Life Science 2.0: reframing the life science sector for 'the benefit on mankind'.

The COVID-19 pandemic put the life science sector to the test. Vaccines were developed at unprecedented speed, benefiting from decades of fundamental research and now honoured by a Nobel Prize. However, we saw that the fruits of science were inequitably distributed. Most low- and middle-income countries were left behind, deepening the inequalities that the Sustainable Development Goals were set to reduce. We argue that the life science sector must reinvent itself to be better and more equitably prepared for the next health crisis and to ensure fair access to health across current and future generations. Our recommendations include global governance, national strategies and the role of universities and corporations. Improved and more equitable health care should be centre stage for global health action and a core mission of a reframed Life Science sector - what we call Life Science 2.0.Paper ContextMain findings: During the COVID-19 pandemic the Life Science sector stepped up to the challenge, but vaccines and medicines were not equitably distributed.Added knowledge: Obstacles were identified that hindered global access to medical innovations.Global health impact for policy and action: Global and national governance, universities and the private sector should join forces to create a Life Science sector (Life Science 2.0) that affords equitable access to medical advances across geographical and generational boundaries and socio-economic strata.

Bibliometric comparison of Nobel Prize laureates in physiology or medicine and chemistry.

The Nobel Prize is an annual honor awarded to the researchers who have made the greatest contribution to humanity with their work in the year in question. Nobel Prizes for physiology or medicine and chemistry most often have direct or indirect pharmacological relevance. In this study, we performed a bibliometric analysis of Nobel Prize laureates from 2006 to 2022. The parameters include the nationalities and age of the laureates, age at their productivity peaks, the research locations, the H-index, the age-adjusted H-index, and the number of citations and publications, and, for each parameter, a comparison of female and male award laureates. Men were much more often awarded the Nobel Prize than women. Surprisingly, women were younger than their male colleagues at the time of the award although the productivity peak was similar. There was a correlation between all publications and the H-index, which was slightly stronger for women than for men. The age-adjusted H-index showed no difference among genders. The USA were the country with the highest number of Nobel Prize laureates, both male and female. Overall, the bibliometric characteristics of male and female Nobel Prize laureates are similar, indicating that among the group of Nobel Prize laureates, there is no bias against women. Rather, the achievements of women are recognized earlier than those of men. The major difference is that the number of women becoming Nobel Prize laureates is much smaller than the number of men. This study provides a starting for future studies with larger populations of scientists to analyze disparities.

La paradoja del Premio Nobel: premios Nobel, no premios nobles / Nobel Prize paradox: Nobel Prize, not a noble prize

El Premio Nobel es uno de los premios más deseados en ciencia y más conocidos en la sociedad. Sin embargo, su reputación no está exenta de complejidades, incluidas las limitaciones para los galardonados y los prejuicios en las nominaciones. Navegar por el delicado equilibrio entre el reconocimiento y los impactos concretos de las contribuciones premiadas debería ofrecer una idea de la importancia del premio más allá del mero prestigio y su valor monetario. Si bien otros premios pueden presumir de mayores recompensas financieras, a menudo carecen del mismo nivel de prestigio. La inclusión de figuras públicas como galardonadas y la amplia cobertura mediática en torno al Premio Nobel elevan aún más su importancia percibida, aunque esto podría ocultar una realidad más matizada. Asimismo, las asociaciones positivas vinculadas al nombre «Nobel» que se asemejan al adjetivo «noble» pueden realzar el prestigio del premio. Esta sutil conexión con la «nobleza» añade una capa de honor y distinción al premio, contribuyendo a su importancia y prestigio percibidos. Además, la sobrerrepresentación de premios Nobel de países específicos provoca un escrutinio sobre el cumplimiento del testamento del Nobel, que prioriza las contribuciones al bienestar global. Esta discrepancia plantea dudas sobre la inclusión y el impacto global del premio.(AU)

The Nobel Prize is one of the most sought-after awards in science and society. However, its reputation is not without complexities, including constraints on laureates and biases in nominations. Navigating the delicate balance between recognition and the tangible impacts of awarded contributions should offer insight into the Prize's significance beyond mere prestige and monetary value. While other awards may boast higher financial rewards, they often lack the same level of prestige. The inclusion of public figures as laureates and the extensive media coverage surrounding the Nobel Prize may further elevate its perceived importance, though this may hide a more nuanced reality. Additionally, the positive associations linked to the name “Nobel” resembling the adjective “noble” can enhance the award's prestige. This subtle connection to “nobility” adds a layer of honor and distinction to the Prize, contributing to its perceived significance and prestige. Moreover, the overrepresentation of Nobel laureates from specific countries prompts scrutiny over the fulfillment of Nobel's testament, which prioritizes contributions to global well-being. This discrepancy raises questions about the inclusivity and global impact of the Prize.(AU)

Nobel Prize paradox: Nobel Prize, not a noble prize.

