Army Lab Announces New Alliance with UK Ministry of Defence

By Jenna Brady
ARL Public Affairs

The U.S. Army Research Laboratory has once again aligned with the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence in a new and innovative opportunity for cooperation in the area of Distributed Analytics and Information Science, or DAIS.

The DAIS International Technology Alliance seeks to develop the fundamental underpinning research required to enable secure, dynamic, semantically aware, distributed analytics for situational understanding in coalition operations.

The two governments will form a collaborative alliance with a consortium of leading U.S. and UK academic and industry partners led by IBM, which has major research and development operations in both nations.

The U.S. Army Research Laboratory and the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence announced a new partnership in the area of Distributed Analytics and Information Science, or DAIS, Sept. 23, 2016. (Photo Credit: U.S. Army)

Academic and industry partners include the University of California at Los Angeles, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University, Raytheon BBN Technologies, Stanford University, Yale University, Airbus Group, BAE Systems, Cardiff University, Imperial College London, University of Southampton and University College London.

Current coalition operations are placing significantly greater burdens on the people and technologies that are deployed, as our adversaries increasingly have access to advanced communications, information and analytics technologies.

To counter these adversaries, coalition information superiority is a necessity–a necessity this alliance will help preserve.

ARL has once again aligned with the UK Ministry of Defence to enhance future military coalition operations. Officials said all parties involved are “excited to continue building upon this longstanding, successful relationship.” (Photo Credit: U.S. Army)

“Research in distributed analytics and information science directly addresses the growing challenges in conducting coalition operations by enabling distributed, dynamic and secure coalition communication–information infrastructures that support ad-hoc coalition teams and utilize distributed analytics to derive shared situational understanding,” said Greg Cirincione, U.S. collaborative alliance manager for the DAIS ITA.

The DAIS ITA comprises three components: the Basic Research Component and two Technology Transition Components, one each for U.S. – or UK-led efforts.

The Basic Research Component will provide for fundamental research, the results of which will be in the public domain. The Technology Transition Components will provide for the application of the fundamental-research results to military, security and commercial applications to foster the best technologies for future defense and security needs.

“The research will generate the foundational, enabling technology and insights to enhance future coalition information superiority and operations,” Cirincione said. “Future coalitions will operate increasingly in complex and dynamic environments, with a broad range of entities and actors. The success of the mission will be improved by the ability to dynamically, rapidly and securely form ad-hoc coalition teams that can share data, information and network infrastructure to enable a common situational understanding.”

ARL and the UK MoD have a history of successful partnerships, and this alliance will further enhance that relationship and the work being done behind the scenes for the Army, the joint warfighter and our nation.

“The U.S. Army and ARL have a long history of working closely with the UK MoD and UK Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, one of our closest allies and coalition partners, as was demonstrated with the very successful U.S.–UK Network and Information Sciences ITA,” Cirincione said. “To address the key research gaps and challenges in coalition operations, synergies from robust U.S. and UK collaborations can achieve results not possible without insights and innovations from U.S. and UK industry, academia and government.”

According to Cirincione, the end goal of the alliance is to successfully collaborate across industry, academia and government to significantly advance the state of the art in distributed analytics and information sciences in order to impact and enhance future military coalition operations.

Follow the Department of Defense on Facebook and Twitter!

———-

Disclaimer: The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense of this website or the information, products or services contained therein. For other than authorized activities such as military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation sites, the Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DOD website.

from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/2dhRYkb

By Jenna Brady
ARL Public Affairs

The U.S. Army Research Laboratory has once again aligned with the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence in a new and innovative opportunity for cooperation in the area of Distributed Analytics and Information Science, or DAIS.

The DAIS International Technology Alliance seeks to develop the fundamental underpinning research required to enable secure, dynamic, semantically aware, distributed analytics for situational understanding in coalition operations.

The two governments will form a collaborative alliance with a consortium of leading U.S. and UK academic and industry partners led by IBM, which has major research and development operations in both nations.

The U.S. Army Research Laboratory and the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence announced a new partnership in the area of Distributed Analytics and Information Science, or DAIS, Sept. 23, 2016. (Photo Credit: U.S. Army)

Academic and industry partners include the University of California at Los Angeles, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University, Raytheon BBN Technologies, Stanford University, Yale University, Airbus Group, BAE Systems, Cardiff University, Imperial College London, University of Southampton and University College London.

Current coalition operations are placing significantly greater burdens on the people and technologies that are deployed, as our adversaries increasingly have access to advanced communications, information and analytics technologies.

To counter these adversaries, coalition information superiority is a necessity–a necessity this alliance will help preserve.

ARL has once again aligned with the UK Ministry of Defence to enhance future military coalition operations. Officials said all parties involved are “excited to continue building upon this longstanding, successful relationship.” (Photo Credit: U.S. Army)

“Research in distributed analytics and information science directly addresses the growing challenges in conducting coalition operations by enabling distributed, dynamic and secure coalition communication–information infrastructures that support ad-hoc coalition teams and utilize distributed analytics to derive shared situational understanding,” said Greg Cirincione, U.S. collaborative alliance manager for the DAIS ITA.

The DAIS ITA comprises three components: the Basic Research Component and two Technology Transition Components, one each for U.S. – or UK-led efforts.

The Basic Research Component will provide for fundamental research, the results of which will be in the public domain. The Technology Transition Components will provide for the application of the fundamental-research results to military, security and commercial applications to foster the best technologies for future defense and security needs.

“The research will generate the foundational, enabling technology and insights to enhance future coalition information superiority and operations,” Cirincione said. “Future coalitions will operate increasingly in complex and dynamic environments, with a broad range of entities and actors. The success of the mission will be improved by the ability to dynamically, rapidly and securely form ad-hoc coalition teams that can share data, information and network infrastructure to enable a common situational understanding.”

ARL and the UK MoD have a history of successful partnerships, and this alliance will further enhance that relationship and the work being done behind the scenes for the Army, the joint warfighter and our nation.

“The U.S. Army and ARL have a long history of working closely with the UK MoD and UK Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, one of our closest allies and coalition partners, as was demonstrated with the very successful U.S.–UK Network and Information Sciences ITA,” Cirincione said. “To address the key research gaps and challenges in coalition operations, synergies from robust U.S. and UK collaborations can achieve results not possible without insights and innovations from U.S. and UK industry, academia and government.”

According to Cirincione, the end goal of the alliance is to successfully collaborate across industry, academia and government to significantly advance the state of the art in distributed analytics and information sciences in order to impact and enhance future military coalition operations.

Follow the Department of Defense on Facebook and Twitter!

———-

Disclaimer: The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense of this website or the information, products or services contained therein. For other than authorized activities such as military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation sites, the Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DOD website.

from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/2dhRYkb

How your support is helping us beat breast cancer – Margaret’s story

Margaret Grayson is passionate about research. But Margaret is not a scientist, doctor or nurse. She is a survivor of breast cancer.

Since being diagnosed more than a decade ago, Margaret has experienced first-hand how research saves lives. And the life-saving research that we do wouldn’t be possible without your support.

In this blog post we highlight the progress that we have made for breast cancer patients through research, helping people like Margaret beat cancer, and look towards the future.

