Science is Cool....

[Fish]

This is a repository for all cool scientific discussion and fascination. Scientific facts, theories, and overall cool scientific stuff that you'd like to share with others. Stuff that makes you smile and wonder at the amazing shit going on around us, that most people don't notice.

Post pictures, vidoes, stories, or links. Ask questions. Share science.

Why should I care?:

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

This is really cool.

However, it will not "allow your descendants to live thousands of years or more", mainly because we don't have a polyp stage, we are far more complex, and our cells are governed by different processes.

Yeah, I didn't mean that humans would develop a polyp stage. Just that our research into how this animal does this could have considerable impact in the future. There are correlations between the way the jellyfish goes about cellular differentiation, and the way human stem cells do the same thing. I wouldn't be so hasty to say we can learn nothing because we are such different species....

Do you think that research on this jellyfish will actually yield anything that can be helpful to scientists in terms of human medicine?

"Whenever you have an animal that is capable of doing something unique it has a potential to give us some really novel insights into basic processes. Biochemical engineers in the past few years have made some huge progress in learning how to take an adult cell from a human and deprogram it so it can become like an adult stem cell and then have the flexibility to become like the cells around it are. The advantage there is lets say you have a damaged spinal chord, well if you can un-specialize some of a person’s cells and inject them into that spinal chord they can pick up hints from the cells around them and develop into new nerve cells and hopefully be able to repair the damage. That’s sort of the hope of working with adult stem cells. And it sidesteps the complications of working with embryonic stem cells. Learning how to take adult cells and get them back to the early stage where they can develop into anything is a significant goal of what we want to be able to achieve. Its something that this humble little jelly has as a built in feature of its life cycle. Things get gross around it, it melts down and rebuilds itself from scratch. So I think there is definitely the potential that we could learn some basic things that we could better apply to our own technology for human medicine.”

http://www.scpr.org/programs/take-tw...key-to-everla/

“There’s a shocking amount of genetic similarity between jellyfish and human beings,” said Kevin J. Peterson, a molecular paleobiologist who contributed to that study, when I visited him at his Dartmouth office. From a genetic perspective, apart from the fact that we have two genome duplications, “we look like a damn jellyfish.”

This may have implications for medicine, particularly the fields of cancer research and longevity. Peterson is now studying microRNAs (commonly denoted as miRNA), tiny strands of genetic material that regulate gene expression. MiRNA act as an on-off switch for genes. When the switch is off, the cell remains in its primitive, undifferentiated state. When the switch turns on, a cell assumes its mature form: it can become a skin cell, for instance, or a tentacle cell. MiRNA also serve a crucial role in stem-cell research — they are the mechanism by which stem cells differentiate. Most cancers, we have recently learned, are marked by alterations in miRNA. Researchers even suspect that alterations in miRNA may be a cause of cancer. If you turn a cell’s miRNA “off,” the cell loses its identity and begins acting chaotically — it becomes, in other words, cancerous.

Hydrozoans provide an ideal opportunity to study the behavior of miRNA for two reasons. They are extremely simple organisms, and miRNA are crucial to their biological development. But because there are so few hydroid experts, our understanding of these species is staggeringly incomplete.

[...]

Kubota can be encouraged by the fact that many of the greatest advancements in human medicine came from observations made about animals that, at the time, seemed to have little or no resemblance to man. In 18th-century England, dairymaids exposed to cowpox helped establish that the disease inoculated them against smallpox; the bacteriologist Alexander Fleming accidentally discovered penicillin when one of his petri dishes grew a mold; and, most recently, scientists in Wyoming studying nematode worms found genes similar to those inactivated by cancer in humans, leading them to believe that they could be a target for new cancer drugs. One of the Wyoming researchers said in a news release that they hoped they could “contribute to the arsenal of diverse therapeutic approaches used to treat and cure many types of cancer.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/ma...anted=all&_r=0

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by Fish

Yeah, I didn't mean that humans would develop a polyp stage. Just that our research into how this animal does this could have considerable impact in the future. There are correlations between the way the jellyfish goes about cellular differentiation, and the way human stem cells do the same thing. I wouldn't be so hasty to say we can learn nothing because we are such different species....

First source isn't very informative at all. He basically says because we have the ability to differentiate at the embryonic level, and adult SC's can be manipulated into the differentiation process of embryonic SC's and used for the treatment of spinal cord damage, and these hydra have a similar process without manipulation, that we could "learn some basic things" about it.
That guy basically provided a muddy parallel without linking the two. he didn't really provide any evidence for his soft conclusion.

