7 ms·
No, and the last sentence acknowledges that this should now be repeated more rigorously
by peteretep 8y ago
No, and the last sentence acknowledges that this should now be repeated more rigorously
- amelius 8y agoA bit strange that this was accepted in "Nature" then (?)
- dgacmu 8y agoNot really. It's common to accept papers based upon some function of Interesting & confidence, as long as the papers are very clear about their significance (or in this case, lack of a control). this kind of preliminary study is important in being able to make a case for funding a much larger formal study.
- galangalalgol 8y agoIt is a hot trend to correlate things to gut biome. Even so, the fact so many researchers are able to do so is quite interesting.
- pvaldes 8y agoIt has been hypotesized that autism increase in the last decades might be correlated with the increase in the use of pesticides. Early damage in nervous system that leads to a permanent particular architecture in the brain and all the stuff. Some gut bioma could theoretically be slightly better than other to deal with it. Some bacterias could be more efficient metabolizing some damaging products in our diet into other not so bad or even inocuous. Is teorethically possible. Both problems could be related and in this sense is a pretty interesting field. They could just give to an artificial gut bioma in a petri dish some diluted compounds, (or just give some autist children organic cultured fruits and keep it in a pesticide free environment) and see what happens
- lordlimecat 8y agoIs there any evidence that the amount and types of pesticides used today are more damaging than those used 30 years ago? Or 60 years ago? Gut feeling: regulatory environment is a lot more strict these days, so we're probably a lot better off with today's pesticides than whatever straight-up toxic chemicals were used in the past. I bet if we started looking we'd see things like arsenic and similar used in the past.
- pvaldes 8y agoDon't need to be more damaging. Can be harmful in a different sense.
- ramraj07 8y agoThis is not Nature, this is "scientific report", which is not a bad journal but no Nature either.
- jessriedel 8y agoSlight clarification: The journal is called Scientific Reports, which as you correctly emphasize is very different than the journal Nature even though they are owned by the same company. The articles are still called "articles" though.
- azeotropic 8y agoIt's basically Springer-Nature's answer to PLoS One. As long as it's not obviously crazy, anything goes. This doesn't look very convincing though. Without a no-treatment or sham treatment control, the results could be placebo effect, reversion to the mean on their metrics, or due to the antibiotic treatment rather than the transplanted gut bacteria, or a just a statistical fluke with this small population. One thing that stands out to me is the lack of difference in developmental age between 8 weeks and 2 years after treatment. I find it hard to understand how that would occur under the model where this treatment does something.
- hyperbovine 8y agoNature Scientific Reports, not the same.
- jessriedel 8y agoIn fact, "Nature" isn't even in the office journal title, unlike basically every other journal owned by the Springer Nature publishing company, e.g., Nature Communications, Nature Chemistry, Nature Methods. This highlights that it's considered to be a significantly lower tier in prestige, and the acceptance rates are much higher. Which is why I've published there :D
- skosuri 8y agoScientific reports is a nature family journal somewhat akin to Plos One (very little importance review). It should set some warning lights on.
- avip 8y agoIt wasn’t.
- SubiculumCode 8y agoThis is Nature Scientific Reports, a low impact journal.