Bioethics is an important aspect of the core competency of biology of understanding the relationship between science and society, but because of the controversial nature of the topics covered in bioethics courses, different groups of students may experience identity conflicts or discomfort when learning about them. However, no previous studies have investigated the impact of undergraduate bioethics students’ experiences in bioethics courses on their opinions and comfort. To fill this gap in knowledge, we investigated undergraduate bioethics students’ attitudes about and comfort when learning abortion, gene editing, and physician assisted suicide, as well as how their gender, religious, and political identity influence their attitudes and changes in their attitudes after instruction. We found that religious students were less supportive of gene editing, abortion, and physician assisted suicide than nonreligious students, non-liberal students were less supportive of abortion and physician assisted suicide than liberal students, and women were less supportive of abortion than men. Additionally, we found that religious students were less comfortable than nonreligious students when learning about gene editing, abortion, and physician assisted suicide, and non-liberal students were less comfortable than liberal students when learning about abortion. When asked how their comfort could have been improved, those who felt that their peers or instructors could have done something to increase their comfort most commonly cited that including additional unbiased materials or incorporating materials and discussions that cover both sides of every controversial issue would have helped them to feel more comfortable when learning about gene editing, abortion, and physician assisted suicide. Finally, we found that students who were less comfortable learning about abortion and physician assisted suicide were less likely to participate in discussions regarding those topics. Our findings show that students in different groups not only tend to have different support for controversial topics like gene editing, abortion, and physician assisted suicide, but they also feel differentially comfortable when learning about them, which in turn impacts their participation. We hope that this work helps instructors to recognize the importance of their students’ comfort to their learning in bioethics courses, and from this study, they can take away the knowledge that students feel their comfort could be most improved by the incorporation of additional inclusive materials and course discussions regarding the controversial topics covered in the course.

Background: Chemistry and particularly enzymology at surfaces is a topic of rapidly growing interest, both in terms of its role in biological systems and its application in biocatalysis. Existing protein immobilization approaches, including noncovalent or covalent attachments to solid supports, have difficulties in controlling protein orientation, reducing nonspecific absorption and preventing protein denaturation. New strategies for enzyme immobilization are needed that allow the precise control over orientation and position and thereby provide optimized activity.

Methodology/Principal Findings: A method is presented for utilizing peptide ligands to immobilize enzymes on surfaces with improved enzyme activity and stability. The appropriate peptide ligands have been rapidly selected from high-density arrays and when desirable, the peptide sequences were further optimized by single-point variant screening to enhance both the affinity and activity of the bound enzyme. For proof of concept, the peptides that bound to β-galactosidase and optimized its activity were covalently attached to surfaces for the purpose of capturing target enzymes. Compared to conventional methods, enzymes immobilized on peptide-modified surfaces exhibited higher specific activity and stability, as well as controlled protein orientation.

Conclusions/Significance: A simple method for immobilizing enzymes through specific interactions with peptides anchored on surfaces has been developed. This approach will be applicable to the immobilization of a wide variety of enzymes on surfaces with optimized orientation, location and performance, and provides a potential mechanism for the patterned self-assembly of multiple enzymes on surfaces.

Vegetarian diets are associated with factors that may not support bone health, such as low body mass and low intakes of protein; yet, these diets are alkaline, a factor that favors bone mineral density (BMD). This study compared the correlates of BMD in young, non-obese adults consuming meat-based (n = 27), lacto-ovo vegetarian (n = 27), or vegan (n = 28) diets for ≥1 year. A 24 h diet recall, whole body DXA scan, 24 h urine specimen, and fasting blood sample were collected from participants. BMD did not differ significantly between groups. Protein intake was reduced ~30% in individuals consuming lacto-ovo and vegan diets as compared to those consuming meat-based diets (68 ± 24, 69 ± 29, and 97 ± 47 g/day respectively, p = 0.006); yet dietary protein was only associated with BMD for those following vegan diets. Urinary pH was more alkaline in the lacto-ovo and vegan groups versus omnivores (6.5 ± 0.4, 6.7 ± 0.4, and 6.2 ± 0.4 respectively, p = 0.003); yet urinary pH was associated with BMD in omnivores only. These data suggest that plant-based diets are not detrimental to bone in young adults. Moreover, diet prescriptions for bone health may vary among diet groups: increased fruit and vegetable intake for individuals with high meat intakes and increased plant protein intake for individuals who follow a vegetarian diet plan.

In spite of well-documented health benefits of vegetarian diets, less is known regarding the effects of these diets on athletic performance. In this cross-sectional study, we compared elite vegetarian and omnivore adult endurance athletes for maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max) and strength. Twenty-seven vegetarian (VEG) and 43 omnivore (OMN) athletes were evaluated using VO2 max testing on the treadmill, and strength assessment using a dynamometer to determine peak torque for leg extensions. Dietary data were assessed using detailed seven-day food logs. Although total protein intake was lower among vegetarians in comparison to omnivores, protein intake as a function of body mass did not differ by group (1.2 ± 0.3 and 1.4 ± 0.5 g/kg body mass for VEG and OMN respectively, p = 0.220). VO2 max differed for females by diet group (53.0 ± 6.9 and 47.1 ± 8.6 mL/kg/min for VEG and OMN respectively, p < 0.05) but not for males (62.6 ± 15.4 and 55.7 ± 8.4 mL/kg/min respectively). Peak torque did not differ significantly between diet groups. Results from this study indicate that vegetarian endurance athletes’ cardiorespiratory fitness was greater than that for their omnivorous counterparts, but that peak torque did not differ between diet groups. These data suggest that vegetarian diets do not compromise performance outcomes and may facilitate aerobic capacity in athletes.