The Nobel Prize is one of the most sought-after awards in science and society. However, its reputation is not without complexities, including constraints on laureates and biases in nominations. Navigating the delicate balance between recognition and the tangible impacts of awarded contributions should offer insight into the Prize's significance beyond mere prestige and monetary value. While other awards may boast higher financial rewards, they often lack the same level of prestige. The inclusion of public figures as laureates and the extensive media coverage surrounding the Nobel Prize may further elevate its perceived importance, though this may hide a more nuanced reality. Additionally, the positive associations linked to the name "Nobel" resembling the adjective "noble" can enhance the award's prestige. This subtle connection to "nobility" adds a layer of honor and distinction to the Prize, contributing to its perceived significance and prestige. Moreover, the overrepresentation of Nobel laureates from specific countries prompts scrutiny over the fulfillment of Nobel's testament, which prioritizes contributions to global well-being. This discrepancy raises questions about the inclusivity and global impact of the Prize.

[Unconventional Laveran]. / Laveran décalé.

Charles Louis Alphonse Laveran - 18 June 1845 - 18 May 1922: first French Nobel Prize in Medicine, "in recognition of his work on the role played by protozoa in causing diseases". One hundred years after his death, only written records remain of his work and life. The witnesses to this period are no more. Alphonse Laveran has become an "object" of history.He was deeply involved in a turbulent historical period, marked by crises of regime change (Monarchy/Empire/Republic), military events (French colonial expansion in North Africa from 1830, the wars of 1870 and 1914-1918) and their consequences (the medical impact of infections in the colonial empire and during armed conflicts, the Dreyfus affair, among others), the advent of Pasteurian "microbiology" and the deciphering of the causes and modes of transmission of infectious diseases. A player on the edge of the military and civilian worlds, with their own, sometimes incompatible, visions of the aims and objectives to be pursued, Alphonse Laveran lived through these upheavals in a society in the throes of change, in his family and scientific environment.Paradoxically, the primary sources available to us for learning about this scientist and man are both abundant and "scarce" for us in the 21st century. His scientific publications and many of his speeches at various academies, committees and meetings are for the most part public and accessible, giving us a vision of a professional in scientific and medical research in action, presenting and convincing people of his ideas and theoretical and practical insights. The writings of his contemporaries, both public and private, shed light on - distort? - the man's many facets. On the other hand, there are few surviving sources on the man and his vision of life, his life and that of his family and friends.We will rely on the archives that have been preserved, in particular by the organisations that welcomed him during his military and civilian career, as well as by his wife Marie Laveran and his colleague Marie Phisalix, one of the first doctors of medicine in France and a renowned herpetologist. These two female figures have preserved and contributed to his memory. Let's take a closer look at the man behind the scientist, as we can imagine him through the traces that remain.

Confirmation that Hermann Muller was dishonest in his Nobel Prize Lecture.

In his Nobel Prize Lecture of December 12, 1946, Hermann J. Muller argued that the dose-response for ionizing radiation-induced germ cell mutations was linear and that there was ''no escape from the conclusion that there is no threshold''. However, a newly discovered commentary by the Robert L. Brent (2015) indicated that Curt Stern, after reading a draft of part of Muller's Nobel Prize Lecture, called Muller, strongly advising him to remove reference to the flawed linear non-threshold (LNT)-supportive Ray-Chaudhuri findings and strongly encouraged him to be guided by the threshold supportive data of Ernst Caspari. Brent indicated that Stern recounted this experience during a genetics class at the University of Rochester. Brent wrote that Muller refused to follow Stern's advice, thereby proclaiming support for the LNT dose-response while withholding evidence that was contrary during his Nobel Prize Lecture. This finding is of historical importance since Muller's Nobel Prize Lecture gained considerable international attention and was a turning point in the acceptance of the linearity model for radiation and chemical hereditary and carcinogen risk assessment.

