This is a series of articles that I found useful and/or relevant while evaluating the review article by Thomas Rando. You might also refer to this counter argument published in the same issue of Cell or this proposal of an alternate hypothesis, the Mortal Strand Hypothesis, written by Rando himself in 2013.
Please note that when you are searching for scientific information, you should always try to access the primary research that was done to investigate the question you are addressing. I have provided links to relevant papers below. However, there are also a number of on-line resources from experts that offer clear and concise explanations of these topics, and I’m providing links to a few of these as well. This is NOT license to use un-cited literature or unsupported statements in your own work. Also, please be cognisant of the University’s policy on plagiarism. These links are merely to provide you with alternate learning materials in case the first explanation wasn’t clear.
When searching for scientific literature, I highly recommend that you use Google Scholar, NCBI, or other professional search engines. This will improve the overall quality of your results.
Semi-conservative DNA replication:
A movie showing replication in slow motion, with all the components labelled: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27TxKoFU2Nw
Another movie showing replication in 3D, including illustrations of histone and chromatin structures, chromosome segregation, transcription to RNA, and translation to proteins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqESR7E4b_8
Mutation rates in humans:
Evolution by Douglass Futuyma is available in the UoA library.
An explanation of why mutations occur and why they are problematic from the Nature Education blog (also a great general resource):
How might you measure mutation rates?
How are stem cells different from their progeny?
What was the 3H-Td experiment and why was it important?
Early work measured the distribution of markers across generation using density segregation of radioactively labelled DNA. This is a particularly beautiful and important paper. Check it out!
Rando in particular touts these experiments by Potten et al. (See in particular Figure 6 to see what nuclei that retain the radioactive marker look like early in the experiment and after several rounds of division) as being proof of non-random segregation.
What can we learn by looking across multiple species?
Similar findings were reported in the bacterium Escherichia coli, the filamentous fungus Aspergillus nidulans and the plants Vicia faba and Triticum boeticum. Why did they replicate the results in all these different organisms?
I bring your attention to this paragraph in the above retrospective (emphasis mine):
“We soon discovered that established tissue culture lines (HeLa or CHO) had lost this property (Lark et al., 1966). Had we begun with established cell lines, we would probably have concluded that the non-random segregation we had documented in bacteria was not a property of somatic mammalian cell division, and we would have abandoned the investigation. Instead, we speculated that the polyploid nature of these established cell lines had obscured the non-random segregation of diploid chromosome sets. Although the distinction between cell lines that had acquired immortality and primary cell lines with programmed longevity was known (Hayflick and Moorhead, 1961; Hayflick, 1965), we had not considered this distinction as a possible explanation for the difference between a primary mouse line and the HeLa or CHO lines.”
What mechanisms might lead to non-random segregation?
A paper hypothesizing a mechanism and describing possible experiments to test this model.
How persistent is non-random segregation across generations?
Work by Conboy and Rando using multiple markers shows that the less differentiated cell tends to retain the labelled strand.
How have technological advances impacted our ability to address these questions?
Go back over the various links above and look at the years of publication and the quality of the data. What kinds of data are more convincing? Do you think the correct controls have been used in all cases? Do the authors examine a high number of events or just a few? Do you trust their conclusions? Why?
How can we evaluate scientific literature?
An examination of how scientists measure whether a paper is good.
Have you found other resources you think would be interesting to discuss? Leave a note in the comments!