@vf #233

@vf #233

Fleury,

I know that :

We’ve been watching cells move (or not move) in embryos for a long, long time. There are no vortices of cell movement centering around the navel. Period.

Your model claim four counterrotating vortices centered around the navel. You failed to make your point by simply displaying them, since August 18, 2007 when I first tried to understand how those vortices could specify the limbs fields, as you also claim. That I know.

That’s a minor point concerning your model and your claims that :

The pattern of tetrapods exist in the platonician space of forms, just like the sphere. You can write its essence without evolutionnary arguments.

But it makes clear how you deal with reality, through the distorting lens of what boils down as an ideological a priori.

Your paper contain other examples of this particular behavior. Including inexistent data driven conclusions. Falsely reported results of colleagues. Imaginary correlations. Etc. How much do you think it takes for someone to decide to not take you seriously anymore? IMO you crossed the threshold by several orders of magnitude, several times.

It’s so easy to prove you wrong that I suspect the only support you can get is through ideologically related people (this includes Jean Staune, the “neolamarckian structuralist neo-creationist approaches from our local, Templeton Foundation supported, anti-Darwin bigot I was talking about”) or your Ecole Polytechnique centered network.
My guess: you will get more and more of the first type and less and less of the second one if you persist to follow your actual line of conduct.

You continuously and mostly inappropriately use the words “misconduct” and “defamatory“. I wonder how you qualify your way to deal with scientific critics by trying to silence them: by addressing their boss, or trying to shut down their blog (in my case), or threatening to sue them, instead of proving your point of view as one could expect from a scientist.

You sent, some time ago, an e-mail to my boss, hoping to silence me. Your message went down the drain (his computer’s trash actually) after he sent me a copy; which you didn’t judged convenient to do.
You have done the same for PZ Myers and people laugh at you and that’s the normal way things go, fortunately.
Maybe sometime you will learn that the hierarchical superiors may interfere with stuff on the web servers of the university, or letters with their lab’s address but not any private activity of their staff. You should have addressed your letter to the Scienceblogs editor, not the dean of the UMM.

In the past you have tried to distort what was said concerning your model and made me publish part of private messages to prove you wrong. You have also tried to rephrase what I have said, to make it sound favorable to your claims. You have done that again in your recent comment I’m answering here:

In addition, you aggregate with Mr Oldcola, who knows perfectly well that tehre are vortices.

.
I really don’t appreciate this and if you continue on the same line I’ll reconsider the proposal of Nerd of Redhead to contact your superiors at the MSC lab and university. Not to make it stop by asking them to use their authority, just to be sure that your cercle vertueux des laboratoires is aware of the kind of person you are and the way you act.

I’ll put my appreciation of your hypothesis and your ideological drives, clearly stated here, so you will be able in the future to link to it – using one of your favorite expressions:

bullshit; a big pile of stinking bullshit

and this applies particularly to your cteappv paper. The editorial board of EPJ should be ashamed to have accept it for publication.

Hope that this is clear enough. Grab the URL and use it as necessary.

Your comments always welcome will be published after copy was sent to Dr di Meglio.

Advertisements

time is telling

A few days ago Dr Fleury wrote me a quite short message, with just the subject line “time is telling” and a paper attached :

Who moves whom during primitive streak formation in the chick embryo, Manli Chuai and Cornelis J. Weijer, HFSP J. 2009 April; 3(2): 71–76. Published online 2009 March 31. doi: 10.2976/1.3103933.

Continue reading

comment

Just posted this to Pharyngula at the “An ontogeny of toilet drain behavior” thread


Very nice from Dr Fleury to finally inform us of what L2/R2 could be. Never late to do well. The funny thing is that he commented here but haven’t send me a message about it! That’s weird. I’m asking for evidence concerning L2R2 since august 2007.

Let’s see what we have here anyway.

The first pair of vortices Fleury claims as R1L1 are shown by CuiC et al [Dev Biol. 2005 Aug 1;284(1):37-47. doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2005.04.021, during stages ~1-3+.

For more than 2 years the presence of the R2L2 vortices was assumed to be visible during the same developmental period and modeled as the result of a single phenomenon.

The second pair of vortices Fleury claims as R2L2, presumably shown here, are situated between stages ~8-9+. They traveled in time!

