Nobel Laureates In Physiology Research Articles

Trajectories of biomedical research leading to Nobel Prize-winning discoveries.

Significant advancements in public health come from scientific discoveries, but more are needed to meet the ever-growing societal needs. Examining the best practices of outstanding scientists may help develop future researchers and lead to more discoveries. This study compared the comprehensive work of 49 Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine from 2000 to 2019 to a matched control of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded biomedical investigators. Our unique data set, comprising 11,737 publications, 571 US patents, and 1693 NIH research awards produced by pre-Nobel laureates, was compared to a similar data set of control researchers. Compared to control researchers, pre-Nobel laureates produce significantly more publications annually (median = 5.66; interquartile range [IQR] = 5.16); significantly fewer coauthors per publication (median = 3.32; IQR = 1.95); consistently higher Journal Impact Factor publications (median = 12.04; IQR = 6.83); and substantially more patents per researcher (median = 5; IQR = 14). Such differences arose from nearly identical cumulative NIH award budgets of pre-Nobel laureates (median $25.3M) and control researchers. Nobel laureates are neither hyper-prolific (>72 papers per year) nor hyper-funded (>$100M cumulative). An academic age-specific trajectory graph allows aspiring researchers to compare their productivity and collaboration patterns to those of pre-Nobel laureates.

Svante Pääbo's paleogenomics results in the context of post-academic transformations of modern technoscience (strokes to the portrait of the Nobel laureate in the socio-cultural context)

The studies of Svante Pääbo, Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine in 2022 are analyzed in two aspects: firstly, as the most striking example of the evolutionary transformation of classical science into the so-called post-academic (techno)science and, secondly, as an element of the so-called "biopolitical turn" in the socio-humanitarian and political knowledge of technological civilization and, in particular, in the concept of "civil society".

Profile of David Julius and Ardem Patapoutian: 2021 Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine

Three apparently unrelated findings led to the discovery of the temperature receptors: a better understanding of pain-sensing, the molecular nature of the channels in charge of touch and proprioception, and the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine bestowed to David Julius and Ardem Patapoutian. In 1953, state-of-the-art research in temperature sensing concluded that temperature afferent fibers came in two flavors, “cold” and “warm,” characterized by discharging by a lowering in temperature and an increase in temperature, respectively (1). Hensel and Zotterman had previously described the sensitizing effect of menthol upon cold receptors (2). It is also an old observation that acute application of capsaicin, the active component of chili peppers, causes intense pain, and that its repeated administration renders animals insensitive to the action of this vanilloid compound (3). The fact that capsaicin induces a depolarization of ventral root neurons from the isolated rat spinal cord suggested to Theriault et al. (4) that capsaicin’s acute and chronic effects on nociception could be explained by a direct action on primary sensory neurons. On the other hand, McCarter et al. (5) demonstrated the existence of mechanosensitive currents in rat dorsal root ganglion (DRG) cells, clearly pointing to the existence of mechanosensitive ion channels as being responsible for the sense of touch. David Julius. Image credit: University of California, San Francisco. Since temperature is an “intensive” thermodynamic parameter (i.e., one that does not depend on the size of the system), it was difficult to think of specialized temperature receptors. However, the seminal 1997 Nature paper from Julius’ laboratory demonstrated that living beings have evolved to transduce all stimuli coming from the external world using ion channels, including temperature (6). Caterina et al. (6) used an expression cloning strategy to search for the capsaicin receptor and found a single clone in which capsaicin induced a significant … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: ramon.latorre{at}uv.cl. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1

Baltimore Wins Lasker-Koshland Award.

The Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation has bestowed its prestigious Lasker-Koshland Award for Special Achievement in Medical Science upon David Baltimore, PhD, president emeritus and distinguished professor of biology at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, and 1975 Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine, calling him "one of the premier biomedical scientists of the last five decades."

William "Bill" Joseph Whelan, D.Sc., FRS November 14, 1924 to June 5, 2021.

William "Bill" Joseph Whelan, D.Sc., FRS November 14, 1924 to June 5, 2021.

Neuroscience history interview with Professor Bert Sakmann, Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine (1991), Max Planck Society, Germany

ABSTRACT Dr. Bert Sakmann (b. 1942) studied at the Universities of Tuebingen, Freiburg, Berlin, Paris, and Munich, graduating in 1967. Much of his professional life has been spent in various institutes of the Max Planck Society. In 1971, a British Council Fellowship took him to the Department of Biophysics of University College London to work with Bernard Katz (1911–2003). In 1974, he obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Goettingen and, with Erwin Neher (b. 1944) at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, began work that would transform cellular biology and neuroscience, resulting in the 1991 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. In 2008, Dr. Sakmann returned to Munich, where he headed the research group “Cortical Columns in Silico” at the Max Planck Institute of Neurobiology in Martinsried. Here, their group discovered the cell-type specific sensory activation patterns in different layers of a column in the vibrissal area of rodents’ somatosensory cortices.

