I decided to write about this article because it closely relates to what I completed my research paper on.
In the article, it explains the use of lithium to treat many psychological diseases by reducing aggression potential and lightening patient's moods. Some of these psychological diseases include "depression, manias and bipolar disorder".
With their research, they realized that lithium "does not work in the space between nerve cells like other psychotropic drugs, [instead it works] within the nerve tracts themselves.
The ultimate goal is to create a map of sorts that will show lithium accumulation in the brain; this would allow for future use in terms of using lithium as a prescription drug to treat psychological disorders with precision.
Now, to what I was really trying to get to...they say lithium is responsible for lightening peoples moods right? Well, after watching a few documentaries as to how methamphetamine is made, I found that the "one pot" method uses the lithium in the battery to get the reactions going since it is highly reactive. Other than the dopamine transmission in the brain, I wonder if this is what causes the pleasure feeling METH users feel.
What do you all think? Not so much about battery usage in methamphetamine making, but lithium as a prescription drug? What could the downfalls in this be?!
Link below:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130926103031.htm
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Blog 8b: Crustaceans that can drink their prey!
A NEW DISCOVERY! Thanks to Björn von Reumont and Ronald Jenner, two biologist has discovered the First Venomous Crustacean. Crustaceans are a "subgroup of arthropods that includes shrimp and crabs", yet none have been known be be venomous. Specifically speaking, Spelenectes tulumensis is the crustacean that belongs to the remipedes group that has been discovered.
It is believed that they posses a two step process that aid in the killing of their prey. The first step is a toxin that is considered to be identical to the neurotoxin found in spiders that paralyzes the prey. The second and last step for the remipede is the venom itself, but the venom used is unique. The venom is primarily composed of peptidases, an enzyme that helps in digestion; a venom similar to this would be found in rattlesnake venom. BUT WAIT, there's more! To my understanding, the enzyme is not like amylase--the breaking down of starch in our saliva. NO! This enzyme is responsible for digestion of the prey itself, YES, making the prey into what the article refers to as a milkshake! Much easier than chewing I would say.
Where are places we as humans use peptidase other than in the stomach? I am interested to see the responses you all come up with.
The link to the article is is within the second sentence of the blog post.
It is believed that they posses a two step process that aid in the killing of their prey. The first step is a toxin that is considered to be identical to the neurotoxin found in spiders that paralyzes the prey. The second and last step for the remipede is the venom itself, but the venom used is unique. The venom is primarily composed of peptidases, an enzyme that helps in digestion; a venom similar to this would be found in rattlesnake venom. BUT WAIT, there's more! To my understanding, the enzyme is not like amylase--the breaking down of starch in our saliva. NO! This enzyme is responsible for digestion of the prey itself, YES, making the prey into what the article refers to as a milkshake! Much easier than chewing I would say.
Where are places we as humans use peptidase other than in the stomach? I am interested to see the responses you all come up with.
The link to the article is is within the second sentence of the blog post.
Blog 8a: Obese? No problem...they have a pill for you!
According to Science Daily, today, there was an post regarding those who are obese and a linkage to a mutation in the K2R2 gene. The K2R2 gene has been identified as the gene responsible for an increase in appetite and a slower metabolism than those with a normal copy of the gene. Researchers would believe that this is the cause for the increasing number of children battling obesity.
Here, they conclude that knowing this is the gene responsible for the characteristics listed above, they can synthesize a drug that can work as treatment for those with the mutation. The idea is based off of metformin, a drug for diabetes that has effectively reduced levels of fatty acid oxidation (see article for more detail).
Questions to ponder, would you consider this a new diet pill?! Could there be any disadvantages to taking the pill, and if so, what are the crazy things you can think of?!
Here, they conclude that knowing this is the gene responsible for the characteristics listed above, they can synthesize a drug that can work as treatment for those with the mutation. The idea is based off of metformin, a drug for diabetes that has effectively reduced levels of fatty acid oxidation (see article for more detail).
