Currently viewing the category: "genes"

Current Cultural Biases Flavor Science

By On · Add Comment · In biomarkers, disease, genes, genetics, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), medical science, paradigm

Another blow to the ‘genetics-is-the-answer-to-everything’ faction of medical science.  According to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), researchers often overstate the importance of biomarkers as links to disease, by citing papers that report the strongest associations, even when ensuing analyses downplay the connection.

The study looked at papers on biomarkers–biological characteristics, such as gene or protein activity, which can be used to monitor a person’s health–that had been cited more than 400 times.  These studies were then compared to others on the same biomarkers, and it was found that many papers were reporting stronger links between biomarkers and disease than were actually found in the majority of studies.  Even worse, many papers reported a stronger association than was observed in the largest single study of the same biomarker.

As an example:

A 1991 study that was cited 1,436 times found that patients with a high level of a compound called homocysteine in their blood had a 27.7-fold elevated risk for vascular disease. But a meta-analysis reported only a 1.58-fold increased risk.

Doh!

I love this because I know that there just is no such thing as true objectivity in science.  The fact that science is carried out by humans with beliefs and biases means that it will always veer in the direction of researchers’ own perspectives.  And that’s the way it should be!  Yes, we all want objectivity in science, but puh-leez–the universe (at least as it pertains to humans) is driven by our thought processes.  It is impossible not to affect observations, studies, or science as a whole by the human factor.

It takes a genius (Newton, Einstein, Watson/Crick) to drive a paradigm–the way in which we view the world.  The rest is up to the people of the era: WE direct science, art, politics, philanthropy, economics and education based on our own interpretations of the world.

So yes, there will be citation bias in science.  More reason to scrutinize the ‘genetics-is-the-answer-to-everything’ mind-set.  It ain’t.  In fact, my bias is that it merely plays a supportive role in most health/illness issues.  But that’s not our current paradigm, so I will gleefully chuckle at a distance every time some free-thinking scientists pick up on the current cultural biases at play during our attempts at objective observation.  Watch out climate researchers!

Obesity and Natural Selection: Some Thoughts

By On · Add Comment · In body mass index (BMI), disease, genes, genetic theory of obesity, high frequency mutation, human evolution, human genome, illness, natural selection, obese, Scientific American
Just read a great article on human evolution and how advantageous traits are likely selected for over time.  It got me thinking again about the genetic theory of obesity.  Now you all know how I feel about this subject–I pretty much find it a convenient excuse to absolve obese people from their personal responsibility.  Put another way: Gene or no gene, you’ve still got to eat well, exercise, and practice discipline.  Hey, we all have to that.

But reading this article in the September issue of Scientific American (I know I’m behind…cut me a break…I’ve got kids) titled, How We Are Evolving, got me thinking that obesity very well may have a genetic link.  According to recent research, most traits that provide genetic advantage or disadvantage likely take tens of thousands of years to disseminate throughout a population, not the thousands of years a high frequency mutation was once thought to dominate natural selection.  I won’t get into the science here; read the article to get the details–it is excellent.  Suffice it to say that the data shows evolution to be a long, drawn-out process, as natural selection takes time.

Okay, so what about obesity?  Well, let’s just say there is a gene, or genes, that increase one’s susceptibility to becoming obese; we might just find that that genetic makeup actually does lead to enough of a disadvantage that it eventually gets selected out of the human genome.

Think about it like this: obesity offers a disadvantage by making a person more susceptible to illness and disease–like many cancers, heart disease, stroke, and the list goes on and on.  Up until now it hasn’t conferred enough disadvantage to be selected out of the population–that is, obese people can still pass on their genes.

However, as more of the population gets obese–34% of all adults in the U.S. and 300 million worldwide–less and less may find the opportunity to reproduce.  What do you mean, Campos?  Just a thought, but when approximately 20% of our children here in the U.S. are obese…that’s a BMI over 30!…there may come a time when these people are just not considered reproduction material.

Biologically speaking, organisms seek out the most fit individuals with which to mate so that the possibility of passing on one’s genes increases.  That’s the idea anyway.  As the numbers of obese individuals increases, as well as society’s disdain (just read the news!) for obesity, you might just see more of these people ostracized sexually.  Not large numbers right away, mind you–this is where the article got me thinking–but over time.  Could be tens of thousands of years.  Remember, natural selection works slowly.  I mean, things would really have to change societally for this to be considered no big deal.

And yes, obese mating with obese is always a possibility, but that will simply raise the risk, in my opinion, for the genes to become selected out.  This, of course, all predicates on whether a genetic cause (susceptibility?) of obesity actually exists.

My advice to everyone is, once again, gene or no gene, you can prevent obesity by doing the right things.  If my thoughts are correct–and sorry, you and I will never get to know–then you’ll be assuring your genes get passed on to future generations by removing and preventing obesity in your life.  Just a thought, anyway.

Sons? Daughters? Genes.