“Research is real and it’s now”

The year is 2016, Breast Cancer Awareness Month is upon us, and right now, 8 in 10 women diagnosed with breast cancer will survive their disease for 10 years or more.

But it hasn’t always been that way.

Rewind to the seventies and a rather different picture is painted for patients. Back then, just 4 in 10 women survived breast cancer for a decade, meaning survival has doubled over the past 40 years in the UK.

That boost is thanks to research, and we’ve had a big part to play in it. Our world-leading scientists have been working across the board, from hunting down faulty genes linked with breast cancer to finding new ways to tackle the disease.

It’s important for the public – for our whole community – that research happens.

– Margaret

But for patients and survivors, the incremental progress made through research can sometimes feel a little distant, something Margaret recognises.

“People don’t always realise how important research is until something happens to them,” she says. “But research is real and it’s now. And it’s important for the public – for our whole community – that research happens.”

Margaret was diagnosed with breast cancer in May 2004, and it’s here that research became a big part of her life.

Following her diagnosis, Margaret had surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. And it’s research that has helped make this journey through treatment possible.

But this journey has not yet concluded. Today, Margaret continues to take hormonal treatment aimed at stopping the disease from returning.

Pioneering research in the 80s

Many breast cancers grow in response to certain hormones in the body, like oestrogen. Hormonal treatments target this characteristic by preventing the cancer cells from receiving the hormone’s growth-promoting signals.

Our scientists played a key role in progressing this type of therapy for breast cancer, and made some game-changing discoveries in the 1980s.

In 1983, a collection of our researchers began analysing clinical trials that looked at the effectiveness of one type of hormone treatment called tamoxifen. This drug is used to treat breast cancer patients whose tumour cells have many copies of a molecule on their surface that sticks to oestrogen – so called ‘ER positive’ breast cancers.

Five years on, their landmark study showed that women over the age of 50 who were treated with tamoxifen fared much better than those who were given standard chemotherapy. The study also suggested that tamoxifen was just as good when used alone as in combination with other drugs, reducing treatment costs and sparing women side effects.

More recently, we funded a large clinical trial that found tamoxifen can also prevent breast cancers in some women who have a high risk of developing the disease.

Collectively, these studies have had a huge impact on clinical practice. Not only did they show that tamoxifen is effective at both treating and preventing breast cancer in these women, but they helped doctors work out the best way to use the drug, which helps guide treatment.

This type of research, says Margaret, is the “way to change the outcomes for people in the future”.

“Not just in terms of diagnosis, but through continually improving treatments.”

“The drug I took this morning – that was all determined by research”

This progress continued in the 1980s as our scientists laid the foundations for another targeted therapy: anastrozole (Arimidex). Like tamoxifen, anastrozole cuts off the tumour cells’ oestrogen supply. But it does this by blocking how cells produce the hormone in the first place.

We set up a clinical trial to look at whether anastrozole was better than tamoxifen for some women. And in 2002, our scientists showed that to be the case, with the added bonus of discovering that anastrozole had fewer side effects than tamoxifen.

Now, this drug – among other similar drugs – are the gold standard of care for postmenopausal women with ER positive breast cancer, helping thousands of women, including Margaret, survive their disease.

If I could thank all the patients who have taken part in clinical trials over the years, I would.

– Margaret

“I’ve never been a patient in a clinical trial,” she says.

“But since I was diagnosed in 2004 I’ve come to realise that the type of surgery I had, the combination of chemotherapy drugs, the techniques and radiotherapy, and the drug I took this morning – that was all determined by research.

“If I could thank all the patients who have taken part in clinical trials over the years, I would.

“I have a lot to thank them for.”

“People are working together”

Moving on to the 90s, more pioneering work in the lab by our scientists helped bring another targeted drug to the table: trastuzumab (Herceptin).

In 1991, our researchers showed that patients whose breast cancer cells had lots of copies of a molecule called HER2 on their surface tended to have a poorer outlook. HER2 tells cells to start growing, so having more copies can make a cell more sensitive to these signals. This knowledge was the starting point that led to trastuzumab, a drug that interferes with these HER2 signals.

After a trial we helped fund showed that Herceptin improves survival in these ‘HER2 positive’ breast cancer patients, the drug was made available on the NHS for these women in 1998.

But it’s not all down to developing new drugs. We’ve also worked to develop and improve other types of treatment too.

We funded some of the earliest studies on radiotherapy as a treatment for cancer, and our research has helped establish the best doses to use, how to reduce side effects, and how to plan this type of treatment effectively.

And more recently, one of our clinical trials showed that fewer but larger doses of radiotherapy are just as effective as standard radiotherapy doses for some breast cancer patients, which could mean fewer hospital trips for women.

This type of research, says Margaret, is vital as it helps form a ‘partnership’ between the patient and the researchers.

“People are working together,” she says, “keeping the patient in mind, and keeping the patient voice central.”

And this is particularly true in research looking to help diagnose breast cancers earlier.

Spotting cancer earlier

Diagnosing cancer earlier means that more treatment options are usually available, and that treatment is more likely to be successful. That’s why we’ve played a key part in the development of the national breast screening programme.

After being the first to test out mammograms, our researcher Sir Patrick Forrest chaired a committee that examined the potential value of routine breast screening, using the best available evidence at the time. The resulting report was the tipping point that led to the programme’s introduction in 1988. But the story doesn’t stop there, and we’ve continued to fund research and work with government to help improve the breast screening programme.

Today, screening remains an effective way to diagnose breast cancer at an early stage, and it’s estimated to save up to 1,300 lives each year in the UK. But research has also shown that screening leads to some cancers being diagnosed that would never have gone on to cause any symptoms or harm – so-called ‘overdiagnosis’.

The Independent Breast Screening Review, which took place in 2012 at the request of both us and the Government, estimated that for every life saved by breast screening three breast cancers were overdiagnosed.

And that’s why it’s vital that women have balanced information about breast screening to help them decide whether to attend or not.

“Research is the way of beating cancer sooner”

With breast cancer still claiming thousands of lives each year in the UK, we need to make sure that progress continues.

Looking to the future, there are lots of promising areas of research that have the potential to make a real impact on the way that breast cancer is diagnosed and treated.

And we remain at the forefront.

Our researchers are trialling exciting new drugs called PARP inhibitors, which we were the first to bring into the clinic. These drugs target a genetic weakness that our scientists led the way in discovering: the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which raise the risk for breast cancer.

And recently we showed that breast cancer is not one but ten different diseases. This knowledge will guide future research and clinical trials into new targeted therapies, helping to make treatment kinder and more personal.

I’m passionate about research

– Margaret

Our research journey for breast cancer is far from concluding. But with your generous support, we can continue making a difference to patients’ lives.

And that’s why Margaret is backing research.

“I knew seven people diagnosed with breast cancer at the time I was,” she says.

“Over the next five years I went to the other six funerals of those people who’d become friends. That’s another very personal reason I’m passionate about research. I didn’t want another seven friends to have the experience.

“For me, research is the way of beating cancer sooner. That’s my passion for it.”

Justine

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/2cIk356

Margaret Grayson is passionate about research. But Margaret is not a scientist, doctor or nurse. She is a survivor of breast cancer.