Institutional environments and breakthroughs in science. Comparison of France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Scientific and/or technical breakthroughs require the exploration of novel ideas and technologies. Yet, it has not been studied quantitatively how national institutional contexts either facilitate or stifle organizational support for exploration. Available qualitative evidence suggests that institutional contexts that exert weak control over universities and research organizations strengthen their capabilities to achieve scientific breakthroughs, while contexts with strong control constrain them. The paper is based on an analysis of the population of Nobel laureates in Physics, Chemistry and Physiology or Medicine. We examine to what extent existing qualitative findings for the biomedical sciences, which are partly based on Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine, can be substantiated both quantitatively and across the three Nobel Prize fields of science. We find that for most of the 20th century and the early 21st century, countries with weak institutional control (United Kingdom, United States) have outperformed those exerting strong control (France, Germany). These results are further corroborated when controlled by population sizes and by GDP per capita. In addition, these results hold not only for the biomedical sciences, but also for Physics and Chemistry. Furthermore, countries with weak institutional control have attracted many future Nobel laureates from countries with strong environments. In this regard, the United States appears to be a particularly attractive setting for conducting innovative research, and thus has been a magnet for young and promising scientists. However, future laureates working in institutional environments exerting weak control are not faster in accomplishing their prize-winning work compared to those laureates working in more restrictive institutional settings.

Donald A. B. Lindberg (1933-2019).

Visionary medical informaticist who laid the groundwork for PubMed

SPOTLIGHTS

Geoffrey Ball and his Innovation: VIBRANT SOUNDBRIDGE Hearing Implant. Interviews with Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine. Talk about Over-the-Counter (OTC) Medicines and Self-Care.

Global Action against Dementia Call for Innovations

With the fast-growing aging population, dementia has become a health priority. However, in the past, medicine was largely dealing with physical disorders, and not enough knowledge and experience have been accumulated for mental health. The main and first symptom of this disorder is the loss of memory; hence, understanding the hippocampal formation is the key to tackling dementia. In 2007, a milestone book titled “Hippocampus Book” was published. One of the authors/editors is the 2014 Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, Professor John O'Keefe. It is a MUST-READ encyclopedia about the hippocampal formation, for those who wish to commit themselves to helping the patients with dementia. The formation consists of the hippocampus, entorhinal cortex, subiculum, presubiculum, parasubiculum, and dentate gyrus. The hippocampus is further divided into CA1, CA2, and CA3. The entorhinal cortex is the gateway of receiving all sensory information from the neocortex, while the subiculum is the exit for the efferent projections to the neocortex. Memory is divided into short-term and long-term memory. The former does not require protein synthesis while the latter does. The electrophysiological activities of creating these memories are short-term potentiation and long-term potentiation respectively. In most cases, the entorhinal cortex is the first structure to be damaged, and even short-term memory cannot be created. However, all except spatial memory are stored in the neocortex. Damage to the hippocampal formation would not affect the storage and retrieval of memories. Hence, past memories may remain intact in the early phases of the disorder. This devastating progressive disease has no cure. However, the highly plastic hippocampal formation may offer us some hope. It is the responsibility of the pharmaceutical industries to develop new drugs. Clinicians should add their efforts to the endeavor. The author would suggest that they explore insulin-like growth factors, brain stimulation, cell transplantation, and animal-assisted therapy to find some innovative solutions to help patients with dementia. As the current status of neuroscience stands, the animal-assisted therapy seems to stand out among all methods. It alleviates symptoms and stabilizes the ailment.

Who can get the next Nobel Prize in infectious diseases?

The aim of this paper is to deliver a perspective on future Nobel prizes by reviewing the features of Nobel prizes awarded in the infectious diseases-related (IDR) field over the last 115 years. Thirty-three out of 106 Nobel prizes (31%) in Physiology or Medicine have been awarded for IDR topics. Out of 58 Nobel laureates for IDR topics, two have been female; 67% have been medical doctors. The median age of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine was found to be lower than the median age of laureates in Literature (p<0.001). Since the Second World War, US-affiliated scientists have dominated the Nobel prizes (53%); however before 1945, German scientists did so (p=0.005). The new antimicrobials received Nobel prizes until 1960; however no treatment study was awarded the Prize until the discovery of artemisinin and ivermectin, for which the Nobel Prize was awarded in 2015. Collaborative works have increasingly been appreciated. In the future, more female laureates would be expected in the IDR field. Medical graduates and scientists involved in multi-institutional and multidisciplinary collaborative efforts seem to have an advantage.