Questions to ponder, would you consider this a new diet pill?! Could there be any disadvantages to taking the pill, and if so, what are the crazy things you can think of?!
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Blog 7b: Bingeing on Halloween Candy is Not the Same
As a child during Halloween, candy could be indulged in great amounts and our digestive system did not even hesitate to metabolize it. When age becomes a factor, it has been said that the gene called Foxo is to blame for the agony of candy or junk food bingeing.
Identifying the gene responsible for regulation of metabolism helps researches develop means of intervening with this process. Intervention will help in the [preservation of a] well-functioning metabolism" even as one ages.
My question to you all is, what are the down sides if any to this intervention of the metabolic pathway?
Click on article below to read more about the topic:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131014221500.htm
Identifying the gene responsible for regulation of metabolism helps researches develop means of intervening with this process. Intervention will help in the [preservation of a] well-functioning metabolism" even as one ages.
My question to you all is, what are the down sides if any to this intervention of the metabolic pathway?
Click on article below to read more about the topic:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131014221500.htm
Blog 7a: Light that can KILL
I just like making my post titles really outrageous!
According to Science Daily, light can actually trigger cancer cells to die, known as a death switch. This switch is turned on by exposing a peptide the researches created to "external light pulses [that will] convert it into a cell death signal".
From what I took out of the article, it seems as if they will be able to alter the interactions in B-cell lymphoma cancer cells thus controlling rapid division and slowing the growth process down if not totally stopping the spread.
They propose the idea that through this method of transient photoactivation, they will be able to identify the cells that are "normally resistant to chemotherapy", thus aid in the development of treatments for cancer patients that will be more effective.
My question to you all is, how does this differ from radiation? Isn't radiation killing cancer cells by light in the form of lasers?
The link to the article is below:
Light Triggers Death Switch in Cancer Cells
According to Science Daily, light can actually trigger cancer cells to die, known as a death switch. This switch is turned on by exposing a peptide the researches created to "external light pulses [that will] convert it into a cell death signal".
From what I took out of the article, it seems as if they will be able to alter the interactions in B-cell lymphoma cancer cells thus controlling rapid division and slowing the growth process down if not totally stopping the spread.
They propose the idea that through this method of transient photoactivation, they will be able to identify the cells that are "normally resistant to chemotherapy", thus aid in the development of treatments for cancer patients that will be more effective.
My question to you all is, how does this differ from radiation? Isn't radiation killing cancer cells by light in the form of lasers?
The link to the article is below:
Light Triggers Death Switch in Cancer Cells
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Blog 6b: Feces in a Pill...Yummy!
SO! For this blog I found an article that talks about having feces in a pill! Isn't that just appealing?!
Well for those who suffer from Clostridum difficile, " a bacterial infection that causes diarrhea and fever" and responsible for 14,000 US citizen deaths, would much rather take a pill filled with feces rather than the current techniques in killing the bacteria.
As of now, the bacteria is killed with fecal transplants of donor feces by "enemas, colonoscopies, or nasal tubes that run directly to the gut" (OUCH!). The donor feces have healthy microbes that gets rid of C. difficile and promotes growth of good bacteria.
So, TECHNICALLY these patients are not literally digesting a pill with feces, but the microbes extracting for a feces donor are put into the pill. The next step is to stop asking healthy individuals for fecal samples (LOL). Therefore, the idea of make a pill that uses bacteria grown in a laboratory is not far fetched; only issue is how much it would cost to get a laboratory up and running with all the work that goes behind this research.
"As Tom Moore, a physician and infectious-disease specialist in Wichita, Kansas, puts it: 'It'll be difficult to compete with the ready availability and very cheap costs of human poop.' "
What do you all think about this method of delivering healthy microbes to the human gut? Would it just be better to stick with what we have been doing?
Click the link to read more about it
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=feces-filled-pill-stops-gut-infection
Well for those who suffer from Clostridum difficile, " a bacterial infection that causes diarrhea and fever" and responsible for 14,000 US citizen deaths, would much rather take a pill filled with feces rather than the current techniques in killing the bacteria.