Second one comes from a much better source. What they are basically saying, however, is we can use them as model organisms for the process. We have several model organisms in genetics, but that does not mean we can adopt their characteristics into our genetic functional repertoire and call it good. There are far more steps involved in that.

Similar genome does not mean we have similar processes. Suffice it to say that it's far more complicated, and gene therapy has many obstacles. Promising, but many obstacles.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

First source isn't very informative at all. He basically says because we have the ability to differentiate at the embryonic level, and adult SC's can be manipulated into the differentiation process of embryonic SC's and used for the treatment of spinal cord damage, and these hydra have a similar process without manipulation, that we could "learn some basic things" about it.
That guy basically provided a muddy parallel without linking the two. he didn't really provide any evidence for his soft conclusion.

Second one comes from a much better source. What they are basically saying, however, is we can use them as model organisms for the process. We have several model organisms in genetics, but that does not mean we can adopt their characteristics into our genetic functional repertoire and call it good. There are far more steps involved in that.

Similar genome does not mean we have similar processes. Suffice it to say that it's far more complicated, and gene therapy has many obstacles. Promising, but many obstacles.

The bolded is the entire point. I wasn't making any specific claims beyond that. Similar processes aren't exactly necessary for understanding the underlying processes. We currently introduce DNA from all sorts of different plants, animals, and even bacteria, into other plants, animals, etc., that otherwise have little to nothing in common. For example, we now introduce E. Coli DNA along with mouse DNA to hog embryos strictly to reduce the hog's phosphorus output, making them much more environmentally friendly. We introduce scorpion venom DNA into cabbage, to produce cabbage that has a natural resistance to pests. These are only a few examples.

[Fish]

How your brain works....

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Fish

Heh.........

Thou shalt not deny Dr. Neil.

I like NDT as much as anyone, but that was no schooling. That was 'this is what you think, but I bet you're wrong.' I could do that.

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by Fish

The bolded is the entire point. I wasn't making any specific claims beyond that. Similar processes aren't exactly necessary for understanding the underlying processes. We currently introduce DNA from all sorts of different plants, animals, and even bacteria, into other plants, animals, etc., that otherwise have little to nothing in common. For example, we now introduce E. Coli DNA along with mouse DNA to hog embryos strictly to reduce the hog's phosphorus output, making them much more environmentally friendly. We introduce scorpion venom DNA into cabbage, to produce cabbage that has a natural resistance to pests. These are only a few examples.

Yeah, except for the powerful "may allow your descendants to live much, much longer" claim, no specific claim was made.

And yes, I am aware that those have been done. Unfortunately, we are more complex than a plant, e coli, etc. despite similar regions of our genome. Gene therapy for us has been inching toward progressive treatments, and has been met with some disappointing obstacles in humans.

We can't even begin to fathom the claim you made at this point in gene therapy research.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

Yeah, except for the powerful "may allow your descendants to live much, much longer" claim, no specific claim was made.

And yes, I am aware that those have been done. Unfortunately, we are more complex than a plant, e coli, etc. despite similar regions of our genome. Gene therapy for us has been inching toward progressive treatments, and has been met with some disappointing obstacles in humans.

We can't even begin to fathom the claim you made at this point in gene therapy research.

"One day could allow". That's my claim. Nothing more. You're welcome to continue to dispute what you think I meant beyond that. But to say that we can't fathom that cellular differentiation processes might one day play a part in human longevity falls rather short of the truth. We're already doing what others said couldn't be fathomed just decades ago.

[Fish]

This probably explains the expectations in a manner better than I did... Explained by the lovely Cara Santa Maria...

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by Fish

"One day could allow". That's my claim. Nothing more. You're welcome to continue to dispute what you think I meant beyond that. But to say that we can't fathom that cellular differentiation processes might one day play a part in human longevity falls rather short of the truth. We're already doing what others said couldn't be fathomed just decades ago.

I'm disputing this: "One day this jellyfish could allow your descendants to live thousands of years or more"

Not: "But to say that we can't fathom that cellular differentiation processes might one day play a part in human longevity falls rather short of the truth".

That's not what you initially said, and you have since changed your tune.

Sure, one day I could be a billionaire. The prospects are highly unlikely, and there are huge limitations but it could occur one day (fingers crossed!!!). However, it's probable that I will be a millionaire based on my current outlook. Those are two very different statements, right?

The human body has inherent limitations that are affecting our longevity.

In the near future, we might see people living to 100 more frequently, and it has nothing to do with an immortal organism.

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by Fish

This probably explains the expectations in a manner better than I did... Explained by the lovely Cara Santa Maria...