The Enigma of the Impervious Nobel Prize for Neurosurgeons.

The Nobel Prize, which has been highly esteemed since its establishment in 1901, carries significant status within the scientific community. The Nobel Prize in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, and Economics has long been recognized for its recognition of significant scientific contributions. However, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine holds a distinct significance due to its direct association with advancements in human health. The subject of neurosurgery, which encompasses both clinical and academic domains, has witnessed remarkable developments; nonetheless, it has not yet been awarded a Nobel Prize. The objective of this investigation is to elucidate the factors contributing to the enigmatic nature of this recognition and propose feasible techniques that can be implemented to achieve it.

[Laveran, the military doctor]. / Laveran, le médecin militaire.

Son of Louis-Theodore Laveran, holder of the Chair of Diseases and Epidemics in the Armies at the Val-de-Grâce and grandson of an artillery commander through his mother, Alphonse, born in Paris on June 18, 1845, follows in his father's footsteps by entering the Imperial School of Military Health in Strasbourg at the age of 18.After his thesis, he participated in 1870 in the war against Prussia. He was taken prisoner in Metz. He then prepared for the competitive examination to become a professor, which he passed in 1874. He was appointed to the Chair of the Val-de-Grâce, which his father had created. He then went to Algeria. It was at the military hospital in Constantine on November 6, 1880 that he indisputably discovered the haematozoa responsible for malaria in the blood of a soldier in the crew train.In 1884, he was appointed to the Chair of Military Hygiene and Legal Medicine at Val-de-Grâce. At the end of his professorship in 1894, after being refused a posting to Paris to continue his research and not being consulted for the preparation of the Madagascar expedition, which turned into a health disaster in 1895, he retired prematurely in 1897. Hosted by Émile Duclaux and Émile Roux at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, he continued his research mainly on protozoa as agents of human and animal diseases until his death. His work in medical protozoology earned him the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1907. During the Great War, with the benefit of his experience, he warned the Minister of War in January 1916 about the risk of malaria incurred by the army of the East in the delta of the Vardar River in Salonika. The spring would prove him right.An illustrious military doctor and scientist of international renown, Laveran died on May 18, 1922 in Paris.

[Laveran and the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine]. / Laveran et le Prix Nobel de physiologie ou de médecine.

This article recalls the conditions under which the first Nobel Prizes were awarded. The scientific personalities who nominated Alphonse Laveran for the prize from 1901 to 1907 are recalled, among them Ronald Ross, winner in 1902. In 1907, Karl Axel Hampus Mörner submitted Alphonse Laveran for the prize. He was then the rector of the Karolinska Institutet, as well as the chairman of the Nobel Committee and the Nobel Assembly, and had never before expressed an interest in one scientist more than another. The previous year, the Nobel Assembly had for the first time awarded the prize for physiology or medicine to two laureates, Camillo Golgi and Santiago Ramón y Cajal "in recognition of their work on the structure of the nervous system". In 1907, the numerous, repeated and simultaneous nominations of Élie Metchnikoff and Paul Ehrlich were probably the subject of an important debate, which finally turned out in favour of Alphonse Laveran. We explain why we think the choice of the president prevailed. In 1908, when Laveran became one of the nominators of the prize, his main competitors of 1907 were finally crowned simultaneously "in recognition of their work on immunity".The long delay between the discovery of the malarial parasite (1880) and the award of the prize "in recognition of his work on the role played by protozoa in the appearance of diseases" is put into perspective and illustrates what will almost always be the practice, contrary to Alfred Nobel's rule of awarding the prize within a year after the discovery. The particular circumstances of the award of the prize in 1907 are described.The donation that Alphonse Laveran made on December 22nd 1907 to the Pasteur Institute out of the amount of his prize was 100,000 francs, i.e. a little more than half of the 190,000 francs grant received from the Nobel Committee. Its value, in terms of purchasing power in euros 2021, is estimated at over 400,000 euros. The use made of it by the Pasteur Institute is clearly shown in the minutes of its Board of Directors in 1908, as having been mainly devoted to the fitting out and equipment of the Laboratory of Tropical Diseases that Laveran was calling for in the buildings recently purchased on Rue Falguière (Paris); the donation was not used for the construction of new buildings.

[Laveran, the Pasteurian researcher]. / Laveran, le pasteurien.

