision support tools improved the humanness of removal methods, reduced project cost, and reduced time to declare success.Following a series of failed eradication attempts in 2012, Island Conservation led a group of international experts to identify challenges on tropical islands resulting in recommend practices for tropical rodent eradications. Applying these lessons following a failed attempt on Desecheo island 2017 resulted in success.
Island Conservation led a horizon scan in 2015 that identified drones, genetic biocontrol, and conflict transformation as critical innovations to increase the scale, scope, and pace of rodent eradications. Since this exercise, Island Conservation formed the Genetic Biocontrol for Invasive Rodents (GBIRd) partnership to cautiously explore the development of safe and ethical genetic technologies to prevent extinctions, supported sustainable community-driven approaches to conservation projects, and implemented the world’s first drone-powered rat eradication.  The current focus of the Conservation Innovation program is to advance methods that increase safety, reduce cost, and improve the feasibility of eradicating invasive vertebrates from islands.

References
External links
Official website
Grupo de Ecología y Conservación de Islas (GECI)
Database of Island Invasive Species Eradications (DIISE)
Threatened Island Biodiversity database (TIB)
Genetic Biocontrol for Invasive Rodents (GBIRd)


The Jena Declaration is a scientific statement that questions and refutes the concept of human "races in a biological sense". It was published in September 2019 at the 112th Annual Meeting of the German Zoological Society (Deutsche Zoologische Gesellschaft) in Jena. The statement was written by leading scientists from the fields of evolutionary research, genetics and zoology, and was instrumental in influencing the legislative amendment to remove the term "Rasse" (roughly "race in a biological sense") from the German constitution. With this statement, the Institute for Zoology and Evolutionary Research at Friedrich Schiller University Jena explicitly distances itself from its 20th century predecessors, especially from the controversial scholar and evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel, who was closely associated with the University of Jena and whose ideas of racism and eugenics are today considered scientifically untenable and morally reprehensible.

Content
The authors of the statement, Martin S. Fischer, Uwe Hoßfeld, Johannes Krause and Stefan Richter examined the issue of alleged human "races" from a biological perspective. They clarified that this concept has no scientific justification. Scientific studies of genetic variation within and between human populations showed that the biological concept of "race" was a typological construct based on arbitrarily selected physical characteristics and did not reflect the actual genetic diversity of the human species.The Jena Declaration affirms that there are no "races" in the biological sense in humans, since the genetic variation within human populations is often greater than the genetic variation between these populations. Only in domestic animals the genetic similarity within a breed is actually greater than between breeds. Moreover, genetic differences between populations are continuous, as humans travelled long before major explorations and voyages of conquest by Europeans, creating links between populations that were geographically distant from each other. External characteristics such as skin colour, used for typological classifications or in everyday racism, are very superficial and rapidly changing biological adaptations to local conditions. In the human genome, for example, there is not a single difference among the 3.2 billion base pairs that separates Africans from non-Africans. So not only is there not a single gene that accounts for "racial" differences, there is not even a single base pair.The authors conclude that the concept of human "races" is the result of racism and not its precondition. Its use in scientific literature and social discourse often leads to misunderstandings and reinforces prejudice and discrimination. They therefore call for the term "race" to be discontinued in relation to people, except in historical or socio-political contexts where it should be understood as a social construction rather than a biological reality. They argue that the use of the term in relation to people creates a false idea of genetically separate groups and that it is important to debunk this myth in order to combat racism.
They conclude the statement with an appeal to educational institutions, media, authorities and all citizens to reconsider the German term "Rasse" and emphasise genetic diversity and humanity instead of artificial and harmful categorisations.

Impact
In Germany, the Declaration had a considerable impact on public debate and legislation, especially on the discussion about removing the term "Rasse" from the German constitution.The Jena Declaration also led to a number of publications in the field of education and learning. In the book "Den Begriff 'Rasse' überwinden: die 'Jenaer Erklärung' in der (Hoch-)Schulbildung" (Overcoming the Concept of Race: The Jena Declaration in (Higher) School Education), a variety of ideas and concepts for overcoming the concept of "race" are offered. In this publication, the Jena Declaration serves as an impulse for a nationwide reorientation of (high) school education. Another example is the publication "Die Jenaer Erklärung gegen Rassismus' und ihre Anwendung im Unterricht" (The Jena Declaration against Racism and its Application in the Classroom), which presents concrete examples of the application of the Jena Declaration in the classroom.
IQWiG (The independent Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care) also backs the "Jena Declaration" by ceasing to translate the term "race" as "Rasse" in its evaluations.The Institute no longer translates the term "race" as "Rasse" in its assessments.

References
External links
Jena Declaration
The Jena Declaration: Jena, Haeckel and the Question of Human Races, or, Racism Creates Races