I watched about 30 seconds of that. The Huffington post has no place as a source in a scientific discussion.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

I'm disputing this: "One day this jellyfish could allow your descendants to live thousands of years or more"

Not: "But to say that we can't fathom that cellular differentiation processes might one day play a part in human longevity falls rather short of the truth".

That's not what you initially said, and you have since changed your tune.

Sure, one day I could be a billionaire. The prospects are highly unlikely, and there are huge limitations but it could occur one day (fingers crossed!!!). However, it's probable that I will be a millionaire based on my current outlook. Those are two very different statements, right?

The human body has inherent limitations that are affecting our longevity.

In the near future, we might see people living to 100 more frequently, and it has nothing to do with an immortal organism.

You're simply arguing the semantics of my own description. And you're not even doing it very well. You haven't even bothered to attempt an intelligent rebuttal. But whatever. Science been overcoming what people like you call impossible, for quite a while now, and it will continue to do so.

And by the way, the video you casually dismissed because of its source was done by someone with a Masters in neuroscience who has published research in neuronal cell culture techniques, and computational neurophysiology. She makes a living teaching science.

Why don't you try and contribute something besides snarky doucheness?

[Mugalug]

I'm guessing snarky doucheness was just all he was going for. That and he is probably going to be a millionaire.

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by Fish

You're simply arguing the semantics of my own description. And you're not even doing it very well. You haven't even bothered to attempt an intelligent rebuttal. But whatever. Science been overcoming what people like you call impossible, for quite a while now, and it will continue to do so.

And by the way, the video you casually dismissed because of its source was done by someone with a Masters in neuroscience who has published research in neuronal cell culture techniques, and computational neurophysiology. She makes a living teaching science.

Why don't you try and contribute something besides snarky doucheness?

No, I'm arguing the accuracy of your description. Science has been overcoming people like me? What? I'm a medical student.

A brief history in genetic therapy from a lecture series presented by a well-published MD/PhD:

1960’s
Researchers foresaw manipulations of chromosomes and genes for "desired" genes
Must be cautious to control genes until we completely understand effects
1970’s
Began experimentation on humans
Tried treating people with arginemia virus that would cause reduction of arginine in blood
Aftermath of ethical issues caused pessimism over gene therapy
1980’s
Tried to treat patients with beta-thalessemia without IRB approval
Lead to resignation and penalties to UCLA
1990’s
Infused gene into bone marrow cells
Could put cells into subjects, but not at a high enough level to be effective
Another experiment killed a patient because of serious problems with experimental setup
2000’s
Successful treatments of melanoma, color blindness in squirrel monkeys, partial vision to blind, CLL (leukemia)

Yes, we have come a long way. But we've tried manipulating genes as a treatment for a while now, with many obstacles. These are the obstacles I have been referring to.

Barriers to Gene Therapy
1. Therapy must be applied frequently due to poor half-life
2. Viral vectors used to apply treatment can cause immune response
3. Unintended cosequences, such as inflammatory responses
4. Target other tissues that aren’t desired
5. Poor efficiency- even if they target the appropriate tissue, doesn’t always work well

There's your contribution.

Sincerely,
Snarky Douche

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

No, I'm arguing the accuracy of your description. Science has been overcoming people like me? What? I'm a medical student.

A brief history in genetic therapy from a lecture series presented by a well-published MD/PhD:

1960’s
Researchers foresaw manipulations of chromosomes and genes for "desired" genes
Must be cautious to control genes until we completely understand effects
1970’s
Began experimentation on humans
Tried treating people with arginemia virus that would cause reduction of arginine in blood
Aftermath of ethical issues caused pessimism over gene therapy
1980’s
Tried to treat patients with beta-thalessemia without IRB approval
Lead to resignation and penalties to UCLA
1990’s
Infused gene into bone marrow cells
Could put cells into subjects, but not at a high enough level to be effective
Another experiment killed a patient because of serious problems with experimental setup
2000’s
Successful treatments of melanoma, color blindness in squirrel monkeys, partial vision to blind, CLL (leukemia)

Yes, we have come a long way. But we've tried manipulating genes as a treatment for a while now, with many obstacles. These are the obstacles I have been referring to.

Barriers to Gene Therapy
1. Therapy must be applied frequently due to poor half-life
2. Viral vectors used to apply treatment can cause immune response
3. Unintended cosequences, such as inflammatory responses
4. Target other tissues that aren’t desired
5. Poor efficiency- even if they target the appropriate tissue, doesn’t always work well

There's your contribution.

Sincerely,
Snarky Douche

OK. That's a start. Now tell us why those barriers to gene therapy might still be present in 200 or so years. Why do you think those things are not able to be overcome?

[Fish]

Scale..........