5 ms·

Here's the journal publication (which came later during the year): https://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(24)01091-2 https://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/

Here's the journal publication (which came later during the year): https://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(24)01091-2 https://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(24)01091-2 It truly is a new class of genomic elements.

kelseyfrog 2y ago
And it's been replicated?
- moralestapia 2y ago
  It's using data from the Integrative Human Microbiome Project [1], so, in a sense, hundreds of high-quality biological replicas support their findings. Obelisks were found in a substantial portion of them. They then expanded the search to millions of sequences, which are publicly available, and found ~30k different classes(!) of Obelisk elements. One could argue that the quality of each of these "experiments" may not be as good as IHMP, but still, the signal is more than sufficient to clearly demonstrate the existence and implied significance of these elements. 1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31142853/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31142853/
  - kelseyfrog 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - ababaian 2y ago
      What's your definition of replication?
      - kelseyfrog 2y ago
        The standard that people hold soft sciences to when they dismiss them. I'm starting to realize that this may be a justification of their prejudice against these fields rather than a legitimate basis for dismissal.
        JoelMcCracken 2y ago
        So basically this study is “we looked at various publicly available data sets of information, and here is a thing we notice that has previously gone unnoticed”. The noticed it in multiple datasets. What would replication look like here besides someone else looking at the dataset and agreeing that they also see the curiosities? Or do you mean someone measuring a new fresh set of data and looking at it? Asking for replication in this case is surprising, because seemingly the entire value is to prompt other research to go figure out what’s going on with these things.
        niam 2y ago
        My reading is that the GP moreso takes issue with how social sciences are discussed, and is using an arbitrary replication-less finding in the 'hard sciences' (this one) as a podium to speak from--regardless of why replication doesn't exist for it, or whether that reason makes sense.
        kelseyfrog 2y ago
        [flagged]
        kelseyfrog 2y ago
        Is it falsifiable? What is H_0 in this study?
        CRConrad 2y ago
        > Is it falsifiable? Rather obviously, I'd think, if someone else looks at similar samples and sees no "Obelisks" at all. Or looks at their samples. > What is H_0 in this study? "The stuff we're seeing here doesn't exist"? Or, IOW, "All the electron microscopes used have the same weird bug, showing obelisk-shaped pieces of RNA material where there really isn't anything at all"? Feels a bit like what you want is really "We were all high on funny mushrooms when we saw that". Look, I see from your other comments that you're actually not talking about this, but something else entirely. And you may well have a point there, but in order to make that point here, you would have had to come up with something a lot better than this. Because I'm fairly sure they weren't all high on funny mushrooms. Aren't you too, really?
    - ababaian 2y ago
      I hold no prejudice against the 'soft sciences', or for literature, or for music, or for athletics or for any other human pursuit which demands merit. I am genuinely curious as to how best to present the evidence. What would you like to see to tame your skeptic?
    - throwway120385 2y ago
      It's based on data gathered from scientific instruments that are well-characterized and whose results are validated by being used for other findings. They're not administering a questionnaire to someone's microbiome and doing sample statistics on the results. They found novel RNA sequences in microbiome sample data using well-understood and repeatable methods, and confirmed that the RNA sequences seem to exist. You can repeat the analysis yourself and make that determination. I think you're trying to draw a comparison here between two things of completely different category, and I feel like you might not understand how different they are.
      - ababaian 2y ago
        Don't be a dick. It's totally normal to be skeptical and doubtful of some over-the-top claims. The onus is squarely on the person presenting the information to justify it. Your points about replication are accurate, but let's at least keep it to a pretext of civility.
        samus 2y ago
        The claim is not over-the-top at all though. They did a survey of funny RNA sequences in gut samples and didn't find anything that links them to known sequence from other organisms. Nothing spectacular was claimed.
        throwway120385 2y ago
        I wasn't being a dick, I was being direct. It doesn't always come through online though.
    - JoelMcCracken 2y ago
      It’s such a different thing entirely, the question of replication doesn’t make sense. See my other comment. I think you’d be better served by trying to understand how psychological research has been done, why people go on about replication, what results are suspect from psych, and how they developed in the first place. Bc it seems like you’re trying to justify the actions in psych world by other disciplines, but it just doesn’t make sense.
      - kelseyfrog 2y ago
        [flagged]
        samus 2y ago
        The sequences they found are already in various databases and are not linked to any organisms we know. It's like discovering an interesting new insect in a national park. That's as different as it can be from psychological research. What is there to replicate?
    - gus_massa 2y ago
      Closer to "not yet". It's bleading edge scientific advance. Someone has to be the first. It's good to wait until replication and then 5 years to let the dust setle down. But if the research group had group had a good past history, it's better to trust them while the other teams verify.
    - dang 2y ago
      "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html No doubt there are valid concerns but the value of comments formed by internet clichés and dismissive tropes is... lower than what we want here. When it comes with a tone of entitled aggressiveness, that's even worse—that's enough to drive away the people who spend their lives working on a subject, and that would be the worst possible outcome for HN.
      - kelseyfrog 2y ago
        Thank you! I'll work on deeper dismissals

kelseyfrog 2y ago

And it's been replicated?