At the end of his professorial mandate at the Val de Grâce hospital, Alphonse Laveran, who was Chief Doctor, was appointed to Lille and then Nantes. These assignments however deprived him of a hospital service where he could carry on his research. In 1896, faced with the inflexibility of his military hierarchy, he applied for early retirement; he was then 50 years old. Dr Roux welcomed him to the Pasteur Institute as a honorary department head, where he started a second career as a volunteer. He would spend the following 25 years there, addressing the great protozoology issues. Together with Félix Mesnil, he undertook the study of trypanosomiasis and leishmaniases. In 1907 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine to honor "his work on the role of protozoa as pandemic vectors". He allocated a large part of his prize money to set up a parasitology laboratory at the Pasteur Institute, where all the discoveries and observations carried out in the colonies would converge. In 1908, he funded the Society of Exotic Pathology. He authored no less than 600 publications where his memorable research is recorded. Despite his somewhat outwardly rigid appearance, the man proved to be of amiable approach thanks to "the simplicity of his manners, his amenity and his great heart".

On the occasion of the centennial of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1923: Nicolae C. Paulescu-between scientific creativity and political fanatism.

AIMS: Since the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded in 1923 to FG Banting and JJR Macleod, many voices have been raised against this decision. The bitterest protest was that of the Romanian scientist Nicolae C. Paulescu. In 2002, The Romanian Academy of Sciences, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) planned to hold a series of academic events the following year in Paris to acknowledge Paulescu's scientific merits in the discovery of the antidiabetic hormone. However, the initiative was cancelled in August 2003, when the European Center of the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation (SWC) accused Paulescu of being antisemitic. The authors of this manuscript have decided to approach "the Paulescu case" from its double aspect, scientific and sociopolitical, to analyze the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the antidiabetic hormone, and Paulescu's alleged antisemitic past in the historical context of the Romanian nation in the interwar period. METHODS: We contacted the SWC and people related to the 2003 events in Paris. We performed a comparative review of the documents published by the Toronto group and by Paulescu and analyzed the correspondence and articles generated by international experts from the scientific community interested in the controversy. We carried out an exhaustive bibliographic search through several online catalogs (INDEXCAT, NLM Gateway, EUREKA, MEDHIST). We travelled to Bucharest, where we visited Paulescu's house-museum, interviewed a former student of the Romanian professor, and a prominent medical historian who was knowledgeable about Paulescu's scientific and political biography. Dan Angelescu†, son of Dr. Constantin Angelescu (1904-1990), Paulescu's nephew and collaborator, provided us with a copy of all the available documentation from Paulescu's personal archive. It constitutes an essential source for understanding Paulescu's personal, political and academic biography. Archives consulted: Românǎ Academy (Bucharest). Personal Archive of Paulescu, House -Museum (Bucharest)*. Romanian Jewish Heritage (Bucharest). http://romanianjewish.org/ **. Simon Wiesenthal Center (Los Angeles, CA) http://www.wiesenthal.com **. Romanian Patent Office. Oficiul de Stat pentru Invenții si Mǎrci (OSIM) (Bucharest)***. Nobel Archives (Stockholm) https://www.nobelprize.org . Internet Archive (San Francisco, CA) https://archive.org **. Wellcome Library (London) https://wellcomelibrary.org **. The European Library https://www.theeuropeanlibrary.org/ **. US National Library of Medicine, NLM historical collections http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/index.html **. US. Holocaust Memorial Museum http://www.ushmm.org/ (*: archive consulted on site; **: material found in the online catalog of the archive; ***: archivists sent us digitized copies of archival material). Books consulted for information on the history of Romania and antisemitism: "Nationalist ideology and antisemitism. The case of Romanian intellectuals in the 1930s", by Leon Volovici; "The mystique of ultranationalism: History of the Iron Guard, Romania, 1919-1941" by Francisco Vega; "Romania 1866-1947", by Keith Hitchins; "History of Romania. Compendium", by Ioan-Aurel Pop and Joan Bolovan; "The Holocaust in Romania. The destruction of Jews and Gypsies under the Antonescu regime, 1940-1944", by Radu Ioanid; "The Jews of East Central Europe between the World Wars", by Ezra Mendelson; "Cultural Politics in Greater Romania. Regionalism, Nation Building and Ethnic Struggle, 1918-1930", by Irina Livezeanu, and "Judeophobia. How and when it is born, where and why it survives", by Gustavo