More watch and consider

[pshun2404]

 

[Ophiolite]

It is a principle followed by many on forums, especially in my experience forums dealing with science, not to view a video that is unaccompanied by a summary of the information or argument it presents. Could you provide that now please?

 

[drjean]

Video appears safe... it's 1:05 minute long and didn't ring any warnings on my safeguards. nature.com

 

[pshun2404]

It is a principle followed by many on forums, especially in my experience forums dealing with science, not to view a video that is unaccompanied by a summary of the information or argument it presents. Could you provide that now please?

No that is the point of "watch and consider".

a) one watches it then
b) they consider it then
c) they give their opinions and interpretations

No claims are necessarily being made but the opening slide asks a question...are they communicating in their uniquely cellular way?

 

[pshun2404]

Video appears safe... it's 1:05 minute long and didn't ring any warnings on my safeguards. nature.com

yes it is safe as have been all the watch and consider videos....

 

[Ophiolite]

It is a principle followed by many on forums, especially in my experience forums dealing with science, not to view a video that is unaccompanied by a summary of the information or argument it presents. Could you provide that now please?

No that is the point of "watch and consider".

a) one watches it then
b) they consider it then
c) they give their opinions and interpretations

No claims are necessarily being made but the opening slide asks a question...are they communicating in their uniquely cellular way?

If you choose not to adopt the common courtesy of providing a summary of the information presented, especially when requested to do so then, thank you, but no thanks.

I had no concerns about its safety. All I wanted was an outline of content. I'm sorry you can't be bothered to provide that.

 

[pshun2404]

If you choose not to adopt the common courtesy of providing a summary of the information presented, especially when requested to do so then, thank you, but no thanks.

I had no concerns about its safety. All I wanted was an outline of content. I'm sorry you can't be bothered to provide that.

The safety response was not to you. So apparently you not only cannot listen and pay attention to a less than two minute NATURE video, but you do not read as well.

 

[Ophiolite]

The safety response was not to you. So apparently you not only cannot listen and pay attention to a less than two minute NATURE video, but you do not read as well.

The safety post was not directed to anyone in particular, therefore it might have been directed to me. drjean may have thought I was reluctant to open the video because of concern over its safety. I thought it polite to let him no that was not my concern, lest he had been directing the remark to me.

I can most certainly pay attention to a video, but in case you missed my opening remark, it is considered polite on science forums to give a quick overview of the contents of a video and - preferably - voice ones own opinions on those contents. You view that as unecessary, but I can assure you that the absence of that polite overview will reduce the number of views you attract. That's no skin of my nose - if you wish to be unhelpful that's a lifestyle choice that's in your hands.

You could have avoided all that by just giving a quick summary! I shall likely have nothing else to say on this matter.

 

[tas8831]

The safety post was not directed to anyone in particular, therefore it might have been directed to me. drjean may have thought I was reluctant to open the video because of concern over its safety. I thought it polite to let him no that was not my concern, lest he had been directing the remark to me.

I can most certainly pay attention to a video, but in case you missed my opening remark, it is considered polite on science forums to give a quick overview of the contents of a video and - preferably - voice ones own opinions on those contents. You view that as unecessary, but I can assure you that the absence of that polite overview will reduce the number of views you attract. That's no skin of my nose - if you wish to be unhelpful that's a lifestyle choice that's in your hands.

You could have avoided all that by just giving a quick summary! I shall likely have nothing else to say on this matter.

It is just his usual 'oooh! Evolution cannot explain this!' nonsense.

 

[Hieronymus]

It is just his usual 'oooh! Evolution cannot explain this!' nonsense.

As if evolution CAN explain everything.

 

[Jimmy D]

As if evolution CAN explain everything.

The Theory of Evolution is an explanation. Whether you accept it or not is up to you, but that remark betrays your ignorance.

 

[AirPo]

It is a principle followed by many on forums, especially in my experience forums dealing with science, not to view a video that is unaccompanied by a summary of the information or argument it presents. Could you provide that now please?