Since being diagnosed more than a decade ago, Margaret has experienced first-hand how research saves lives. And the life-saving research that we do wouldn’t be possible without your support.

In this blog post we highlight the progress that we have made for breast cancer patients through research, helping people like Margaret beat cancer, and look towards the future.

“Research is real and it’s now”

The year is 2016, Breast Cancer Awareness Month is upon us, and right now, 8 in 10 women diagnosed with breast cancer will survive their disease for 10 years or more.

But it hasn’t always been that way.

Rewind to the seventies and a rather different picture is painted for patients. Back then, just 4 in 10 women survived breast cancer for a decade, meaning survival has doubled over the past 40 years in the UK.

That boost is thanks to research, and we’ve had a big part to play in it. Our world-leading scientists have been working across the board, from hunting down faulty genes linked with breast cancer to finding new ways to tackle the disease.

It’s important for the public – for our whole community – that research happens.

– Margaret

But for patients and survivors, the incremental progress made through research can sometimes feel a little distant, something Margaret recognises.

“People don’t always realise how important research is until something happens to them,” she says. “But research is real and it’s now. And it’s important for the public – for our whole community – that research happens.”

Margaret was diagnosed with breast cancer in May 2004, and it’s here that research became a big part of her life.

Following her diagnosis, Margaret had surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. And it’s research that has helped make this journey through treatment possible.

But this journey has not yet concluded. Today, Margaret continues to take hormonal treatment aimed at stopping the disease from returning.

Pioneering research in the 80s

Many breast cancers grow in response to certain hormones in the body, like oestrogen. Hormonal treatments target this characteristic by preventing the cancer cells from receiving the hormone’s growth-promoting signals.

Our scientists played a key role in progressing this type of therapy for breast cancer, and made some game-changing discoveries in the 1980s.

In 1983, a collection of our researchers began analysing clinical trials that looked at the effectiveness of one type of hormone treatment called tamoxifen. This drug is used to treat breast cancer patients whose tumour cells have many copies of a molecule on their surface that sticks to oestrogen – so called ‘ER positive’ breast cancers.

Five years on, their landmark study showed that women over the age of 50 who were treated with tamoxifen fared much better than those who were given standard chemotherapy. The study also suggested that tamoxifen was just as good when used alone as in combination with other drugs, reducing treatment costs and sparing women side effects.

More recently, we funded a large clinical trial that found tamoxifen can also prevent breast cancers in some women who have a high risk of developing the disease.

Collectively, these studies have had a huge impact on clinical practice. Not only did they show that tamoxifen is effective at both treating and preventing breast cancer in these women, but they helped doctors work out the best way to use the drug, which helps guide treatment.

This type of research, says Margaret, is the “way to change the outcomes for people in the future”.

“Not just in terms of diagnosis, but through continually improving treatments.”

“The drug I took this morning – that was all determined by research”

This progress continued in the 1980s as our scientists laid the foundations for another targeted therapy: anastrozole (Arimidex). Like tamoxifen, anastrozole cuts off the tumour cells’ oestrogen supply. But it does this by blocking how cells produce the hormone in the first place.

We set up a clinical trial to look at whether anastrozole was better than tamoxifen for some women. And in 2002, our scientists showed that to be the case, with the added bonus of discovering that anastrozole had fewer side effects than tamoxifen.

Now, this drug – among other similar drugs – are the gold standard of care for postmenopausal women with ER positive breast cancer, helping thousands of women, including Margaret, survive their disease.

If I could thank all the patients who have taken part in clinical trials over the years, I would.

– Margaret

“I’ve never been a patient in a clinical trial,” she says.

“But since I was diagnosed in 2004 I’ve come to realise that the type of surgery I had, the combination of chemotherapy drugs, the techniques and radiotherapy, and the drug I took this morning – that was all determined by research.

“If I could thank all the patients who have taken part in clinical trials over the years, I would.

“I have a lot to thank them for.”

“People are working together”

Moving on to the 90s, more pioneering work in the lab by our scientists helped bring another targeted drug to the table: trastuzumab (Herceptin).

In 1991, our researchers showed that patients whose breast cancer cells had lots of copies of a molecule called HER2 on their surface tended to have a poorer outlook. HER2 tells cells to start growing, so having more copies can make a cell more sensitive to these signals. This knowledge was the starting point that led to trastuzumab, a drug that interferes with these HER2 signals.

After a trial we helped fund showed that Herceptin improves survival in these ‘HER2 positive’ breast cancer patients, the drug was made available on the NHS for these women in 1998.

But it’s not all down to developing new drugs. We’ve also worked to develop and improve other types of treatment too.

We funded some of the earliest studies on radiotherapy as a treatment for cancer, and our research has helped establish the best doses to use, how to reduce side effects, and how to plan this type of treatment effectively.

And more recently, one of our clinical trials showed that fewer but larger doses of radiotherapy are just as effective as standard radiotherapy doses for some breast cancer patients, which could mean fewer hospital trips for women.

This type of research, says Margaret, is vital as it helps form a ‘partnership’ between the patient and the researchers.

“People are working together,” she says, “keeping the patient in mind, and keeping the patient voice central.”

And this is particularly true in research looking to help diagnose breast cancers earlier.

Spotting cancer earlier

Diagnosing cancer earlier means that more treatment options are usually available, and that treatment is more likely to be successful. That’s why we’ve played a key part in the development of the national breast screening programme.

After being the first to test out mammograms, our researcher Sir Patrick Forrest chaired a committee that examined the potential value of routine breast screening, using the best available evidence at the time. The resulting report was the tipping point that led to the programme’s introduction in 1988. But the story doesn’t stop there, and we’ve continued to fund research and work with government to help improve the breast screening programme.

Today, screening remains an effective way to diagnose breast cancer at an early stage, and it’s estimated to save up to 1,300 lives each year in the UK. But research has also shown that screening leads to some cancers being diagnosed that would never have gone on to cause any symptoms or harm – so-called ‘overdiagnosis’.

The Independent Breast Screening Review, which took place in 2012 at the request of both us and the Government, estimated that for every life saved by breast screening three breast cancers were overdiagnosed.

And that’s why it’s vital that women have balanced information about breast screening to help them decide whether to attend or not.

“Research is the way of beating cancer sooner”

With breast cancer still claiming thousands of lives each year in the UK, we need to make sure that progress continues.

Looking to the future, there are lots of promising areas of research that have the potential to make a real impact on the way that breast cancer is diagnosed and treated.

And we remain at the forefront.

Our researchers are trialling exciting new drugs called PARP inhibitors, which we were the first to bring into the clinic. These drugs target a genetic weakness that our scientists led the way in discovering: the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which raise the risk for breast cancer.

And recently we showed that breast cancer is not one but ten different diseases. This knowledge will guide future research and clinical trials into new targeted therapies, helping to make treatment kinder and more personal.

I’m passionate about research

– Margaret

Our research journey for breast cancer is far from concluding. But with your generous support, we can continue making a difference to patients’ lives.

And that’s why Margaret is backing research.

“I knew seven people diagnosed with breast cancer at the time I was,” she says.