Assuming that we have evidence for R2L2, the model presented by Fleury describing simultaneously the two pairs, R1L1 and R2L2, must be wrong and he should recall his paper (doi: 10.1051/epjap/2009033) and clarify this point (along with correcting everything else) before submitting it again.

Unfortunately, it seem’s that the cell trajectories are manually spotted, the green color must not mislead anybody to confuse it as GFP expression, which is the case with Weijer’s lab experiments. Manual spotting is not the best technique to follow a particular cell population during a process where everything is moving in 3D. Not even ink or membrane dyes were used!

The first gif file even as annotated by Fleury don’t show any vortex.

The second gif file is even worse, it is obvious that the 2D depiction of the vortices is just false, sorry Dr Fleury, the cells/tissues movement is in 3D, you can’t just get a projection in 2D and try to make it look as you would like it to be. This seems to be a recurrent problem. The animation starts when the 8th pair of somites is forming at stage 9+, always faraway in time.

Let me summarize Dr Fleury:

IF those are the R2L2, the vortices contributing to the formation of the hindlimbs THEN

the previous positioning at stages 1 through 3+ was false, as I have argued the last 2+ years

AND

the published models are false [cteappv (2009) & epmag (2005)]

AND that have nothing to do anymore with a 2D flow you claim to be at the origin of the tetrapods.

Now, we don’t really think we have evidence from a 2D manual projection of a 3D moving structure, in the absence of a tissular marker.

And I wonder what you will prefer, drop your model which assumes a (almost) 2D cellular layer and a hyperbolic flow forming simultaneously the four vortices, or try to get more consistent evidence (if any available).

geometry

I’m greek and during my young years I was feed a lot of geometry. You know how it is, national pride for the ancestors, especially under a military junta. So, I’m quite sensible when one presents geometrical problems incorrectly.

My very first objection concerning Fleury’s model1 was that he described the epiblast cells as contained between two extracellular membranes. When I pointed that his only response was that if there is a single basal membrane that doesn’t affect his model, the flow would be just faster. From that point on you can’t trust the guy with any description.

Continue reading

help a fellow hang himself

A funny side-effect of PZ Myers “An ontogeny of toilet drain behavior” was to bring Fleury’s theory within the range of one of the famous crackpot detectors, Suzan Mazur.

Continue reading

Quite clear

This is an excerpt from Flery’s paper, p16, column 1.

However, Popperl et al.’s article deals mostly with the role of lazarus in the cranial (hindbrain and anterior trunk) compartment, (especially it shows how pbx genes participate in the regulatory loop of hox genes needed to specify rhombomere boundaries in the hindbrain) and when coming to limbs gives the same evidence that Tbx5 triggers forelimb outgrowth, since lzr-/- zebrafish do not show fin rudiments at all, and no Tbx5 staining. There is no rationale about limb positioning, apart from a correlation between absence of lazarus, and absence of fins. Especially, it is quite clear that the fin rudiments appear as round balls on the side of the flanks (Fig. 6. I in Ref. [80]). No mechanistic explanation is given of how a collinear series of genes along the neural crest might induce lateral formation of roundish masses of cells (the fin precursor). Popperl’s et al. article deals with deletion of hoxb-5 and hoxb-6 genes, and shows only a very modest shift of the shoulder girdle of about one or at most two vertebrae, when hoxb-5 genes are deleted and no mechanistic explanation. It is difficult to understand from this work in what respect hoxb-5 might be related to limb “positioning”, since when totally absent, there is a normal limb, which is “positioned” by something, and the position is almost normal, except that it is slightly shifted from the wild type.

It discuss material from “Lazarus Is a Novel pbx Gene that Globally Mediates hox Gene Function in Zebrafish”, a paper authored by Heike Pöpperl, Holly Rikhof, Heather Cheng, Pascal Haffter, Charles B. Kimmel and Cecilia B. Moens, and published in Molecular Cell, Volume 6, Issue 2, August 2000, Pages 255-267, doi:10.1016/S1097-2765(00)00027-7.

Continue reading

I was wrong

Well, I was dead wrong in fact, when a few weeks ago I was writing:

What embryology textbooks our physicist have consulted that doesn’t give the origin of the mesoderm and the subdivisions of the mesodermal plate to paraxial, intermediary and lateral? He should give us the name(s) of the book(s) to avoid it(them).

Continue reading