No that is the point of "watch and consider".

a) one watches it then
b) they consider it then
c) they give their opinions and interpretations

No claims are necessarily being made but the opening slide asks a question...are they communicating in their uniquely cellular way?

No, the point is I'm not wasting my time if I'm not given the common courtesy of a summary.

 

[pshun2404]

The safety post was not directed to anyone in particular, therefore it might have been directed to me. drjean may have thought I was reluctant to open the video because of concern over its safety. I thought it polite to let him no that was not my concern, lest he had been directing the remark to me.

I can most certainly pay attention to a video, but in case you missed my opening remark, it is considered polite on science forums to give a quick overview of the contents of a video and - preferably - voice ones own opinions on those contents. You view that as unecessary, but I can assure you that the absence of that polite overview will reduce the number of views you attract. That's no skin of my nose - if you wish to be unhelpful that's a lifestyle choice that's in your hands.

You could have avoided all that by just giving a quick summary! I shall likely have nothing else to say on this matter.

see post 3

 

[pshun2404]

It is just his usual 'oooh! Evolution cannot explain this!' nonsense.

No It is that cells are doing this, and PERHAPS forming and using these rays or tubules to submit information of chemical structures, or chemical messages to particular cells...maybe even the receptor cells have a need for this to remain healthily functional in that cellular community. We do not know. Finally I have no such imagined motive. It has nothing to do with evolution as a subject at all...I do not care how it developed in cells just that it is there and it happens.

New science is totally responsible for our being able to view the "process" where as in years passed we could only get still life photos of fixed cells. I found it exciting...

 

[Hieronymus]

The Theory of Evolution is an explanation. Whether you accept it or not is up to you, but that remark betrays your ignorance.

As long as they can't explain how new purposeful DNA came about, they obviously can't explain everything.
Stating "evolution did it" is no explanation.
Also, for evolution to work you need reproducing DNA, which origins is not explained by evolution.
Your comment betrays you're an angry guy with a moustache.

 

[pshun2404]

No, the point is I'm not wasting my time if I'm not given the common courtesy of a summary.

It is your right...it is only less than 2 minutes! I thought you were being one of those evolutionists or creationists that make their judgments and form opinions (usually based on what they believe about the person not the material, content, or reasoning) without actually taking the time to consider the data with an open mind....my apologies!

I do not offer a summary but my opinion (if you care to view it) is encapsulated in post 14

 

[AirPo]

It is your right...it is only less than 2 minutes! I thought you were being one of those evolutionists or creationists that make their judgments and form opinions (usually based on what they believe about the person not the material, content, or reasoning) without actually taking the time to consider the data with an open mind....my apologies!

I do not offer a summary but my opinion (if you care to view it) is encapsulated in post 14

I did consider all the data presented in the OP. A video link with nothing else is not worth my time.

 

[Ophiolite]

see post 3

You seem to want to disrupt your own thread with a ridiculous defense of a discourteous position. I'm not playing that game.

Summary of Video: Extremely fine nanotubes have been observed in collections of cells under laboratory conditions. These appear to pass molecules between cells and it is hypothesised these could include proteins, viruses and perhaps organelles, depending on the type of nanotube. The importance of these is controversial, some scientists insisting they appear only under laboratory conditions, others stressing their potential importance in the spread of HIV within the body and the development of Alzheimer's.

That's more than just a summary. That's pretty much it.

My Comments:

1. It's a pity pshun couldn't be bothered to take the time to provide that.
2. I suppose Nature are to be praised for dumbing things down sufficiently that the video might catch the interest of those with little understanding of science, but my gut tells me this is taking simplification to ludicrous lengths.
3. Critically, which scientists doubt the importance of these nanotubes and what evidence is that doubt based upon? What reasons do those who think they are important have for that view?
   
4. What are the different types of tube that have been observed? How do they differ? What is the significance of these differences?
5. Have these tubes been observed in vivo, or only in vitro?
6. To what extent has transfer of material been observed, or is such transfer hypothetical?
7. Why did pshun fail to provide links to further information? The video refers one to Nature News, but whatever article was there appears now to be gone, or too deeply buried for a provisional search.
   