Daniel Perednik. Articles are referenced in the bibliography section at the end of the manuscript. RESULTS: A-Nicolae Paulescu developed an intense long-term research activity, which included complete pancreatectomy and preparation of a pancreatic extract (PE) containing the antidiabetic hormone he called pancreina. Parenteral administration of the PE achieved excellent results in the treatment of experimental diabetes in dogs and induction of hypoglycemia in the healthy animal. This work was initiated before 1916 and published at least eight months antedating the publication of the first article by Banting and Best (February 1922), who were acquainted with Paulescu's results, but misinterpreted them. The pancreatic extract of the two Canadian researchers, -iletin/insulin-, only achieved similar results to that of the Romanian scientist once they abandoned the use of the "degenerated pancreas" extract (ligation of the ductal system), replacing it with the pancreas of adult or fetal bovine. Pancreina and insulin were very similar. The award of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to FG Banting and JJR Macleod in October 1923 honored the successful clinical use of insulin in patients with diabetes mellitus. Paulescu's achievements were ignored. B-Nicolae Paulescu publicly manifested his Judeophobic ideology on multiple occasions in academic and political interventions and in publications and participated with other figures from the Romanian intellectual sphere in the founding of the Uniunea Național Crestinǎ (UNC, National Christian Union) in 1922 and of the Liga Apǎrǎrii Național Cresține (LANC, League for Christian National Defense) in 1923, antisemitic far-right political parties, associated with an irrational Christian orthodoxy and hatred of Jews. Paulescu played a pivotal role in the spread of antisemitism. CONCLUSIONS: A-The Romanian scientist NC Paulescu started an intense research program aimed at the isolation of the antidiabetic hormone before 1916, including an original procedure of pancreatectomy in the dog and the elaboration of a pancreatic extract that achieved excellent results in the treatment of experimental diabetes, demonstrating its beneficial effects on the metabolism of carbohydrates, proteins and fats and reducing both glycosuria and glycemia and the urinary excretion of ketone bodies of depancreatized dogs toward normality. The results of these investigations were published in 1920 and 1921, predating the first report published by FG ​​Banting and CH Best in February 1922. It has been sufficiently demonstrated that Canadian researchers were aware of Paulescu's excellent results, mentioning them only in passing, albeit erroneously misrepresenting key results of the Romanian scientist's publication in the aforementioned seminal Canadian article. Expert historians and international scientists have recognized that the pancreatic extract that Paulescu called pancreina and that obtained by Banting and Best, insulin, were very similar. The October 1923 award of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to FG Banting and JJR Macleod ignored Paulescu's scientific achievements in the treatment of experimental diabetes and rewarded the extraordinary advance of insulin treatment in human diabetes. B-At the end of August 2003, a few days before the date of the celebration at the Hôtel Dieu in Paris of the scheduled program of tribute to the scientific merits of NC Paulescu and his important contribution to the discovery of the antidiabetic hormone, convened by the Romanian Academy and the International Diabetes Federation, the Wiesenthal Foundation publicly accused the Romanian scientist of being an antisemite, an act that determined the cancellation of the announced events. The exhaustive investigation of the personal convictions and antisemitic behavior of Nicolae C. Paulescu has undoubtedly documented the Judeophobic ideology of the Romanian scientist, linked to his orthodox religious radicalism, manifested in multiple documents (mostly pamphlets) and interventions in collaboration with other relevant personalities of the Romanian intelligentsia of his time. Furthermore, Paulescu participated in the creation of political organizations of the most radical extreme right that played a fundamental role in the spread of antisemitism amongst the Romanian population and the university community.

Theodor Kocher (1841-1917) and his outstanding contributions to surgery

Theodor Kocher (1841-1917), an exceptional Swiss surgeon who described a technique for the safe removal of enlarged thyroid unraveled the true function of this endocrine gland but also made significant contributions to many other fields of surgery. Kocher was the first surgeon awarded the Nobel prize in Physiology and Medicine in 1909 for his work on the physiology, pathology, and surgery of the thyroid gland. He was professor and clinical director at Insel Hospital during 45 years. Kocher created the prominent Surgeon's School in Bern. He was the first president of the International Society of Surgery in 1903 and the founding president of the Swiss Society of Surgery in 1913.

