This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/03/frances-h-arnold-george-p-smith-and-gregory-p-winter-win-nobel-prize-in-chemistry

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Frances H Arnold, George P Smith and Gregory P Winter win Nobel prize in chemistry Frances H Arnold, George P Smith and Gregory P Winter win Nobel prize in chemistry
(about 1 hour later)
Three scientists have won the Nobel prize in chemistry for their work in harnessing evolution to produce new enzymes and antibodies.Three scientists have won the Nobel prize in chemistry for their work in harnessing evolution to produce new enzymes and antibodies.
British scientist Sir Gregory P Winter and Americans Frances H Arnold and George P Smith will share the 9m Swedish kronor (£770,000) prize, awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.British scientist Sir Gregory P Winter and Americans Frances H Arnold and George P Smith will share the 9m Swedish kronor (£770,000) prize, awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
The winners’ work has led to the development of new fuels and pharmaceuticals by making use of nature’s evolutionary processes themselves, leading to medical and environmental advances.The winners’ work has led to the development of new fuels and pharmaceuticals by making use of nature’s evolutionary processes themselves, leading to medical and environmental advances.
Half of the prize goes to Arnold, from the California Institute of Technology, for her work on directing the evolution of enzymes – proteins that speed up chemical reactions. In a nutshell, Arnold introduced genetic mutations into enzymes, and then looked to see what effect the mutations had. She then selected the cases where a particular mutation proved useful – for example, allowing the enzyme to work in a solvent it would otherwise not work in. The process can then be repeated, with further genetic mutations introduced into these selected enzymes. “This is a field that was waiting for a Nobel prize,” said Paul Dalby, professor of biochemical engineering and biotechnology at University College London.
The upshot is “directed evolution”, with Arnold’s work making it possible to cut out the use of many toxic catalysts, providing enzymes for all manner of fields, including the development of biofuels and the production of pharmaceuticals. Half of the prize goes to Arnold, from the California Institute of Technology, for her work on directing the evolution of enzymes – proteins that speed up chemical reactions. In a nutshell, Arnold introduced random genetic mutations into enzymes, and then looked to see what effect the mutations had. She then selected the cases where a particular mutation proved useful – for example allowing the enzyme to work in an environment, such as a solvent, it would otherwise not work in. The process can then be repeated, with further genetic mutations introduced into these selected enzymes.
The other half of the award goes to Winter and Smith, for their work on “phage display of peptides and antibodies.” A phage is a virus that can infect bacteria and trick them into reproducing it. Smith found that it was possible to tinker with the genetic material of a phage to change the molecules stuck on its outside. He realised this could be handy: for example, if it was not known what protein a particular gene gave rise to, the gene could be put into a phage and the mystery protein would appear on the surface and could be identified. It also meant scientists could introduce a whole host of unknown genes to phages and the see if any of them gave rise to proteins they already knew about, allowing them to work out which genes were responsible for which proteins. Arnold’s work has made it possible to cut out the use of many toxic catalysts, providing enzymes for all manner of fields including the development of biofuels and the production of pharmaceuticals.
. The approach has also opened the door for scientists to engineer phages bearing particular proteins in order to explore how those proteins might interact with particular targets. Winter used this technology to develop new drugs that have transformed medicine, offering therapies for diseases ranging from cancer to autoimmune conditions. “People were already using enzymes in industry but only ones they could find in nature that just happened to be good enough – but that was really not many and very problematic to get them to work in industry,” said Dalby. “When [Arnold] came along, now you can adapt your enzyme to work in an industrial environment, instead of in a cell where it is normally used to working.”
Arnold is only the fifth woman to be awarded the prize for chemistry – the last female scientist to scoop the award was Ada E Yonath in 2009, who shared the prize for her work on understanding the structure of ribosomes: the protein-manufacturing structures inside cells. “Ultimately what it does it take natural evolution’s billion-year process or million-year process down into what is now probably less than a week,” he said.
Upon being indicted into the US National Inventors Hall of Fame in 2004, Arnold said: “25 years ago, it was considered the lunatic fringe. Scientists didn’t do that. Gentlemen didn’t do that. But since I’m an engineer and not a gentleman, I had no problem with that.” The other half of the award goes to Winter and Smith, for their work on “phage display of peptides and antibodies.” A phage is a virus that can infect bacteria and trick them into reproducing it. Smith, of the University of Missouri, found that it was possible to tinker with the genetic material of a phage to change the molecules stuck on its outside. He realised this could be handy: for example, if it was not known what protein a particular gene gave rise to, the gene could be put into a phage and the mystery protein would appear on the surface and could be identified. It also meant scientists could introduce a whole host of unknown genes to phages and the see if any of them gave rise to proteins they already knew about, allowing them to work out which genes were responsible for which proteins.
Prof Carol Robinson, president of the Royal Society of Chemistry, said the award highlighted “the tremendous role of chemistry in contributing to many areas of our lives including pharmaceuticals, detergents, green catalysis and biofuels” and that the research was “transforming medicine”.” The approach has also opened the door for scientists to engineer phages bearing specific proteins in order to explore how these might interact with particular targets. Winter’s work focused on genetically tweaking phages so that they produced antibodies on their surface – more specifically, the part of an antibody that attaches to other molecules. This meant he could screen them to find antibodies with the best interactions with other molecules or even cells..
The result has been new drugs that have transformed medicine, offering therapies for diseases ranging from cancer to autoimmune conditions. Among them is adalimumab, an antibody-based drug used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease.
“Nearly every modern therapy now is an antibody, based on using things like phage display,” said Dalby. “It is utterly pioneering, and if George Smith hadn’t done the phage display in the first place it would never have happened.”
In an interview in 2016, Winter confessed to his first cancer patient that he had no idea if the antibody therapy would work. She said: “It only has to buy me a couple of months … my husband is dying and I want to be with him when he dies.” In fact, the therapy was hugely successful and “a massive tumour was blown away,” Winter said. His win brings the total number of Nobel prizes won by researchers at the Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge to 12.
Arnold is only the fifth woman to be awarded the prize for chemistry. Upon being inducted into the US National Inventors Hall of Fame in 2004, she said: “25 years ago, it was considered the lunatic fringe. Scientists didn’t do that. Gentlemen didn’t do that. But since I’m an engineer and not a gentleman, I had no problem with that.”
Smith paid tribute to his predecessors in the field. “Very few research breakthroughs are novel,” he told the Associated Press. “Virtually all of them build on what went on before. It’s happenstance. That was certainly the case with my work. Mine was an idea in a line of research that built very naturally on the lines of research that went before.”
On Monday, James Allison and Tasuku Honjo won the 2018 medicine Nobel for their work on harnessing the immune system to combat cancer, and on Tuesday the physics prize was shared between Arthur Ashkin, Gérard Mourou and Donna Strickland for their work on laser physics.On Monday, James Allison and Tasuku Honjo won the 2018 medicine Nobel for their work on harnessing the immune system to combat cancer, and on Tuesday the physics prize was shared between Arthur Ashkin, Gérard Mourou and Donna Strickland for their work on laser physics.
The peace prize winner will be announced on Friday, followed by economics on Monday. The literature award is not being given this year after a scandal that resulted in a rape conviction earlier this week.The peace prize winner will be announced on Friday, followed by economics on Monday. The literature award is not being given this year after a scandal that resulted in a rape conviction earlier this week.
More details soon …
Nobel prizesNobel prizes
ChemistryChemistry
People in sciencePeople in science
Science prizesScience prizes
Medical researchMedical research
newsnews
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on Google+Share on Google+
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content