“Over the next five years I went to the other six funerals of those people who’d become friends. That’s another very personal reason I’m passionate about research. I didn’t want another seven friends to have the experience.

“For me, research is the way of beating cancer sooner. That’s my passion for it.”

Justine

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/2cIk356

We need to talk about side effects

Today, more teenagers and young adults (people aged between 15 and 24) are surviving cancer than ever before.

But sadly for many of these patients, survival comes at a high price. This is because life-saving cancer treatments often have a long list of potential side effects.

Some of these will be immediate – hair loss, vomiting, scars from surgery.

Some – like secondary cancers and infertility – won’t show until later in life.

And then there are the side effects that no one really talks about: psychological problems, financial issues, social isolation.

These are just some of the things young cancer patients have to deal with later in life, and they aren’t always directly linked to having had cancer treatment.

We spoke to two young cancer survivors about the side effects they experienced following treatment, and asked how they think support for teenagers and young adults diagnosed with cancer can be improved.

“If the cancer’s fixed, you’re fixed” – Clara’s story

In 2001, when she was 4 years old, Clara was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia. Over the course of the next year she had 4 rounds of chemotherapy and 7 operations.

Now 19, Clara is in remission.

Clara at the beach

But the treatment has left its mark.

“I have scars from where different tubes were inserted, and my teeth are really weak. No matter how much I brush, I still get cavities!

“And I have to go for a heart scan every 5 years for the rest of my life because heart problems are a potential side effect of some of the drugs I was given. It might sound inconvenient, but it’s nothing compared to what some people go through.

“I also get tired and achy really easily, and was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome in 2013.”

The other side effect Clara developed was very bad pains in her legs.

“Ever since my first lumbar puncture I’ve had really bad nerve pain in my legs.”

“In the beginning, mum kept telling the doctors I was in pain, but they would just say it was a side effect of the chemotherapy. We were told everything would hurt for a while and it could take up to a few years for the pain to go away.”

But it didn’t go away.  Fourteen years later Clara still develops pains in her legs.

“Sometimes it’s once or twice in a week; other times it happens once or twice a day. I’ve been on a variety of pain killers, including one that’s used to treat epilepsy.”

Clara is due to have an MRI scan soon to try and find the source of the pain, but feels it has come a bit late.

“I was really well looked after by some amazing doctors and nurses while I was in hospital. But I do wish something had been done sooner about my leg pain.

“For a long time I felt it wasn’t really taken seriously and I felt like I was going a bit crazy! I kept wondering: ‘Is this just what tired legs feel like? Is this normal?’ It would have been nice to have someone to talk to about it, but that was never offered.

I looked up to the nurses who looked after me

-Clara 

“There seems to be the mentality that ‘if the cancer’s fixed, you’re fixed’ – but that’s not the case. Not everyone will experience the same side effects.

“I’d like doctors and nurses to be more aware of this and to be more open to the unknown side effects that some, but not all patients, can experience.”

Clara started university this September and is training to become a paediatric nurse.

“It sounds like a cliché, but I looked up to the nurses who treated me and  now I want to become that role model for someone.”

“I actually felt quite relieved when my cancer came back” – Katie’s story

Katie was 13 when she was diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma.

She had 9 months of chemotherapy, receiving two different chemo drug combinations – ChIVPP and ABVD.

“To be honest, the treatment wasn’t too bad. I was given it as an out-patient, which meant I could go home each day when I finished, even if that was 4am! I think it helped that my dad’s a nurse. The hospital staff knew that he could keep an eye on me.”

The treatment worked – Katie went into remission. But she did experience some side effects.

“I didn’t experience many physical side effects – I lost some of my hair but most of it stayed; it just became a bit wispy.

That was the first time I saw my mum cry

-Katie

“I did struggle in social situations, especially at school. When I went back after my treatment finished I hated it and most of the people there. I didn’t understand them and they didn’t understand me.”

Sadly Katie’s cancer returned in 2005.

“It might sound odd, but I actually felt quite relieved. It meant I didn’t have to go to school anymore.

“Everything was a lot harder the second time round. My outlook wasn’t as good and the treatment was much more aggressive. That meant I couldn’t have it as an out-patient, so I was in and out of hospital for around 4 months.

“And this time around I lost all of my hair. I’d be walking and gust of wind would blow bits out – it was really upsetting.”

“Eventually, I took the kitchen scissors and cut it all off. That was the first time I saw my mum cry.”

But perhaps the biggest side effect Katie faced during her cancer treatments was mental health problems.

“When I started experiencing mental health problems, I didn’t want to talk to anyone about what I was going through or how hard I was finding things. I thought people would think I was weak and might not love me as much – or at all.

“It think it was partly because when I was having treatment people would tell me how brave and strong I was. And while that helped me get through everything at the time, in the longer-term, it was actually a hindrance. It made me feel like I couldn’t admit I was having problems or be perceived as weak.”

Katie wasn’t offered any help or support for mental health issues while she was having treatment.

“When you’re having cancer treatment you see lots of people – oncologists, surgeons, anaesthetists. But where are the psychiatrists and psychologists?

“Having those people come and talk to you – and your family – when you’re going through so much would make things a lot easier.

Katie and her family

“I did eventually speak to a professional, but I didn’t tell my parents about it. And I didn’t go for very long.”

Now 26, Katie is doing well and is working as a cancer pathway navigator for respiratory. The main side effect she still experiences is fatigue, but she’s getting better at managing it and knowing her limits.

One of the biggest things she’d like to see change in the treatment of cancer in teenagers and young adults is more awareness and support around mental health problems.

“The cancer community needs to be more open to talking about mental health and social problems young people diagnosed with cancer experience.

“Whenever I try to raise the issue and urge people to talk about it more, the response I usually get is ‘we don’t want to scare people because they’re going through enough already’.”

But Katie firmly believes that talking about the possibility of developing mental health issues during or after cancer treatment would be a positive thing, and would really help people in the long run”.

“We all want to be the strong one who doesn’t have problems. But none of us is. We all have different issues and we all need help getting through them.”

What can we do?

The reality of all cancer treatments is that no matter what they are or what they’re used for, they will cause some side effects.

The good news is that we’re getting better at developing new treatments with fewer side effects, and spotting patients who might have more severe problems with certain treatments so that they can be managed better.

But we still need to get better at raising awareness of the fact that side effects are different in different people, and that not everyone will experience the same ones.

According to Dr Saif Ahmad, a cancer doctor and researcher based at the University of Cambridge and author of an article published this month in the British Medical Journal, which looks at the late side effects teenagers and young adults experience after chemotherapy, we need to ‘talk more and offer more help’.

“We need to raise awareness among everyone – patients, oncologists, GPs and nurses – about the side effects teenagers and young adults who are treated for cancer can develop later in life.

“And we especially need to increase awareness around side effects that aren’t physical.

“We need to speak more openly about things like depression, financial problems and social isolation which people can experience during treatment and when it’s over.”

Another way Ahmad feels we could better support young people affected by cancer is by offering them life-long annual check-ups with their doctor, where they are specifically asked how they’re feeling and if they’re experiencing any problems – physical or otherwise.

“We need to change people’s perceptions around these side effects so patients feel more comfortable raising any issues they’re experiencing, and so doctors are aware they should perhaps act on things sooner in this group of patients.

