A Morning-Specific Phytohormone Gene Expression Program underlying Rhythmic Plant Growth:
In plants, stems elongate faster at dawn. This time-of-day-specific growth is controlled by integration of environmental cues and the circadian clock. The specific effectors of growth in plants are the phytohormones: auxin, ethylene, gibberellins, abscisic acid, brassinosteroids, and cytokinins. Each phytohormone plays an independent as well as an overlapping role in growth, and understanding the interactions of the phytohormones has dominated plant research over the past century. The authors present a model in which the circadian clock coordinates growth by synchronizing phytohormone gene expression at dawn, allowing a plant to control growth in a condition-specific manner. Furthermore, the results presented provide a new framework for future experiments aimed at understanding the integration and crosstalk of the phytohormones.
Informed Consent in the Genomics Era:
Since the Nuremberg trials, informed consent (IC) has been recognized as a basic ethical requirement for research involving human participants [1] (Table 1). Such consent encompasses two distinct elements: (1) researchers communicate detailed information about study procedures, outcomes, risks, and benefits for the participating individual or community, and (2) after understanding and careful consideration, the participants consent to take part under these conditions. However, the suitability of IC for genomic studies has been recently challenged [2,3]. Because the research protocol for such studies may evolve over time, the condition in IC of providing detailed information for a well-defined protocol is not easily satisfied.
Large amounts of data stored as electronic records allow multiple post-hoc analyses, which in many cases were not foreseen at the beginning of a study. The potential for analysis is constantly growing and recently has increased dramatically with the development of high-throughput sequencing and genotyping technologies. More than one million genetic variants of an individual may be determined within hours--and even the full genetic sequence within weeks [3]. Such technical advances expose participants to a new class of risk different from the physical harm usually considered in ethical reviews [4,5]. Release of genetic information could lead to uninsurability, unemployability, discrimination, and the breakdown of family relationships by unintentionally demonstrating missing or unknown relatedness. Moreover, participants usually do not get any direct benefit from the research. All of these concerns raise the question: are IC procedures still in accordance with the currently accepted ethical standards of autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence?
- Log in to post comments