moralestapia 2y ago
It's using data from the Integrative Human Microbiome Project [1], so, in a sense, hundreds of high-quality biological replicas support their findings. Obelisks were found in a substantial portion of them. They then expanded the search to millions of sequences, which are publicly available, and found ~30k different classes(!) of Obelisk elements. One could argue that the quality of each of these "experiments" may not be as good as IHMP, but still, the signal is more than sufficient to clearly demonstrate the existence and implied significance of these elements. 1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31142853/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31142853/
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ababaian 2y ago
    What's your definition of replication?
    - kelseyfrog 2y ago
      The standard that people hold soft sciences to when they dismiss them. I'm starting to realize that this may be a justification of their prejudice against these fields rather than a legitimate basis for dismissal.
      - JoelMcCracken 2y ago
        So basically this study is “we looked at various publicly available data sets of information, and here is a thing we notice that has previously gone unnoticed”. The noticed it in multiple datasets. What would replication look like here besides someone else looking at the dataset and agreeing that they also see the curiosities? Or do you mean someone measuring a new fresh set of data and looking at it? Asking for replication in this case is surprising, because seemingly the entire value is to prompt other research to go figure out what’s going on with these things.
        niam 2y ago
        My reading is that the GP moreso takes issue with how social sciences are discussed, and is using an arbitrary replication-less finding in the 'hard sciences' (this one) as a podium to speak from--regardless of why replication doesn't exist for it, or whether that reason makes sense.
        kelseyfrog 2y ago
        [flagged]
        kelseyfrog 2y ago
        Is it falsifiable? What is H_0 in this study?
        CRConrad 2y ago
        > Is it falsifiable? Rather obviously, I'd think, if someone else looks at similar samples and sees no "Obelisks" at all. Or looks at their samples. > What is H_0 in this study? "The stuff we're seeing here doesn't exist"? Or, IOW, "All the electron microscopes used have the same weird bug, showing obelisk-shaped pieces of RNA material where there really isn't anything at all"? Feels a bit like what you want is really "We were all high on funny mushrooms when we saw that". Look, I see from your other comments that you're actually not talking about this, but something else entirely. And you may well have a point there, but in order to make that point here, you would have had to come up with something a lot better than this. Because I'm fairly sure they weren't all high on funny mushrooms. Aren't you too, really?
  - ababaian 2y ago
    I hold no prejudice against the 'soft sciences', or for literature, or for music, or for athletics or for any other human pursuit which demands merit. I am genuinely curious as to how best to present the evidence. What would you like to see to tame your skeptic?
  - throwway120385 2y ago
    It's based on data gathered from scientific instruments that are well-characterized and whose results are validated by being used for other findings. They're not administering a questionnaire to someone's microbiome and doing sample statistics on the results. They found novel RNA sequences in microbiome sample data using well-understood and repeatable methods, and confirmed that the RNA sequences seem to exist. You can repeat the analysis yourself and make that determination. I think you're trying to draw a comparison here between two things of completely different category, and I feel like you might not understand how different they are.
    - ababaian 2y ago
      Don't be a dick. It's totally normal to be skeptical and doubtful of some over-the-top claims. The onus is squarely on the person presenting the information to justify it. Your points about replication are accurate, but let's at least keep it to a pretext of civility.
      - samus 2y ago
        The claim is not over-the-top at all though. They did a survey of funny RNA sequences in gut samples and didn't find anything that links them to known sequence from other organisms. Nothing spectacular was claimed.
      - throwway120385 2y ago
        I wasn't being a dick, I was being direct. It doesn't always come through online though.
  - JoelMcCracken 2y ago
    It’s such a different thing entirely, the question of replication doesn’t make sense. See my other comment. I think you’d be better served by trying to understand how psychological research has been done, why people go on about replication, what results are suspect from psych, and how they developed in the first place. Bc it seems like you’re trying to justify the actions in psych world by other disciplines, but it just doesn’t make sense.
    - kelseyfrog 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - samus 2y ago
        The sequences they found are already in various databases and are not linked to any organisms we know. It's like discovering an interesting new insect in a national park. That's as different as it can be from psychological research. What is there to replicate?
  - gus_massa 2y ago
    Closer to "not yet". It's bleading edge scientific advance. Someone has to be the first. It's good to wait until replication and then 5 years to let the dust setle down. But if the research group had group had a good past history, it's better to trust them while the other teams verify.
  - dang 2y ago
    "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html No doubt there are valid concerns but the value of comments formed by internet clichés and dismissive tropes is... lower than what we want here. When it comes with a tone of entitled aggressiveness, that's even worse—that's enough to drive away the people who spend their lives working on a subject, and that would be the worst possible outcome for HN.
    - kelseyfrog 2y ago
      Thank you! I'll work on deeper dismissals