“It’s about making these conversations normal and routine so that both patients and doctors feel at ease having them.”

Better treatments through research

Thanks to research, more children and young people are surviving cancer than ever before.

But that’s not enough. We want to make sure that not only are more children, teenagers and young adults surviving the disease, but that they’re doing so with a good quality of life.

That’s why through the Cancer Research UK Kids and Teens campaign, we’re raising vital funds to find and develop new and better treatments.

Our research isn’t just about finding new drugs – it’s also about developing kinder treatments for every young person with cancer.

Áine

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/2dfZDir

Today, more teenagers and young adults (people aged between 15 and 24) are surviving cancer than ever before.

But sadly for many of these patients, survival comes at a high price. This is because life-saving cancer treatments often have a long list of potential side effects.

Some of these will be immediate – hair loss, vomiting, scars from surgery.

Some – like secondary cancers and infertility – won’t show until later in life.

And then there are the side effects that no one really talks about: psychological problems, financial issues, social isolation.

These are just some of the things young cancer patients have to deal with later in life, and they aren’t always directly linked to having had cancer treatment.

We spoke to two young cancer survivors about the side effects they experienced following treatment, and asked how they think support for teenagers and young adults diagnosed with cancer can be improved.

“If the cancer’s fixed, you’re fixed” – Clara’s story

In 2001, when she was 4 years old, Clara was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia. Over the course of the next year she had 4 rounds of chemotherapy and 7 operations.

Now 19, Clara is in remission.

Clara at the beach

But the treatment has left its mark.

“I have scars from where different tubes were inserted, and my teeth are really weak. No matter how much I brush, I still get cavities!

“And I have to go for a heart scan every 5 years for the rest of my life because heart problems are a potential side effect of some of the drugs I was given. It might sound inconvenient, but it’s nothing compared to what some people go through.

“I also get tired and achy really easily, and was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome in 2013.”

The other side effect Clara developed was very bad pains in her legs.

“Ever since my first lumbar puncture I’ve had really bad nerve pain in my legs.”

“In the beginning, mum kept telling the doctors I was in pain, but they would just say it was a side effect of the chemotherapy. We were told everything would hurt for a while and it could take up to a few years for the pain to go away.”

But it didn’t go away.  Fourteen years later Clara still develops pains in her legs.

“Sometimes it’s once or twice in a week; other times it happens once or twice a day. I’ve been on a variety of pain killers, including one that’s used to treat epilepsy.”

Clara is due to have an MRI scan soon to try and find the source of the pain, but feels it has come a bit late.

“I was really well looked after by some amazing doctors and nurses while I was in hospital. But I do wish something had been done sooner about my leg pain.

“For a long time I felt it wasn’t really taken seriously and I felt like I was going a bit crazy! I kept wondering: ‘Is this just what tired legs feel like? Is this normal?’ It would have been nice to have someone to talk to about it, but that was never offered.

I looked up to the nurses who looked after me

-Clara 

“There seems to be the mentality that ‘if the cancer’s fixed, you’re fixed’ – but that’s not the case. Not everyone will experience the same side effects.

“I’d like doctors and nurses to be more aware of this and to be more open to the unknown side effects that some, but not all patients, can experience.”

Clara started university this September and is training to become a paediatric nurse.

“It sounds like a cliché, but I looked up to the nurses who treated me and  now I want to become that role model for someone.”

“I actually felt quite relieved when my cancer came back” – Katie’s story

Katie was 13 when she was diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma.

She had 9 months of chemotherapy, receiving two different chemo drug combinations – ChIVPP and ABVD.

“To be honest, the treatment wasn’t too bad. I was given it as an out-patient, which meant I could go home each day when I finished, even if that was 4am! I think it helped that my dad’s a nurse. The hospital staff knew that he could keep an eye on me.”

The treatment worked – Katie went into remission. But she did experience some side effects.

“I didn’t experience many physical side effects – I lost some of my hair but most of it stayed; it just became a bit wispy.

That was the first time I saw my mum cry

-Katie

“I did struggle in social situations, especially at school. When I went back after my treatment finished I hated it and most of the people there. I didn’t understand them and they didn’t understand me.”

Sadly Katie’s cancer returned in 2005.

“It might sound odd, but I actually felt quite relieved. It meant I didn’t have to go to school anymore.

“Everything was a lot harder the second time round. My outlook wasn’t as good and the treatment was much more aggressive. That meant I couldn’t have it as an out-patient, so I was in and out of hospital for around 4 months.

“And this time around I lost all of my hair. I’d be walking and gust of wind would blow bits out – it was really upsetting.”

“Eventually, I took the kitchen scissors and cut it all off. That was the first time I saw my mum cry.”

But perhaps the biggest side effect Katie faced during her cancer treatments was mental health problems.

“When I started experiencing mental health problems, I didn’t want to talk to anyone about what I was going through or how hard I was finding things. I thought people would think I was weak and might not love me as much – or at all.

“It think it was partly because when I was having treatment people would tell me how brave and strong I was. And while that helped me get through everything at the time, in the longer-term, it was actually a hindrance. It made me feel like I couldn’t admit I was having problems or be perceived as weak.”

Katie wasn’t offered any help or support for mental health issues while she was having treatment.

“When you’re having cancer treatment you see lots of people – oncologists, surgeons, anaesthetists. But where are the psychiatrists and psychologists?

“Having those people come and talk to you – and your family – when you’re going through so much would make things a lot easier.

Katie and her family

“I did eventually speak to a professional, but I didn’t tell my parents about it. And I didn’t go for very long.”

Now 26, Katie is doing well and is working as a cancer pathway navigator for respiratory. The main side effect she still experiences is fatigue, but she’s getting better at managing it and knowing her limits.

One of the biggest things she’d like to see change in the treatment of cancer in teenagers and young adults is more awareness and support around mental health problems.

“The cancer community needs to be more open to talking about mental health and social problems young people diagnosed with cancer experience.

“Whenever I try to raise the issue and urge people to talk about it more, the response I usually get is ‘we don’t want to scare people because they’re going through enough already’.”

But Katie firmly believes that talking about the possibility of developing mental health issues during or after cancer treatment would be a positive thing, and would really help people in the long run”.

“We all want to be the strong one who doesn’t have problems. But none of us is. We all have different issues and we all need help getting through them.”

What can we do?

The reality of all cancer treatments is that no matter what they are or what they’re used for, they will cause some side effects.

The good news is that we’re getting better at developing new treatments with fewer side effects, and spotting patients who might have more severe problems with certain treatments so that they can be managed better.

But we still need to get better at raising awareness of the fact that side effects are different in different people, and that not everyone will experience the same ones.

According to Dr Saif Ahmad, a cancer doctor and researcher based at the University of Cambridge and author of an article published this month in the British Medical Journal, which looks at the late side effects teenagers and young adults experience after chemotherapy, we need to ‘talk more and offer more help’.

“We need to raise awareness among everyone – patients, oncologists, GPs and nurses – about the side effects teenagers and young adults who are treated for cancer can develop later in life.

“And we especially need to increase awareness around side effects that aren’t physical.