Theodor Kocher (1841-1917), excepcional cirujano suizo que describió una técnica para la extirpación segura del agrandamiento del tiroides y desentrañó la verdadera función de esta glándula endocrina, pero también hizo importantes aportaciones a muchos otros campos de la cirugía. Kocher fue el primer cirujano galardonado con el premio Nobel de Fisiología y Medicina en 1909 por sus trabajos sobre la fisiología, patología y cirugía de la glándula tiroides. Fue profesor y director clínico del Hospital Insel durante 45 años. Kocher creó la destacada Escuela de Cirujanos de Berna. Fue el primer presidente de la Sociedad Internacional de Cirugía en 1903 y el presidente fundador de la Sociedad Suiza de Cirugía en 1913.

The Nobel Prize of Physiology or Medicine, 1923: controversies on the discovery of the antidiabetic hormone.

AIMS: To analyze the main contributions to the discovery of the antidiabetic hormone in the period between 1889, the year in which Oskar Minkowski demonstrated that complete pancreatectomy in dogs caused diabetes, and the year 1923, the date in which the clinical use of insulin was consolidated. A main objective has been to review the controversies that followed the Nobel Prize and to outline the role of the priority rule in Science. METHODS: We have considered the priority rule defined by Robert Merton in 1957, which takes into account the date of acceptance of the report of a discovery in an accredited scientific journal and/or the granting of a patent, complemented by the criteria set out by Ronald Vale and Anthony Hyman (2016) regarding the transfer of information to the scientific community and its validation by it. The awarding of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in October 1923 has represented a frame of reference. The claims and disputes regarding the prioritization of the contributions of the main researchers in the organotherapy of diabetes have been analyzed through the study of their scientific production and the debate generated in academic institutions. MAIN RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: (1) According to the criteria of Merton, Vale and Hyman, the priority of the discovery of the antidiabetic hormone corresponds to the investigations developed in Europe by E. Gley (1900), GL Zülzer (1908) and NC Paulescu (1920). (2) The active principle of the pancreatic extracts developed by Zülzer (acomatol), Paulescu (pancreina) and Banting and Best (insulin) was the same. (3) JB Collip succeeded in isolating the active ingredient from the pancreatic extract in January 1922, eliminating impurities to the point of enabling its use in the clinic. (4) In 1972, the Nobel Foundation modified the purpose of the 1923 Physiology or Medicine award to Banting and Macleod by introducing a new wording: "the credit for having produced the pancreatic hormone in a practical available form" (instead of "for the discovery of insulin").

The Uncertain Role of Nominations for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry†.

The solicitation of nominations for the Nobel Prizes in Chemistry (NPch) is and has been the first step in the selection process since the very first awards were made in 1901. The number of nominations solicited by and provided to the Nobel Committee for Chemistry supports the belief by the nominators that their nominations are meaningful. In this publication, we examine data culled from the Nobel Prize Nomination Archives for the period 1901-1970 of the variable role of nominations in the selection process for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. The evidence is overwhelming that nominations, in general, during the 1901-1970 period have not been the deciding, overriding factor in the selection of the recipients of the NPch. Rather, we posit that nominations from the preselected nominator-pool have been a source of information for the Committee, used to suggest future years' contenders and possibly served as motivation for the Committee to seek nominations for specific nominees for future years. It is also clear that selections are often influenced by personal prejudices, for example, friendships, rivalries, and nationality.

Autofagia un sistema celular de limpieza clave para la salud. Una visita al Premio Nobel de Fisiología o Medicina de 2016 / Autophagy, a key cellular cleansing system for health. A visit to the 2016 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Introducción: En 2016, el Instituto Karolinska premió a Yoshinori Ohsumi con el Premio Nobel de Fisiologíay Medicina por sus estudios en autofagia. Posteriormente muchas investigaciones han demostrado laimportancia de este proceso en la salud. Métodos: Se revisan tres aspectos: a) la información del Comité del Nobel sobre las investigaciones delgalardonado; b) los mecanismos moleculares implicados en la autofagia; y c) la relación entre autofagia ysalud. Resultados: Se presentan los aspectos más relevantes de la investigación sobre la autofagia, desde lasinvestigaciones de De Duve con los lisosomas hasta algunos detalles moleculares relevantes. Se comentan datos biográficos de Ohsumi y aspectos de su investigación que llevaron al Nobel; tambiénlas características de los tres tipos de autofagia: macrofagia, microfagia y dependiente de chaperonas. Esteproceso es altamente dependiente del estado nutricional, del estrés y de la expresión de ciertos genes,particularmente los de autofagia (ATG). Alteraciones en la expresión o la existencia de polimorfismos enATG originan cambios significativos en la formación de los autofagosomas. Se explica la importancia en lasalud y algunas patologías muy prevalentes del reciclado de células completas y de sus componentesaislados, así como el papel de la interacción de algunos fármacos en la función autofágica. Conclusión: La autofagia es un proceso celular muy común, altamente dependiente del estado nutricionaly de la expresión y polimorfismos de los ATG. Es determinante en la maduración, desarrollo y salud, yparticipa de forma relevante en el envejecimiento y en la prevención de enfermedades degenerativas.(AU)