Analysis for Science Librarians of the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine: The Life and Work of William C. Campbell, Satoshi Ōmura, and Youyou Tu

ABSTRACTParasites affect humans worldwide with varying degrees of seriousness. Some of the most impactful parasitic infections affect millions of people, many of whom are already impoverished and struggling. The discoveries of the 2015 Nobel Laureates in Physiology of Medicine have changed the way some of these serious parasitic infections are treated, saving and improving the lives of countless people. These Laureates are William C. Campbell, Satoshi Ōmura, and Youyou Tu.

Do Nobel Laureates Create Prize-Winning Networks? An Analysis of Collaborative Research in Physiology or Medicine.

Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine who received the Prize between 1969 and 2011 are compared to a matched group of scientists to examine productivity, impact, coauthorship and international collaboration patterns embedded within research networks. After matching for research domain, h-index, and year of first of publication, we compare bibliometric statistics and network measures. We find that the Laureates produce fewer papers but with higher average citations. The Laureates also produce more sole-authored papers both before and after winning the Prize. The Laureates have a lower number of coauthors across their entire careers than the matched group, but are equally collaborative on average. Further, we find no differences in international collaboration patterns. The Laureates coauthor network reveals significant differences from the non-Laureate network. Laureates are more likely to build bridges across a network when measuring by average degree, density, modularity, and communities. Both the Laureate and non-Laureate networks have “small world” properties, but the Laureates appear to exploit “structural holes” by reaching across the network in a brokerage style that may add social capital to the network. The dynamic may be making the network itself highly attractive and selective. These findings suggest new insights into the role "star scientists" in social networks and the production of scientific discoveries.

Close to the edge: co-authorship proximity of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine, 1991–2010, to cross-disciplinary brokers

Between 1991 and 2010, 45 scientists were honored with Nobel prizes in Physiology or Medicine. It is shown that these 45 Nobel laureates are separated, on average, by at most 2.8 co-authorship steps from at least one cross-disciplinary broker, defined as a researcher who has published co-authored papers both in some biomedical discipline and in some non-biomedical discipline. If Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine and their immediate collaborators can be regarded as forming the intuitive "center" of the biomedical sciences, then at least for this 20-year sample of Nobel laureates, the center of the biomedical sciences within the co-authorship graph of all of the sciences is closer to the edges of multiple non-biomedical disciplines than typical biomedical researchers are to each other.

Analysis for Science Librarians of the 2014 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine: The Life and Work of John O’Keefe, Edvard Moser, and May-Britt Moser

Navigation and awareness of space is a complicated cognitive process that requires sensory input and calculation, as well as spatial memory. The 2014 Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine, John O’Keefe, Edvard Moser, and May-Britt Moser, have worked to explain how an environmental map forms and is used in the brain (Nobelprize.org 2014b). O’Keefe discovered place cells that allow the brain to learn and remember specific locations. The Mosers added the second part of the “positioning system in the brain” with their discovery of grid cells, which provide the brain with a navigational coordinate system (Nobelprize.org 2014b).

I.P. PAVLOV - THE NOBEL LAUREATE IN RECOGNITION OF HIS WORK ON THE PHYSIOLOGY OF DIGESTION

The 165th birthday of a prominent Russian physiologist, academician Ivan Petrovich Pavlov is to be marked in September 2014. Hitherto, I.P. Pavlov is the only Nobel laureate in physiology or medicine in recognition for the work conducted in Russia (Nobel Prize winners I.I. Mechnikov, S.A. Waksman, and I.R. Prigozhin worked abroad).

Meet This Year's Nobel Laureates in Physiology and Medicine

Meet This Year's Nobel Laureates in Physiology and Medicine

All Roads Lead to Neuroscience: The 2013 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Numerous metaphors have been employed to describe the achievements of the 2013 Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine, James E. Rothman, Randy W. Schekman, and Thomas C. Südhof, who were honored for "their discoveries of machinery regulating vesicle traffic, a major transport system in our cells." Most of these metaphors referred to the mundane issue of business logistics, and there is probably no other cell type in which the logistics problem is more pressing than in neurons.

Analysis for Science Librarians of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine: The Work of J.E. Rothman, R.W. Schekman, and T.C. Südhof

The traffic inside a single cell has been described as “… complicated as rush hour near any metropolitan area” (Howard Hughes Medical Institute 2013a). What this year’s three winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine have done is describe how molecules are able to read molecular traffic signs, enabling them to navigate the heavy intracellular traffic—a fundamental process in cellular physiology (Howard Hughes Medical Institute 2013a). This article gives an overview of the work of James Rothman, Randy Schekman, and Thomas Südhof, the 2013 Nobel laureates in Physiology and Medicine.

Emerging menu options for gonadal reincarnation

Emerging menu options for gonadal reincarnation