“We need to speak more openly about things like depression, financial problems and social isolation which people can experience during treatment and when it’s over.”

Another way Ahmad feels we could better support young people affected by cancer is by offering them life-long annual check-ups with their doctor, where they are specifically asked how they’re feeling and if they’re experiencing any problems – physical or otherwise.

“We need to change people’s perceptions around these side effects so patients feel more comfortable raising any issues they’re experiencing, and so doctors are aware they should perhaps act on things sooner in this group of patients.

“It’s about making these conversations normal and routine so that both patients and doctors feel at ease having them.”

Better treatments through research

Thanks to research, more children and young people are surviving cancer than ever before.

But that’s not enough. We want to make sure that not only are more children, teenagers and young adults surviving the disease, but that they’re doing so with a good quality of life.

That’s why through the Cancer Research UK Kids and Teens campaign, we’re raising vital funds to find and develop new and better treatments.

Our research isn’t just about finding new drugs – it’s also about developing kinder treatments for every young person with cancer.

Áine

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/2dfZDir

Can you find the Big Dipper?

Tonight … can you find the Big Dipper at nightfall and early evening? As seen from the Northern Hemisphere, this most famous of star patterns – the Big Dipper – lurks low in the northwest after sunset and quickly sinks below the horizon for those at southerly latitudes. It’s tough (or impossible) to spot the Big Dipper over the horizon on autumn evenings from the southern half of the united States. But the pattern is visible all night from northerly latitudes, albeit low in the sky. And, before dawn around now, we’ll all find the Big Dipper ascending in the northeast.

To find the Big Dipper’s place in the sky, remember the phrase: spring up and fall down. That’s because the Big Dipper shines way high in the sky on spring evenings but close to the horizon in autumn.

View larger. | Big Dipper on the horizon while getting set up at the Astronomical Society of New Haven‘s 25th annual Connecticut Star Party in Goshen, Connecticut, October 9-11, 2015. Photo by Kurt Zeppetello.

The distances of the stars in the Dipper reveal something interesting about them: five of these seven stars have a physical relationship in space. That’s not always true of patterns on our sky’s dome. Most star patterns are made up of unrelated stars at vastly different distances.

But Merak, Mizar, Alioth, Megrez and Phecda are part of a single star grouping. They probably were born together from a single cloud of gas and dust, and they’re still moving together as a family.

The other two stars in the Dipper – Dubhe and Alkaid – are unrelated to each other and to the other five. They are moving in an entirely different direction. Thus millions of years from now the Big Dipper will have lost its familiar dipper-like shape.

The Big Dipper makes up a part of the Ursa Major or Big Bear constellation. Image criedit: Old Book Art Image Gallery

Here are the star distances to the Dipper’s stars:

Alkaid 101 light-years
Mizar 78 light-years
Alioth 81 light-years
Megrez 81 light-years
Phecda 84 light-years
Dubhe 124 light-years
Merak 79 light-years

View larger. | This beautiful photo is from EarthSky Facebook friend John Michael Mizzi on the island of Gozo, south of Italy.

Bottom line: Sure, it’s easy to recognize, but sometimes the Big Dipper is low in the northern sky. That’s the case now, in the evening. How to spot it.

Donate: Your support means the world to us

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1iT0Snt

Tonight … can you find the Big Dipper at nightfall and early evening? As seen from the Northern Hemisphere, this most famous of star patterns – the Big Dipper – lurks low in the northwest after sunset and quickly sinks below the horizon for those at southerly latitudes. It’s tough (or impossible) to spot the Big Dipper over the horizon on autumn evenings from the southern half of the united States. But the pattern is visible all night from northerly latitudes, albeit low in the sky. And, before dawn around now, we’ll all find the Big Dipper ascending in the northeast.

To find the Big Dipper’s place in the sky, remember the phrase: spring up and fall down. That’s because the Big Dipper shines way high in the sky on spring evenings but close to the horizon in autumn.

View larger. | Big Dipper on the horizon while getting set up at the Astronomical Society of New Haven‘s 25th annual Connecticut Star Party in Goshen, Connecticut, October 9-11, 2015. Photo by Kurt Zeppetello.

The distances of the stars in the Dipper reveal something interesting about them: five of these seven stars have a physical relationship in space. That’s not always true of patterns on our sky’s dome. Most star patterns are made up of unrelated stars at vastly different distances.

But Merak, Mizar, Alioth, Megrez and Phecda are part of a single star grouping. They probably were born together from a single cloud of gas and dust, and they’re still moving together as a family.

The other two stars in the Dipper – Dubhe and Alkaid – are unrelated to each other and to the other five. They are moving in an entirely different direction. Thus millions of years from now the Big Dipper will have lost its familiar dipper-like shape.

The Big Dipper makes up a part of the Ursa Major or Big Bear constellation. Image criedit: Old Book Art Image Gallery

Here are the star distances to the Dipper’s stars:

Alkaid 101 light-years
Mizar 78 light-years
Alioth 81 light-years
Megrez 81 light-years
Phecda 84 light-years
Dubhe 124 light-years
Merak 79 light-years

View larger. | This beautiful photo is from EarthSky Facebook friend John Michael Mizzi on the island of Gozo, south of Italy.

Bottom line: Sure, it’s easy to recognize, but sometimes the Big Dipper is low in the northern sky. That’s the case now, in the evening. How to spot it.

Donate: Your support means the world to us

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1iT0Snt

Spread of early humans: New findings

Image via learnerlog.org.

By George Busby, University of Oxford

Humans are a success story like no other. We are now living in the “Anthropocene” age, meaning much of what we see around us has been made or influenced by people. Amazingly, all humans alive today – from the inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego on the southern tip of the Americas to the Sherpa in the Himalayas and the mountain tribes of Papua New Guinea – came from one common ancestor.

We know that our lineage arose in Africa and quickly spread to the four corners of the globe. But the details are murky. Was there just one population of early humans in Africa at the time? When exactly did we first leave the continent and was there just one exodus? Some scientists believe that all non-Africans today can trace their ancestry back to a single migrant population, while others argue that there were several different waves of migration out of Africa.

Now, three new studies mapping the genetic profiles of more than 200 populations across the world, published in Nature, have started to answer some of these questions.

Aubrey Lynch, elder from the Wongatha Aboriginal language group, participated in one of the studies. Image via Preben Hjort, Mayday Film.

Out of Africa

Humans initially spread out of Africa through the Middle East, ranging further north into Europe, east across Asia and south to Australasia. Later, they eventually spread north-east over the top of Beringia into the Americas. We are now almost certain that on their way across the globe, our ancestors interbred with at least two archaic human species, the Neanderthals in Eurasia, and the Denisovans in Asia.

Genetics has been invaluable in understanding this past. While hominin fossils hinted that Africa was the birthplace of humanity, it was genetics that proved this to be so. Patterns of genetic variation – how similar or different people’s DNA sequences are – have not only shown that most of the diversity we see in humans today is present within Africa, but also that there are fewer differences within populations the further you get from Africa.

These observations support the “Out of Africa” model; the idea that a small number of Africans moved out of the continent – taking a much reduced gene-pool with them. This genetic bottleneck, and the subsequent growth of non-African populations, meant that there was less genetic diversity to go round, and so there are fewer differences, on average, between the genomes of non-Africans compared to Africans.

