Editor's note

Editor's note 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. [1] 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. [2] 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: cw16@uchicago.edu 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: journals.permissions@oup.com Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article-abstract/5/4/530/4962394 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 07 August 2018 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png National Science Review Oxford University Press

Editor's note

Free
1 page

Loading next page...
1 Page
 
/lp/ou_press/commentary-from-recommender-Xp0x3AZu5C
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of China Science Publishing & Media Ltd.
ISSN
2095-5138
eISSN
2053-714X
D.O.I.
10.1093/nsr/nwy038
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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. [1] 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. [2] 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: cw16@uchicago.edu 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: journals.permissions@oup.com Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article-abstract/5/4/530/4962394 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 07 August 2018

Journal

National Science ReviewOxford University Press

Published: Jul 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

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

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

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.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off