Introduction: In 2016, the Karolinska Institute awarded Yoshinori Ohsumi the Nobel Prize in Physiologyand Medicine for his studies on autophagy. Subsequently, many investigations have demonstrated the roleof this process in health. Methods: Three aspects are reviewed: a) the information given by the Nobel Committee on the laureate’sresearch; b) the molecular mechanisms involved in autophagy; and c) the relationship between autophagyand health. Results: The most relevant aspects of autophagy research are presented, from De Duve's research withlysosomes to some relevant molecular details. Ohsumi's biographical data and aspects of his research thatled to the Nobel are discussed; also,the characteristics of the three types of autophagy: macrophagy, microphagy and chaperone-dependent. Autophagy is highly dependent on nutritional status, stress, and the expression of certain genes, particularlythe so-called autophagy-related genes (ATG). Alterations in the expression or the existence ofpolymorphisms in ATG cause significant changes in the formation of autophagosomes. The importance inhealth and some very prevalent pathologies of the recycling of whole cells and their isolated components isexplained, as well as the role of the interaction of some drugs in the autophagic function.Conclusion: Autophagy is a very common cellular process, highly dependent on nutritional status and ATGexpression and polymorphisms. It is determinant in maturation, development, and health, and participatesin a relevant way in aging and in the prevention of degenerative diseases.(AU)

The 2022 nobel prize in physiology or medicine awarded for the decoding of the complete ancient human genome.

Since the publication of the first ancient DNA sequence in 1984, experimental methods used to recover ancient DNA have advanced greatly, illuminating previously unknown branches of the human family tree and opening up several promising new avenues for future studies of human evolution. The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Svante Pääbo, director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, for his work on ancient DNA and human evolution. On his first day back at work, he was thrown in the pond as part of his institute's tradition of celebrating award winners.

The Nobel prize in physiology and medicine - 2022.

The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet awarded the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to a Swedish geneticist, Svante Pääbo, for his discoveries concerning the genomes of extinct hominins and human evolution, for the sequencing of the genome of the Neanderthal, the discovery of a previously unknown hominin, Denisova, and the establishment of a new scientific discipline, paleogenomics.

The Long Way of Oxytocin from the Uterus to the Heart in 70 Years from Its Discovery.

The research program on oxytocin started in 1895, when Oliver and Schafer reported that a substance extracted from the pituitary gland elevates blood pressure when injected intravenously into dogs. Dale later reported that a neurohypophysial substance triggers uterine contraction, lactation, and antidiuresis. Purification of this pituitary gland extracts revealed that the vasopressor and antidiuretic activity could be attributed to vasopressin, while uterotonic and lactation activity could be attributed to oxytocin. In 1950, the amino-acid sequences of vasopressin and oxytocin were determined and chemically synthesized. Vasopressin (CYFQNCPRG-NH2) and oxytocin (CYIQNCPLG-NH2) differ by two amino acids and have a disulfide bridge between the cysteine residues at position one and six conserved in all vasopressin/oxytocin-type peptides. This characterization of oxytocin led to the Nobel Prize awarded in 1955 to Vincent du Vigneaud. Nevertheless, it was only 50 years later when the evidence that mice depleted of oxytocin or its receptor develop late-onset obesity and metabolic syndrome established that oxytocin regulates energy and metabolism. Oxytocin is anorexigenic and regulates the lean/fat mass composition in skeletal muscle. Oxytocin's effect on muscle is mediated by thermogenesis via a pathway initiated in the myocardium. Oxytocin involvement in thermogenesis and muscle contraction is linked to Prader-Willi syndrome in humans, opening exciting therapeutic avenues.