When we scan two genomes to identify where these differences, or mutations, lie, we can estimate how long in the past those genomes split from each other. If two genomes share long stretches with no differences, it’s likely that their common ancestor was in the more recent past than the ancestor of two genomes with shorter shared stretches. By interrogating the distribution of mutations between African and non-African genomes, two of the papers just about agree that the genetic bottleneck caused by the migration out of Africa occurred roughly 60,000 years ago. This is also broadly in line with dating from archaeological investigations.

Their research also manages to settle a long-running debate about the structure of African populations at the beginning of the migration. Was the small group of humans who left Africa representative of the whole continent at that time, or had they split off from more southerly populations earlier?

SGDP model of the relationships among diverse humans (select ancient samples are shown in red) that fits the data. Image via Swapan Mallick, Mark Lipson and David Reich.

The Simons Genome Diversity Project compared the genomes of 142 worldwide populations, including 20 from across Africa. They conclusively show that modern African hunter-gatherer populations split off from the group that became non-Africans around 130,000 years ago and from West Africans around 90,000 years ago. This indicates that there was substantial substructure of populations in Africa prior to the wave of migration. A second study, led by Danish geneticist Eske Willersev, with far fewer African samples, used similar methods to show that divergence within Africa also started before the migration, around 125,000 years ago.

More migrations?

Following the move out of the continent, the pioneers must then have journeyed incredibly quickly to Australia. The Danish study, the most comprehensive analysis of Aboriginal Australian and Papuan genomes to date, is the first to really examine the position of Australia at the end of the migration.

They found that the ancestors of populations from “Sahul” – Tasmania, Australia and New Guinea – split from the common ancestor of Europeans and Asians 51,000-72,000 years ago. This is prior to their split from each other around 29,000-55,000 years ago, and almost immediately after the move out of Africa. This implies that the group of people who ended up in the Sahul split away from others almost as soon as the initial group left Africa. Substantial mixing with Denisovans is only seen in Sahulians, which is consistent with this early split.

Crucially, because the ancestors of modern-day Europeans and Asians hadn’t split in two at this point, we think that they must have still been somewhere in western Eurasia at this point. This means that there must have been a second migration from west Eurasia into east Asia later on. The Simons Genome Diversity Project study, by contrast, albeit with a far smaller sample of Sahulian genomes, found no evidence for such an early Sahulian split. It instead shows that the ancestors of East Asians and Sahulians split from western Eurasians before they split from each other, and therefore that Denisovan admixture occurred after the former split from each other.

A graphic representation of the interaction between modern and archaic human lines, showing traces of an early out of Africa (xOoA) expansion within the genome of modern Sahul populations. Image via Dr. Mait Metspalu, Estonian Biocentre.

Meanwhile, a third paper proposes an earlier, “extra” migration out of Africa, some 120,000 years ago. This migration is only visible in the genomes of a separate set of Sahulians sequenced as part of the Estonian Biocentre Human Genome Diversity Panel. Only around 2% per cent of these genomes can be traced to this earlier migration event, which implies that this wave can’t have many ancestors left in the present day. If true (the two other papers find little support for it), this suggests that there must have been a migration across Asia prior to the big one about 60,000 years ago, and that anatomically modern human populations left Africa earlier than many think.

Whatever the reality of the detail of the Out of Africa event, these studies provide some benchmarks for the timings of some of the key events. Importantly, they are also a huge resource of over 600 new and diverse human genomes that provide the genomics community with the opportunity for further understanding of the paths our ancestors took towards the Anthropocene.

George Busby, Research Associate in Statistical Genomics, University of Oxford

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Bottom line: Three new studies reveal the diversity of early human populations and help pin down when we left Africa.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2cI8riC

Image via learnerlog.org.

By George Busby, University of Oxford

Humans are a success story like no other. We are now living in the “Anthropocene” age, meaning much of what we see around us has been made or influenced by people. Amazingly, all humans alive today – from the inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego on the southern tip of the Americas to the Sherpa in the Himalayas and the mountain tribes of Papua New Guinea – came from one common ancestor.

We know that our lineage arose in Africa and quickly spread to the four corners of the globe. But the details are murky. Was there just one population of early humans in Africa at the time? When exactly did we first leave the continent and was there just one exodus? Some scientists believe that all non-Africans today can trace their ancestry back to a single migrant population, while others argue that there were several different waves of migration out of Africa.

Now, three new studies mapping the genetic profiles of more than 200 populations across the world, published in Nature, have started to answer some of these questions.

Aubrey Lynch, elder from the Wongatha Aboriginal language group, participated in one of the studies. Image via Preben Hjort, Mayday Film.

Out of Africa

Humans initially spread out of Africa through the Middle East, ranging further north into Europe, east across Asia and south to Australasia. Later, they eventually spread north-east over the top of Beringia into the Americas. We are now almost certain that on their way across the globe, our ancestors interbred with at least two archaic human species, the Neanderthals in Eurasia, and the Denisovans in Asia.

Genetics has been invaluable in understanding this past. While hominin fossils hinted that Africa was the birthplace of humanity, it was genetics that proved this to be so. Patterns of genetic variation – how similar or different people’s DNA sequences are – have not only shown that most of the diversity we see in humans today is present within Africa, but also that there are fewer differences within populations the further you get from Africa.

These observations support the “Out of Africa” model; the idea that a small number of Africans moved out of the continent – taking a much reduced gene-pool with them. This genetic bottleneck, and the subsequent growth of non-African populations, meant that there was less genetic diversity to go round, and so there are fewer differences, on average, between the genomes of non-Africans compared to Africans.

When we scan two genomes to identify where these differences, or mutations, lie, we can estimate how long in the past those genomes split from each other. If two genomes share long stretches with no differences, it’s likely that their common ancestor was in the more recent past than the ancestor of two genomes with shorter shared stretches. By interrogating the distribution of mutations between African and non-African genomes, two of the papers just about agree that the genetic bottleneck caused by the migration out of Africa occurred roughly 60,000 years ago. This is also broadly in line with dating from archaeological investigations.

Their research also manages to settle a long-running debate about the structure of African populations at the beginning of the migration. Was the small group of humans who left Africa representative of the whole continent at that time, or had they split off from more southerly populations earlier?

SGDP model of the relationships among diverse humans (select ancient samples are shown in red) that fits the data. Image via Swapan Mallick, Mark Lipson and David Reich.

The Simons Genome Diversity Project compared the genomes of 142 worldwide populations, including 20 from across Africa. They conclusively show that modern African hunter-gatherer populations split off from the group that became non-Africans around 130,000 years ago and from West Africans around 90,000 years ago. This indicates that there was substantial substructure of populations in Africa prior to the wave of migration. A second study, led by Danish geneticist Eske Willersev, with far fewer African samples, used similar methods to show that divergence within Africa also started before the migration, around 125,000 years ago.

More migrations?

Following the move out of the continent, the pioneers must then have journeyed incredibly quickly to Australia. The Danish study, the most comprehensive analysis of Aboriginal Australian and Papuan genomes to date, is the first to really examine the position of Australia at the end of the migration.

