Francis Galton’s regression towards mediocrity and the stability of types

A prevalent narrative locates the discovery of the statistical phenomenon of regression to the mean in the work of Francis Galton. It is claimed that after 1885, Galton came to explain the fact that offspring deviated less from the mean value of the population than their parents did as a population-level statistical phenomenon and not as the result of the processes of inheritance. Arguing against this claim, we show that Galton did not explain regression towards mediocrity statistically, and did not give up on his ideas regarding an inheritance process that caused offspring to revert to the mean. While the common narrative focuses almost exclusively on Galton’s statistics, our arguments emphasize the anthropological and biological questions that Galton addressed. Galton used regression towards mediocrity to support the claim that some biological types were more stable than others and hence were resistant to evolutionary change. This view had implications concerning both natural selection and eugenics. The statistical explanation attributed to Galton appeared later, during the biometrician-mutationist debate in the early 1900s. It was in the context of this debate and specifically by the biometricians, that the development of the statistical explanation was originally attributed to Galton.     

TNF-induced necroptosis and PARP-1-mediated necrosis represent distinct routes to programmed necrotic cell death

Programmed necrosis is important in many (patho)physiological settings. For specific therapeutic intervention, however, a better knowledge is required whether necrosis occurs through one single “core program” or through several independent pathways. Previously, the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) pathway has been suggested as a crucial element of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-mediated necroptosis. Here, we show that TNF-induced necroptosis and the PARP pathway represent distinct and independent routes to programmed necrosis. First, DNA-alkylating agents such as 1-methyl-3-nitro-1-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG) or methyl methanesulfonate rapidly activate the PARP pathway, whereas this is a late and secondary event in TNF-induced necroptosis. Second, inhibition of the PARP pathway does not protect against TNF-induced necroptosis, e.g., the PARP-1 inhibitor 3-AB prevented MNNG- but not TNF-induced adenosine-5′-triposphate depletion, translocation of apoptosis-inducing factor, and necrosis. Likewise, olaparib, a more potent and selective PARP-1 inhibitor failed to block TNF-induced necroptosis, identical to knockdown/knockout of PARP-1, pharmacologic and genetic interference with c-Jun N-terminal kinases and calpain/cathepsin proteases as further components of the PARP pathway. Third, interruption of TNF-induced necroptosis by interference with ceramide generation, RIP1 or RIP3 function or by the radical scavenger butylated hydroxyanisole did not prevent programmed necrosis through the PARP pathway. In summary, our results suggest that the currently established role of the PARP pathway in TNF-induced necroptosis needs to be revised, with consequences for the design of future therapeutic strategies.