8. Giving the date of the video release would have been very helpful - it is not visible if the video is viewed within the thread. However, by viewing it on Youtube we find the published date of 20 September 2017. (You couldn't have gone to that little trouble to help the viewer out, pshun?)
   
9. Using that date and Nature's flaky search engine, reveals this link. "How the internet of cells has biologists buzzing: Networks of nanotubes may allow cells to share everything from infections and cancer to dementia-linked proteins"
10. The original research that led to this was published here: Inaba, M., Buszczack, M. & Yamashita, Y. M. Nature 523, 329–332 (2015). Unfortunately this is behind a paywall.
11. The Nature News article fails to convey the considerable amount of research into such nanotubes that has already occurred. For example, this one published in 2007, titled "Membrane nanotubes physically connect T cells over long distances presenting a novel route for HIV-1 transmission" appears to anticipate the findings reported in the News article.

My provisional conclusion. Passage of certain molecules between certain kinds of cells may be taking place via nanotubes and may be implicated in the development of certain illnesses and diseases. Urgent and well constructed requests for funding to investigate further are likely underway.

 

[pshun2404]

I did consider all the data presented in the OP. A video link with nothing else is not worth my time.

Again...feel free to respond as you wish! Do you have an opinion on these tubules (or rays) as to how they reach out to other cells or why?

 

[pshun2404]

You seem to want to disrupt your own thread with a ridiculous defense of a discourteous position. I'm not playing that game.

Summary of Video: Extremely fine nanotubes have been observed in collections of cells under laboratory conditions. These appear to pass molecules between cells and it is hypothesised these could include proteins, viruses and perhaps organelles, depending on the type of nanotube. The importance of these is controversial, some scientists insisting they appear only under laboratory conditions, others stressing their potential importance in the spread of HIV within the body and the development of Alzheimer's.

That's more than just a summary. That's pretty much it.

My Comments:

1. It's a pity pshun couldn't be bothered to take the time to provide that.
2. I suppose Nature are to be praised for dumbing things down sufficiently that the video might catch the interest of those with little understanding of science, but my gut tells me this is taking simplification to ludicrous lengths.
3. Critically, which scientists doubt the importance of these nanotubes and what evidence is that doubt based upon? What reasons do those who think they are important have for that view?
   
4. What are the different types of tube that have been observed? How do they differ? What is the significance of these differences?
5. Have these tubes been observed in vivo, or only in vitro?
6. To what extent has transfer of material been observed, or is such transfer hypothetical?
7. Why did pshun fail to provide links to further information? The video refers one to Nature News, but whatever article was there appears now to be gone, or too deeply buried for a provisional search.
   
8. Giving the date of the video release would have been very helpful - it is not visible if the video is viewed within the thread. However, by viewing it on Youtube we find the published date of 20 September 2017. (You couldn't have gone to that little trouble to help the viewer out, pshun?)
   
9. Using that date and Nature's flaky search engine, reveals this link. "How the internet of cells has biologists buzzing: Networks of nanotubes may allow cells to share everything from infections and cancer to dementia-linked proteins"
10. The original research that led to this was published here: Inaba, M., Buszczack, M. & Yamashita, Y. M. Nature 523, 329–332 (2015). Unfortunately this is behind a paywall.
11. The Nature News article fails to convey the considerable amount of research into such nanotubes that has already occurred. For example, this one published in 2007, titled "Membrane nanotubes physically connect T cells over long distances presenting a novel route for HIV-1 transmission" appears to anticipate the findings reported in the News article.

My provisional conclusion. Passage of certain molecules between certain kinds of cells may be taking place via nanotubes and may be implicated in the development of certain illnesses and diseases. Urgent and well constructed requests for funding to investigate further are likely underway.

First off, thanks for the excellent post....good questions (3-5)....

So far as I can tell these were only in-vitro but what I found interesting was how these tubes reach out and retract and one must wonder if they are always doing this in-vivo as well, and YES they are not sure as to what is specifically being exchanged at this time. Do they behave this way only when taken out of their living environment? We will see...