Currently viewing the category: "gene"

Genetic Enginablement

By On · Add Comment · In carbohydrates, DNA-PK, fats, gene, genetic engineering, natural selection

Move over, Darwin. Natural selection is sooooo yesterday. The future is in artificial selection–you know, genetic engineering. That’s right, you want a blue-eyed baby? No problem. Five pound strawberries–no problem. Cloned meat products? Yes. And now there may be a genetic solution to indolence. Intrigued? Read on.

Scientists at UC Berkeley have found a gene that is responsible for turning carbohydrates into fat. The gene, called DNA-PK, works in the liver, regulating the conversion of sugars into fats. What this means is that that silly little process of turning low energy carbs into higher energy triglycerides is controlled by this one simple gene. Mice bred with a disabled version of the gene were able to eat large portions of carbohydrate meals–the equivalent of the all-you-can-eat-pasta bar–and still have 40% less body fat when compared to a control group of normal mice. And the implications for humans? The researcher team thinks it might be a great target for new drugs to help prevent obesity.

Modern science never ceases to amaze me. Think about it, you can eat all you want–pizza, Ding Dongs, Fig Newtons for days–and not gain an ounce. What do you think? Brilliant, yes? Forget that our genetic makeup is the product of billions of years of evolution. Forget that natural selection is the selection of favorable traits that become more common in successive generations. And forget that there might be an evolutionary advantage to turning low energy carbohydrates into higher energy fats–trivialities all. What matters is that we can manipulate nature–Ta-Da!–cuz we can. Reminds me of that joke about why a dog licks his nards. Silly humans.

Cancer Tough to Cure…But There May Be Hope

By On · Add Comment · In apoptosis, cancer, gene, genetic, mind-body, mutation, networks, pathways, prevention, tumors

Cancer may be tougher to cure than once thought. Because it is the product of many gene mutations and not just one, cancer is especially hard to located and treat. That’s the latest, anyway, out of Johns Hopkins University.

According to researchers, genes in tumors work in networks, not as single genes as once believed. The scientist studied every gene in two of the hardest to treat cancers, pancreatic and glioblastoma multiforme, a type of brain cancer. They found that pancreatic cancer has an average of 63 mutated genes that code for uncontrolled cell growth, while glioblastoma multiforme averages 60 mutations. And to make matters worse they vary among people. According to one of the researchers, Dr. Bert Vogelstein, “If you have 100 patients, you have 100 different diseases.”

Sounds daunting, I know; but the good news is that they found just 12 pathways on average that caused uncontrolled growth and spread. The researchers point out that treatments should be aimed at interacting in the pathway itself, and not against a singular gene, like the current cancer drug Gleevec does.

These findings are not surprising to me and it illustrates the complexity of genetic interactions. The one gene, one illness notion is simplistic and unlikely. It happens to work that way for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML)–which Gleevec was designed for–but that’s probably more the exception than the rule. The researchers point out that single gene target drugs will most likely be ineffective against most solid tumors.

I also think that finding one gene for other characteristics is unlikely too. Don’t get me wrong, geneticists think they are finding genes that act in a solitary fashion in coding for traits or processes, but I’m certain that the work done in this study is a taste of how it works as a whole–the pathways or networks are what is important.

I think that finding drugs to disrupt these pathways and cure cancer will a be very difficult task, indeed. We may not see it in our lifetime. And it really makes me think of the bigger picture. We are all developing genetic mutations and damage at all times. Our body has a way of fixing these problems. And when the damage cannot be fixed, cells have a built-in protective process called apoptosis, or programmed cell death. This evolutionary insurance plan is designed specifically to halt uncontrolled cellular growth, which is non-conducive to life. If we all have the propensity toward genetic mutation, and we all have repair mechanisms, then why does this process go haywire in some people and not others? Remember these are pathways, not single genes, so we aren’t just born one way or the other–we all have the capacity to develop cancer, every one of us.

I don’t really have an answer that would suffice here, but I do think that the future with regard to cancer will be about prevention; and much of this will come from mind-body discoveries. It’s the only thing that makes sense to me. There is a mental/emotional component that we are missing in all of this, and we’re missing it because we are so attached to materialistic explanations for everything. I think there is more, and I think it will come out sooner or later. Let’s leave it at that for now.

Thoughts on Evolution

By On · Add Comment · In chimpanzees, gene, gorillas, HIV, immune system, immunity, infection, infectious agents, microorganisms, monkeys, PtERV1, retrovirus, TRIM5a, virus

Scientist have reported that our human ancestors won a significant battle against an ancient retrovirus millions of years ago, one

that may have ultimately left us susceptible to HIV.
According to experts, human beings have a gene, called TRIM5a, which was successful in fighting the ancient PtERV1 retrovirus. This retrovirus infected chimpanzees, gorillas and old world monkeys about 4 million years ago but not humans. Scientists believe that the presence of the TRIM5a gene in humans neutralized the retrovirus and therefore prevented infection.
Monkeys were not so lucky. Without a copy of the virus fighting gene, apes’ were susceptible to the retrovirus lodging itself into their genome, thus causing disease. In monkeys that did not die, the retrovirus mutated, and was passed on to offspring. These mutations led to future immunity to the HIV virus, something humans did not get.
Sounds right to me; from my understanding of evolution, this is one mechanism in which an organism can develop immunity. As I say in my upcoming book, The Six Keys To Optimal Health, we actually need to be exposed to infectious agents – it’s the only way for our immune system to evolve. The virus and other microorganisms we encounter today, may protect us from new diseases tomorrow. Microorganisms evolve just like we do, as does our immune system. Think of it in the same way you would a computer virus-scan program – gotta do the updates, otherwise you’re susceptible.
So, in my opinion, it’s futile to eradicate microorganisms. We need them to further our own evolution. What’s more important is keeping the body healthy, so that we can effectively stave off infection, illness and disease on our own – just as chiropractors have been preaching for over a century. Do the right things – eat well, sleep well, get regular chiropractic adjustments – and appreciate those bugs for what they are: accomplices in the evolution of life on planet earth.
Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.