it's a cartoon explaining a classic result in microbial evolutionary biology that (largely) resolved the question of whether selection acts on preexisting variation or if the selection induces mutations to occur (it won Salvador Luria and Max Delbruck a Nobel Prize)
the idea is as follows - you take a population of cells and divide them equally into a bunch of tubes and let them grow for several generations - then you pour the cells onto plates, apply some selective pressure to the cells, and count the number of colonies that grow
in the original experiment the selective pressure was exposure to a lethal virus, but it can and has been repeated with almost any condition where the growth of the bacteria requires a mutation not found in the original cell
the left side of that image shows the expectation if such mutations arise as a result of applying the selection pressure: that the independent replicas of the experiment should have roughly the same number of colonies, with variation explained by the Poisson distribution
the right side shows the expectation if mutations occur randomly in each tube before exposed to the plate - in this model you could end up with anything between 1 mutant cell or the entire population being mutant - with predictable frequencies of each outcome
when they did the experiment they found that the variance among numbers of colonies on each plate was way too high to be explained by Poisson, and was much more consistent with the pre-existing mutation model
this was, you can probably tell at this point, posted in response to people who claim that new variants are a result of vaccination - the point here is that this is bogus - the variants are the result of having lots of infections
with high levels of infection, lots of new variants emerge - most don't take hold for purely random reasons - but ones that are better at infecting people have an advantage and hence you get things like delta
if one of these new variants also happens to be less sensitive to the vaccine, it will spread more than ones that are vaccine sensitive - these are the equivalent of colonies on the plate
but these new variants aren't arising *because* of the vaccine - we're just noticing them because the vaccine is suppressing other strains

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Michael Eyes Out 🎃

Michael Eyes Out 🎃 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mbeisen

30 Nov
What I learned from years on graduate admissions committees is that they don’t predict success - they determine it. Everyone has a pet theory, rarely based on evidence, and never based on good evidence, about what makes a successful student.
And, because the admitted pool is enriched for students who meet whatever criteria happen to be in the ascendancy, and because some of these students succeed, we convince ourselves that we were right and keep doing it.
I’m not saying that everyone is equally likely to succeed in graduate school in its current form and that there are not predictors of success. I am saying we don’t - and given our methods can’t - know with confidence what they are.
Read 9 tweets
3 Nov
Lots of discussion here, but I really don't think it's that complicated: it reifies racism and abets racists to routinely assign population labels, especially socially constructed ones, to groups of individuals based on genetic data or for use in genetic studies.
That is not to say that the use of such labels is never scientifically justified, as @arbelharpak points out. But there should be a very high bar for their use, and it should be for very specific, clearly articulated purposes.
It is simply untenable to claim - correctly - that race is not a scientific concept, and then turn around and casually use race as if it IS a real scientific entity in papers. And substituting geographic labels for socially constructed race doesn't solve the problem.
Read 10 tweets
22 Aug
I hope we get some more clarity from Whitehead about what led to Sabatini's dismissal. Was there overwhelming evidence that the institution couldn't ignore? Or does this represent a shift in the way institutions are handling harassment allegations against prominent faculty?
Obviously, full transparency is impossible to protect people who spoke up. But that has often bogusly used by institutions as an excuse to provide zero transparency when they take no action, and I hope that doesn't happen in this case.
It is as important to demand transparency when institutions do act against their prominent faculty as it is when they don't. Because as much as I have faith in Ruth Lehmann as a person, I have zero faith in the institution she leads (or any academic institution for that matter).
Read 5 tweets
16 Apr
A decade ago my close colleague in science and publishing Pat Brown came to me with some data on the climate impact of animal agriculture published by the UN fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701…. This report (aspects of which are controversial) motivated me to begin looking at the issue.
Zoom ahead 12 years and I've finally had a chance to write up some work I've done myself on the problem that has convinced me that we are, if anything, underestimating the scale of the problem. A preprint describing the work is available here: biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
All the code and data I used are available here: github.com/mbeisen/meatle…
Read 33 tweets
18 Mar
Since it seems it's "You need an SNC paper to get a job" season again, there are a couple of things about the faculty hiring system that seem often to get glossed over, and I'm curious what people think about them.
I want to start by stipulating that, in the US there is no hard rule about what you "need" to get published, but there is, for sure, a strong correlation between publication record and faculty search success. What I'm interested in is why this correlation exists.
When discussing this fact, nearly everyone seems to jump from correlation to causation - assuming that people hired to faculty positions with SNC paper got their jobs *because* of those SNC papers. But what's the evidence that this is true?
Read 20 tweets
16 Jan
There are good political/social reasons for wanting SARS-CoV-2 to have entered humans directly from animals, and many pushing the WIV lab accident hypothesis have nefarious intent. I am nonetheless surprised at the degree of confidence people express in a natural origin.
I've looked at a lot of the evidence, and, while the direct transfer from bats remains the strongest hypothesis, the case is far from airtight. And it might never be, because even if it were true, we'd be lucky to find evidence in wild bat populations that would erase all doubt.
And there is an at least plausible case for lab accident too, in that the virus first appeared in the rough vicinity of a lab that is studying precisely this kind of virus and doing the kind of experiments that, if something went wrong, would lead to disaster.
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(