COMMENTARIES Commentaries on research article by He et al. ment may be a difference in scale across fields. In general, dele- All parties involved in the reviewing of He et al.  agree terious effects in evolution are often in the order of 1/ Ne, where that this is an impressive study, meticulous and comprehen- Ne is the effective population size. Thus, while He et al. are deal- sive in data collection and analyses. The two reviews, now −3 ing with deleterious effects of 10 per human generation, appearing as commentaries, differ in the evaluation of the Reviewer 2 is looking for measurable effects in the laboratory authors’ interpretation on two fronts. setting. On the first front is the issue of novelty. Erzurum et al.  National Science Review aims to restore the practice of vig- reported that the serum NO metabolite (NOx) level in Tibetans orous scientific debate. The publication of He et al. and the is elevated relative to that in lowlanders. They suggested this el- evation to be an evolutionary adaptive strategy in Tibetans. He accompanying commentaries should provide a glimpse of this et al. now unambiguously reject this hypothesis by showing that philosophy. lowlanders living at high altitude have even higher NOx levels 1,2 than Tibetans. In this context, two earlier reports [3,4] are rel- Chung-I Wu evant as they also show NOx elevation in mountaineers who School of Life Science, Sun Yat-Sen University, China are from the lowlands. According to He et al. and Reviewer 1, Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, USA the adaptive hypothesis of Erzurum et al. can only be rejected Section Editor for Life Sciences at NSR by studying lowlanders who live at high altitude, not by study- E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org ing short-term visitors to the highlands. On the other hand, Re- viewer 2 seems to suggest that the rejection of the adaptive hy- REFERENCES pothesis is already implied in the short-term response observed among mountaineers. The novelty of the conclusion is therefore 1. He YX, Qi XB and Ouzhuluobu et al. Natl Sci Rev 2018; 5: 516–29. a matter of half-full vs. half-empty. Importantly, He et al. indeed 2. Erzurum SC, Ghosh S and Janocha AJ et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007; 104: made the bottle full, so to speak. 17593–8. On the second front is the disagreement on the meaning 3. Janocha AJ, Koch CD and Tiso M et al. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 1942–4. 4. Levett DZ, Fernandez BO and Riley HL et al. Sci Rep 2011; 1: 109. of regulation (as in ‘blunted NO regulation’) that is toxic. As commented by Reviewer 1, He et al. present extensive genomic data on NO synthesis-related genes, which appear to be under National Science Review selective pressure against the lowland variants. In contrast, 5: 530, 2018 Reviewer 2 indicates that such deleterious effects are not evident doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwy038 in published physiological accounts on toxicity. The disagree- Advance access publication 5 April 2018 The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of China Science Publishing & Media Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, plea se e-mail: email@example.com Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article-abstract/5/4/530/4962394 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 07 August 2018
National Science Review – Oxford University Press
Published: Jul 1, 2018
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera