Professor at Iowa State University, Studying aging and autophagy, mitochondria, Peroxisome...

Ames, IA
Joined August 2011
New publication from the lab @pnas . With the collaboration of Dr. Ping Kang @pingkang0, we uncovered how developmental NF-kB signaling links developmental timing (time to maturity) to lifespan😊😊pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.24…
3
15
1
87
8,343
I've been meaning to share these thoughts for a while and touched on them briefly in a recent conference talk. They are relevant to a lot of the discussions today.
19
31
8
222
12,592
Hua Bai retweeted
一台治肩周炎的机器,被中国科学家发现能够清理阿尔茨海默病的斑块。 听着像骗局,但论文发在Science子刊,出自解放军301医院,用的只是一台乡镇卫生院照一次二十块钱的国产理疗机。 一台平时给人治腰腿疼的理疗仪,怎么管起了脑子里的事? 原来科学家发现,大脑平时得靠深睡时涌动的脑脊液,顺着血管周围把引发痴呆的垃圾冲走。 而这台机器隔着两厘米空气、用不发热的微弱功率照上十分钟,就能让清醒的小鼠脑电波跳出深睡才有的慢波,大白天开始给脑子大扫除。 痴呆小鼠连照七天,脑里的斑块真少了,停照一个月后记性还比没照的好。 要知道,现在患者用进口抗体新药清斑块,首年自费二十多万,还要担着脑水肿风险,也只能让病情恶化慢四分之一。 一边是二十多万的天价药,一边是二十块钱的理疗机,换谁都想立刻让家里患者去试试。 但先别急,之前被寄予厚望的声光刺激也在老鼠身上大获全胜,真到了人体实验里,斑块却一点没少。 这台治肩周炎的机器目前只在单性别的小鼠身上跑通,它到底能不能在人类身上起效,还需要进一步的研究证明。
48
86
4
562
78,177
Craig Mello kicking off the nephrology meeting ! @ASNKidney RNA medicines and oligo therapies will be the next generation cures for the kidney patients
1
10
3
103
18,419
Hua Bai retweeted
未来AI超级组织会成为最新的形态 #商业思维 #ai #认知 #许茹冰
6
25
1
154
14,133
掼蛋怎么玩♠️,#掼蛋
5
122
377
36,731
Excited to share our newest study on COX2-PGE2 and antiviral innate immunity. Huge shoutout to all of the authors for their important contributions!
The COX2-PGE2-PKA axis suppresses antiviral immunity by inhibiting mtDNA-dependent STING activation dlvr.​it/TVzXlj
2
2
4
596
Hua Bai retweeted
料酒去腥是騙局🤔 五種肉類 各有專屬去腥香料 牛肉胡椒 燉用白胡椒 猪肉用八角 冷水鍋 草果用羊肉 用之前拍裂 雞肉用花椒 最後20分鐘再放 魚是三甲安 白脂 燉前前10分鐘
49
727
11
4,911
184,519
这段演讲,应该在拿结婚证的地方,看到能全文背诵后,拿证!
82
1,108
53
4,761
296,186
Hua Bai retweeted
我以为我起码不会被ai音乐打动,但我错了。词曲演唱现场,都很丝滑。人类啊,颤抖吧!
93
345
65
1,519
329,817
短短两天唱哭1400万人, 人生不是每句都是punchline。 那些平淡的、卡壳的、没押韵的句子,也是你的歌。 策划|词曲|AI制作:喆FILM
14
161
11
684
54,109
这个福利 应该很多朋友都用的到 哈哈 (如何躺着玩手机 不伤身体)
241
1,796
147
11,105
2,070,687
A team at the Wyss Institute and Harvard Medical School, led by George Church, with colleagues at CIC bioGUNE in Spain, screened for genes that make the activity patterns of human skin cells look younger. One of them, a splicing factor called SRSF1, reduced signs of aging in cultured cells without changing what kind of cells they were. In aged mice, switching it on slowed frailty and was associated with a 14% longer median lifespan. nature.com/articles/s43587-0…
6
13
85
6,142
Five years ago, an important miscarriage of justice occurred. The story began in April 2018 when David Sabatini, an MIT, Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), and Whitehead Institute scientist and professor began a consensual intimate relationship with Dr. Kristin Knouse, a principal investigator with her own lab at the Whitehead. By January 2020, David sought to end the relationship, but Knouse apparently did not want it to end. When David thereafter started a new relationship and Knouse learned about it, she began a secretive campaign to destroy him by attempting to end his career as a scientist. She did so by damaging his name, reputation, and that of his family with false sexual harassment and other claims, thereby making him unemployable. Knouse conspired with Dr. Ruth Lehmann, the then- and still current Director (i.e., President) of the Whitehead Institute, in her efforts to destroy Sabatini. The record presented in court demonstrated that Dr. Lehmann committed to Knouse in October of 2020 that she would fire David. Dr. Lehmann made this commitment to Knouse before any investigation of the facts had taken place. Seven months after committing to fire him, in March of 2021, Dr. Lehmann, on behalf of the Whitehead, hired the law firm of Hinckley, Allen, Snyder (HAS) to undergo an investigation of David. By July 2021, HAS shared a draft of its conclusions with MIT, HHMI, and the Whitehead, but not with David or his lawyers. On the morning of August 19, 2021, David for the first time received the more than 200-page investigative report and a calendar invite for a meeting the following day with Dr. Lehmann, the president of HHMI, and the HR directors of both institutions. The report was riddled with errors and unsupported claims about David and his relationship with Knouse. When David's lawyer immediately thereafter reached out to Whitehead counsel to ask whether David was about to be fired, they confirmed that he would be terminated at the meeting. On the advice of his lawyer, David immediately resigned from HHMI and the Whitehead rather than attend the meeting. HHMI did not accept his resignation, choosing instead to fire him. MIT put David on leave and ultimately revoked his tenure. David thereafter resigned from MIT. On August 20, 2021, one day after sending David the HAS report and before David had the opportunity to dispute the facts and the conclusions of the investigation, Dr. Lehmann emailed all employees at the Whitehead informing them that David had violated a number of Whitehead policies "including policies concerning sexual harassment." The Lehmann public email, David's resignation and firing, and Dr. Lehmann's claims about David's sexual harassment exploded into a major global scandal covered in mainstream, social, and scientific media around the world as it had all of the requisite ingredients: An attractive target with David, one of the most important scientists of his generation in line for the Nobel Prize, a purported inappropriate sexual relationship with a younger female colleague, and a political and institutional environment where punishing a man for sexual harassment advanced the career and reputation of the person and/or institution that destroyed the career and reputation of the accused, regardless of the validity of the allegations. As a result of Knouse's claims, Lehmann's sham investigation, and the media onslaught that followed, David lost all sources of income and his reputation was destroyed. All prizes he had been previously been awarded were withdrawn. He was removed from all scientific advisory and other honorary roles other than as a member of our family foundation's (the Pershing Square Foundation's) scientific advisory board. When I initially learned of the news about David in the summer of 2021, I hired him as a consultant to the Pershing Square Foundation as I believed our small foundation team would benefit greatly by his insights (and he now had the time to help us), and he needed the money to support his family. At my request and under a confidentiality agreement, David provided us with many hundreds of pages of documents including texts and other communications with Knouse, the investigative report, and David's responses to the allegations so that we could do our own evaluation of Knouse's claims. I and a member of our family office's legal team carefully reviewed the documents. After a careful review of the empirical documents -- in particular the texts between Knouse and David -- it became abundantly clear that Knouse's actions were that of an angry and jilted lover, not those of a sexually harassed junior colleague. And the investigative report appeared designed to deliver a pre-ordained conclusion rather than a dispassionate fact-based analysis. The impact of the firings and the destruction of his career and reputation on David and his family was extraordinarily devastating, so much so that we became increasingly concerned that he might commit suicide. [In order to make sure that David's important scientific research would continue, in February 2023, in partnership with an anonymous donor, we funded $25 million to support David launching a new lab. As you might expect, I was reviled in the press, in scientific journals, and on social media for doing so and for supporting a so-called sex offender.] On October 20, 2021, David filed suit against Knouse alleging defamation and tortious interference in his career and his contractual arrangements. Thereafter, Knouse brought counterclaims against David. Today, nearly five years to the date of the filing of the suit, he has finally received justice. Today, a 13-person jury (seven men and six women) of David Sabatini's peers (12 jurors plus an alternate) unanimously determined that David proved that Kristin Knouse defamed him, tortiously interfered with his contractual relationships (his entire career as a scientist), and tortiously interfered with his prospective advantageous relationships (his future employment). The jury awarded him nearly $10 million in damages including interest. The jury rejected all of Knouse's claims including her claims that David engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment and created a sexually hostile work environment. While five years is a very long time to live under a reputational cloud, justice was finally served today for David, but not completely in my view. To this day, Dr. Ruth Lehmann remains Director of the Whitehead Institute. Dr. Lehmann worked alongside Dr. Knouse to destroy David Sabatini, an acclaimed scientist and professor. She did not follow due process before she intentionally destroyed David's career and reputation. Dr. Lehmann nearly killed David with her actions, as had we not rescued David by finding him employment, supporting him publicly to buffer the reputational damage, and supporting his recovery, he could have ended his life and left his son without a father before the world understood what had transpired here. And the reputational damage was not just to David. David's brother, Bernardo Sabatini, is one of the most important neuroscientists in the world. To this day, he has had to deal with a large cloud over his family name and reputation. Recently, when the new CEO of our brain institute mentioned that Bernardo Sabatini was on our board, he was asked: "Wasn't he involved in some kind of sex scandal?" For obvious reasons, the character of the person who runs a scientific institute is of utmost importance. Among other failures here, Dr. Ruth Lehmann committed to Knouse that she would fire David many months before an investigation was even launched and without consideration of the empirical facts. How can one trust research produced by a scientific institute if its leader is not committed to observing the empirical facts before reaching conclusions that have life-threatening import? We have unfortunately seen massive amounts of scientific fraud which has harmed innumerable human lives and wasted billions of dollars of research funding and time. For her ethical breaches here, Dr. Lehmann should be fired from the Whitehead. Based on her actions in this case, she is in no position to serve as the leader of an important scientific institute. I speak with some perspective on how scientific and other institutions should be led. Including the recent launch of the Ackman Oxman Institute, we have funded approximately $1 billion of scientific research and institutions over the last decade or so, and this experience has given us the opportunity to meet the leadership of many of the most important scientific institutions in the world. To put it plainly, we would not give a dollar to a scientific institute whose leader compromised basic moral principles as has happened here. At an absolute minimum, the board of the Whitehead should immediately launch a detailed and independent investigation of Dr. Lehmann's actions in the Sabatini case. I would encourage the investigation, among other considerations, to carefully exam all of the correspondence between Lehmann and Knouse, as well their correspondence with the HAS law firm on among other areas, the various drafts of the Sabatini investigative report. Alternatively, Dr. Lehmann could resign, minimize further distraction for the Whitehead, and save institutional time and resources that would be better spent on research that benefits humanity.
583
1,718
239
13,151
1,254,706
认清人性的底色,人性宝典 v.v8l.cn/s/EHg99bR pan.baidu.com/s/1AGi3oSu3xxS…
5
119
3
687
48,094
认知决定命运的三个最好的例子
97
473
21
3,167
152,708
A lovely commemorative collection @AgingJrnl in memory of Misha Blagosklonny. Misha was an original thinker who challenged conventional views of ageing. His hyperfunction theory, viewing ageing as a quasi-program rather than simply damage, is similar to my programmatic views.
1
8
27
1,459
🚨🚨 PRIMER protocolo del mundo revisado por pares que utiliza IVERMECTINA, mebendazol y fenbendazol para el cáncer ha sido publicado... Esto podría cambiar el futuro de la oncología para siempre.. Enorme reconocimiento a los autores principales Ilyes Baghli y Pierrick Martínez, Dr. Paul Marik de FLCCC y todos los investigadores quienes se negaron a guardar silencio... Estos medicamentos desempeñan un papel fundamental en el tratamiento del cáncer... Miles de pacientes con cáncer ya han utilizado alta dosis de ivermectina, mebendazol y fenbendazol con resultados exitosos... isom.ca/article/targeting-th…
24
983
23
1,874
35,106