Friend or foe? A Venus flytrap knows

Charles Darwin once called the Venus flytrap the most wonderful plant in the world—but he offered no explanation for how the fascinating little carnivore, which needs insects for both pollination and its next meal, could have evolved through natural selection.

Researchers at North Carolina State University recently discovered more evidence of intelligent design in the plants: They can somehow distinguish which insects serve as their pollinators and which are prey, and they don’t eat pollinating insects.

The study adds to a growing body of evidence of advanced functioning in plants that Darwinian evolution does not predict or explain. Scientists have learned recently that plants can tailor their growth patterns to light conditions and attract bees by reflecting blue light around their leaves. They even found an ancient tree that developed its own vascular system.

In the study of Venus flytraps, which are native only to a small coastal area of the Carolinas, researchers learned that the green sweat bee and two types of beetles constituted the plant’s chief pollinators. When they retrieved prey from the flytraps, they found a variety of spiders, beetles, and ants, but none of the pollinator species, despite their prevalence on the blossoms.

The researchers guessed that the flowers, growing on top of high stems, might attract pollinating insects that fly, while the lower-growing snares of the plant attract more crawling bugs. They discovered that 87 percent of the insects collected from the blossoms could fly, but only 20 percent of the prey could.

“The pollinator species may simply be staying above the danger zone as they go from flower to flower, making them less likely to be eaten,” Elsa Youngsteadt, lead author of the study said. Also, the flowers and the traps, which differ in color, may lure different insect species.

Youngsteadt noted it takes a “fascinating suite of traits” for this plant to carry on different interactions with pollinators and prey.

“An evolutionist might speculate that nature selected the plants that treat their pollinators kindly, but how can a blind plant know the difference?” asked intelligent design proponent David Coppedge on the Creation and Evolution Headlines blog.

Ronald Levy (left) and Idit Sagiv-Barfi, scientists at Stanford University who worked on a possible cancer vaccine Stanford University/Photo by Steve Fisch

Lab-created stem cells used in potential cancer vaccine

Stanford University researchers just developed a possible vaccine for certain types of cancer using lab-created stem cells. Just like embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) can become nearly any cell in the body, but their creation does not require killing an embryo.

In the study, which appears in the journal Cell Stem Cell, the scientists made iPSCs from the cells of 75 mice, inactivated the cells with radiation, and then injected them back into the animals. Within four weeks, 70 percent of the mice completely rejected new breast cancer cells, and the other 30 percent developed significantly smaller tumors. The vaccine also prevented relapse in mice with previously removed tumors.

Cancer cells and iPSCs carry many of the same antigens, molecules on the surface of a cell that provoke the immune system to produce antibodies. When the researchers injected the iPSCs into the mice, the animals’ systems launched a robust immune response against the cells’ antigens. Because of the similarity between iPSC antigens and those found on cancer cells, the animals simultaneously constructed an immune response against the cancer.

The success of the treatment exceeded the scientists’ expectations.

“What surprised us most was the effectiveness of the iPSC vaccine in re-activating the immune system to target cancer,” lead author Joseph Wu said in a statement. “This approach may have clinical potential to prevent tumor recurrence or target distant metastases.” —J.B

Ronald Levy (left) and Idit Sagiv-Barfi, scientists at Stanford University who worked on a possible cancer vaccine Stanford University/Photo by Steve Fisch

Gene editing therapy tested in second patient

Two recent studies involving gene modification in monkeys and piglets raised concerns about the experimental technique when some of the animals developed serious, irreversible liver complications. But doctors in California just completed a second human trial with no serious side effects so far.

In November, doctors for the first time treated a man suffering from a metabolic disease called Hunter syndrome with a gene-editing method. When the patient tolerated the treatment well, the doctors gained approval to go ahead and treat a second man with the same disease. The second patient suffered dizziness, cold sweats, and weakness four days after the treatment, but the symptoms of the disease abated after a day.

James Wilson, the gene therapy scientist who conducted the animal studies, said the animals received a much higher dose of modified cells than human patients would, and he does not believe the animal research poses a cause for concern.

The treatment, which involves injecting the patient with many copies of a corrected gene along with a genetic tool to put it in a precise spot on the DNA, permanently alters the DNA.

Sangamo Therapeutics, the company that makes the gene-editing tool, will now test it for treatment of two other metabolic diseases and hemophilia, a bleeding disorder. —J.B.

Electronic skin acts like the real thing

Researchers just developed pliable electronic skin, known as e-skin, that can heal itself and mimic the function and properties of human tissue, according to a paper published in the journal Science Advances.

The researchers embedded the e-skin with sensors that can detect and measure pressure, temperature, humidity, and airflow. The thin, translucent material easily conforms to curved surfaces like human arms or robotic hands. The researchers envision many applications for the patches, ranging from robots that can detect tactile sensations to improved prosthetic devices. —J.B.