As of now, the bacteria is killed with fecal transplants of donor feces by "enemas, colonoscopies, or nasal tubes that run directly to the gut" (OUCH!). The donor feces have healthy microbes that gets rid of C. difficile and promotes growth of good bacteria.
So, TECHNICALLY these patients are not literally digesting a pill with feces, but the microbes extracting for a feces donor are put into the pill. The next step is to stop asking healthy individuals for fecal samples (LOL). Therefore, the idea of make a pill that uses bacteria grown in a laboratory is not far fetched; only issue is how much it would cost to get a laboratory up and running with all the work that goes behind this research.
"As Tom Moore, a physician and infectious-disease specialist in Wichita, Kansas, puts it: 'It'll be difficult to compete with the ready availability and very cheap costs of human poop.' "
What do you all think about this method of delivering healthy microbes to the human gut? Would it just be better to stick with what we have been doing?
Click the link to read more about it
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=feces-filled-pill-stops-gut-infection
Blog 6a: Smoking Pregnant Mothers and their Allergenic Children
Smoking while pregnant has always been a strong factor in the way newborn children develop abnormally, but the exact reason or processes behind developmental issues were never clear. This research article attempts to show a connection between microRNA and the child's probability to develop allergies at a young age.
The group of scientist focus on microRNA-223, microRNA-155 and regulatory T cells, because to their best knowledge, these microRNAs are responsible for immune response and the T cells aid in preventing overactive immune systems. If there is damage to the T cells that interrupts its function, this will cause "the self-regulatory function of the immune system [to] be reduced, [thus], possibly resulting in allergies".
Collected blood samples from pregnant women and the birth cord of those children who were just born, were analyzed to estimate concentrations of microRNAs and number of regulatory T cells. When specifically examining microRNA-233, it was said that a high concentration for this microRNA and high value of T cells would prove that children exposed to tobacco smoke are most likely to develop allergies before the age of three. This assumption was made by connecting high values of microRNA-233 to low regulatory T-cell numbers, thus the immune system is not as strong as a healthy child's would be. Also, it was stated that the chance of developing eczema are higher when the child has high microRNA-223 concentrations.
I thought the theory behind this article was very interesting. My only question is, how does having allergies actually explain the reason for developmental issues such as "respiratory diseases, diabetes type II, or asthma"? These were all examples given in the article as things a child are prone to developing because of having a mother who smoke during pregnancy. Maybe I am just missing something, but that link is a little confusing.
What do y'all think?!
Here is the link so you can read it for yourself
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131007094324.htm
The group of scientist focus on microRNA-223, microRNA-155 and regulatory T cells, because to their best knowledge, these microRNAs are responsible for immune response and the T cells aid in preventing overactive immune systems. If there is damage to the T cells that interrupts its function, this will cause "the self-regulatory function of the immune system [to] be reduced, [thus], possibly resulting in allergies".
Collected blood samples from pregnant women and the birth cord of those children who were just born, were analyzed to estimate concentrations of microRNAs and number of regulatory T cells. When specifically examining microRNA-233, it was said that a high concentration for this microRNA and high value of T cells would prove that children exposed to tobacco smoke are most likely to develop allergies before the age of three. This assumption was made by connecting high values of microRNA-233 to low regulatory T-cell numbers, thus the immune system is not as strong as a healthy child's would be. Also, it was stated that the chance of developing eczema are higher when the child has high microRNA-223 concentrations.
I thought the theory behind this article was very interesting. My only question is, how does having allergies actually explain the reason for developmental issues such as "respiratory diseases, diabetes type II, or asthma"? These were all examples given in the article as things a child are prone to developing because of having a mother who smoke during pregnancy. Maybe I am just missing something, but that link is a little confusing.
What do y'all think?!
Here is the link so you can read it for yourself
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131007094324.htm
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)