They found that the ancestors of populations from “Sahul” – Tasmania, Australia and New Guinea – split from the common ancestor of Europeans and Asians 51,000-72,000 years ago. This is prior to their split from each other around 29,000-55,000 years ago, and almost immediately after the move out of Africa. This implies that the group of people who ended up in the Sahul split away from others almost as soon as the initial group left Africa. Substantial mixing with Denisovans is only seen in Sahulians, which is consistent with this early split.

Crucially, because the ancestors of modern-day Europeans and Asians hadn’t split in two at this point, we think that they must have still been somewhere in western Eurasia at this point. This means that there must have been a second migration from west Eurasia into east Asia later on. The Simons Genome Diversity Project study, by contrast, albeit with a far smaller sample of Sahulian genomes, found no evidence for such an early Sahulian split. It instead shows that the ancestors of East Asians and Sahulians split from western Eurasians before they split from each other, and therefore that Denisovan admixture occurred after the former split from each other.

A graphic representation of the interaction between modern and archaic human lines, showing traces of an early out of Africa (xOoA) expansion within the genome of modern Sahul populations. Image via Dr. Mait Metspalu, Estonian Biocentre.

Meanwhile, a third paper proposes an earlier, “extra” migration out of Africa, some 120,000 years ago. This migration is only visible in the genomes of a separate set of Sahulians sequenced as part of the Estonian Biocentre Human Genome Diversity Panel. Only around 2% per cent of these genomes can be traced to this earlier migration event, which implies that this wave can’t have many ancestors left in the present day. If true (the two other papers find little support for it), this suggests that there must have been a migration across Asia prior to the big one about 60,000 years ago, and that anatomically modern human populations left Africa earlier than many think.

Whatever the reality of the detail of the Out of Africa event, these studies provide some benchmarks for the timings of some of the key events. Importantly, they are also a huge resource of over 600 new and diverse human genomes that provide the genomics community with the opportunity for further understanding of the paths our ancestors took towards the Anthropocene.

George Busby, Research Associate in Statistical Genomics, University of Oxford

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Bottom line: Three new studies reveal the diversity of early human populations and help pin down when we left Africa.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2cI8riC

Goodbye September

Image via Jüri Voit.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2dvtsJo

Image via Jüri Voit.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2dvtsJo

News digest – Spotting bowel cancer earlier, waiting time targets missed, deodorants, tattoos and… cellbots?

• For one in five bowel cancer patients diagnosed after an emergency presentation, there may have been an opportunity to spot their disease sooner. Our press release has the details, and this Cancer Research UK-funded study was also covered by the BBC and the Guardian.
• Early diagnosis and treatment is vital for giving cancer patients the best chance of survival. But in Scotland and Northern Ireland cancer waiting time targets for treatment have been missed again. This was covered by the Express and the BBC, as well as in the Herald Scotland and the Belfast Telegraph.
• This week, the Prevention and Early Detection (PED) research initiative was launched in Manchester. The PED initiative hopes to not only save lives, but also save the NHS more than £44 million a year, as the Daily Mail and the Express reported.
• Could our love for skin art be detrimental to our health, and raise the risk of cancer? The Guardian discusses the potential harm from tattoos. But right now there isn’t any good evidence to suggest that getting inked can cause cancer.

Number of the week

44,000,000

The pounds that the NHS could save each year by diagnosing cancer earlier

• Scaremongering headlines have popped up suggesting that deodorants could cause cancer. But the study, which linked a common ingredient in deodorants to breast cancer, was carried out on cells in a dish and mice. These findings can’t be applied to humans, where the evidence so far has shown no link. The second half of this Huffington Post article goes into more detail on the limitations of the study.  
• Work by our scientists and others has revealed a genetic switch which could underlie the ability of some cancer cells to maintain eternal youth. Reversing this switch in the lab forced cells to grow up and wear out, suggesting a possible target for cancer drugs in the future. Check out our press release and blog for the full story.
• Cancer Research UK has joined forces with two drug companies to test out a new combination of treatments for patients with hard-to-treat cancers. Taking place in Scotland, the clinical trial will look at whether a targeted treatment can enhance the effects of an immune-boosting drug in patients with lung and pancreatic cancer.
• Teeny tiny glowing particles, which were originally designed to light up tumour cells to help guide surgery, may have an unexpected added bonus: the ability to kill cancer cells. High concentrations of these microscopic particles destroyed cancer cells in a dish and shrank tumours in mice, according to a new US study.

And finally…

• Step aside, robots, and make way for ‘cellbots’. Researchers in the US have tweaked human immune cells so that they hunt down cancer cells and deliver immunotherapy drugs directly to tumours, boosting the immune system against the cancer while sparing healthy cells from harm. It’s an exciting idea, but more work needs to be done before human studies are considered.

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/2dkK20k

• For one in five bowel cancer patients diagnosed after an emergency presentation, there may have been an opportunity to spot their disease sooner. Our press release has the details, and this Cancer Research UK-funded study was also covered by the BBC and the Guardian.
• Early diagnosis and treatment is vital for giving cancer patients the best chance of survival. But in Scotland and Northern Ireland cancer waiting time targets for treatment have been missed again. This was covered by the Express and the BBC, as well as in the Herald Scotland and the Belfast Telegraph.
• This week, the Prevention and Early Detection (PED) research initiative was launched in Manchester. The PED initiative hopes to not only save lives, but also save the NHS more than £44 million a year, as the Daily Mail and the Express reported.
• Could our love for skin art be detrimental to our health, and raise the risk of cancer? The Guardian discusses the potential harm from tattoos. But right now there isn’t any good evidence to suggest that getting inked can cause cancer.

Number of the week

44,000,000

The pounds that the NHS could save each year by diagnosing cancer earlier

• Scaremongering headlines have popped up suggesting that deodorants could cause cancer. But the study, which linked a common ingredient in deodorants to breast cancer, was carried out on cells in a dish and mice. These findings can’t be applied to humans, where the evidence so far has shown no link. The second half of this Huffington Post article goes into more detail on the limitations of the study.  
• Work by our scientists and others has revealed a genetic switch which could underlie the ability of some cancer cells to maintain eternal youth. Reversing this switch in the lab forced cells to grow up and wear out, suggesting a possible target for cancer drugs in the future. Check out our press release and blog for the full story.
• Cancer Research UK has joined forces with two drug companies to test out a new combination of treatments for patients with hard-to-treat cancers. Taking place in Scotland, the clinical trial will look at whether a targeted treatment can enhance the effects of an immune-boosting drug in patients with lung and pancreatic cancer.
• Teeny tiny glowing particles, which were originally designed to light up tumour cells to help guide surgery, may have an unexpected added bonus: the ability to kill cancer cells. High concentrations of these microscopic particles destroyed cancer cells in a dish and shrank tumours in mice, according to a new US study.

And finally…

• Step aside, robots, and make way for ‘cellbots’. Researchers in the US have tweaked human immune cells so that they hunt down cancer cells and deliver immunotherapy drugs directly to tumours, boosting the immune system against the cancer while sparing healthy cells from harm. It’s an exciting idea, but more work needs to be done before human studies are considered.

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/2dkK20k