By On · Add Comment · In evolution, family tree, genes, population genetics, sex ratio, survivability

Whether you have sons or daughters might be programmed into your genes. That, at least, is the latest coming out of evolutionary genetics research in the UK. According to a recent article published in the journal Evolutionary Biology, there may be a gene in males that determines whether he will father more sons, more daughters, or equal numbers of each. Wow!

Now mind you, this is simply a hypothesis; but British researcher Corry Gellatly of Newcastle University showed, through his study of family trees and population genetics, that sex ratio is heritable. That is, the number of males born versus females at any given time can be determined by a gene in the father.

According to Gellatly, there may exist a gene that controls the X to Y chromosome ratio. Females inherit two copies of the X chromosome, while males inherit one X and one Y. So if this proposed gene is present, it can determine whether the male produces more X containing sperm or more Y containing sperm. Apparently only men express the gene; women are simply carriers that pass the gene on.

This study results from the observation that male to female ratio remains relatively constant despite population changers like war, where the number of males lost is significant. Data shows that the number of males born following events like war increases dramatically. And this isn’t a one time event–the phenomenom was recorded following both world wars. Gellatly believes this is a sort of counterbalancing mechanism programmed into our DNA. As he said in a recent interview, “You can’t get a population that becomes too skewed toward males or too skewed toward females [with this type of counterbalancing mechanism].”

The details of the study are too involved to get into in depth here, but you can check out he primary paper here, or the press release here, both which do a great job of explaining the methods used to come to these conclusions. I find this fascinating, especially since I philosophically believe that the universe is continuously moving into a state balance at all times, and in all things. So this type of hypothesis does a good job of explaining how biologically, or materially, balance is achieved in one universal aspect–organic life. Furthermore, the researchers stated that this gene is likely ancient and exists in all living things that reproduce sexually, including plants.

Yeah, makes sense. Think about it: What if early in human evolution, a disaster wipes out almost all living males. Unlikely, but possible. There has to be a mechanism in place to keep some sort of survivability for the organism. It may not be foolproof–extinction is always a possibility. But my guess is that the wisdom of the universe is much greater than we can ever imagine. Kinda cool, though, to get some inkling of how this magnificent universe operates.

Genetic Testing Is BUNK!

By On · Add Comment · In diseases, gene expression, genes, genetic testing
Wanna know what the newest trend in health-care is? genetic testing. Basically, companies provide a complete genetic profile for the consumer at the cost of several hundreds of dollars, and these test are supposed to predict which diseases the buyer is susceptible to. Oy vey! What will they think of next?

First off, why would anybody want or need to know this information? Why, so they can do something about it, say proponents. Yeah, yeah–interpret that to mean: so they can seek out the appropriate medical treatment. Is that what life is about? Call it what it is–a new and lucrative market to exploit people who are afraid of illness and death.

A doctor recently asked somebody I know, “Do you want to know when you are going to die?” I thought that was such a profound question. Do you? Does anybody? What a useless way to occupy space and time in one’s mind, thinking about that junk.

Anyway, according to some experts, genetic testing is a waste of money and tells people little more than they would know from studying family history. No kidding. Christine Patch, a genetic counselor at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and a member of Britain’s Human Genetics Commission, said, “My message is you are wasting your money.” The reality is that genes do not work in a linear fashion–gene A always causing result B. Instead, many genes work in a complex manner, “and their ultimate effect is is influenced by environmental factors in ways that are poorly understood.”

With a few exceptions, humans pretty much have every gene–it’s just what is expressed at any given time. Environmental factors, emotional factors, and psychological factors all influence gene expression. These are some of the things I’d like to see investigated in the field of genetics. Until this time comes, save your money and live your life; nobody really wants to know when it’s their time to go.

Lonely Genes

By On · Add Comment · In emotions, genes, gratitude, health, immune system, lonliness, social isolation

Do our emotions affect our health? Clearly they have an impact. But current research is uncovering how much influence they really have. Scientists have found that people who describe themselves as chronically lonely are more likely to get sick and die young, and much of it has to do with their immune systems gone haywire.

The lonely person has a distinct pattern of genetic activity, almost all of it involving the immune system, a recent study shows. According to one of the lead authors, Steve W. Cole, a molecular biologist at the University of California Los Angeles, “What this study shows is that the biological impact of social isolation reaches down into some of our most basic internal processes–the activity of our genes.” Previous studies have shown a correlation between loneliness and infections, high blood pressure, insomnia, cancer, and premature death, but this is the first study that has shown distinct genetic activity of social isolation.

The obvious question, then, is do these illnesses lead one to feel more isolated and thus lonely, or does loneliness lead to physiological changes? That’s what the authors of this study set to find out. They looked at all 22,000 genes of the human body to see where changes took place and found them to occur in a set of 200 genes, many involved in immune function.

This information is big. It is a groundbreaking study in an area that I believe is the future of human health and healing–the role of the mind in health and physiological function. Most forward thinking healers know that you cannot separate the mind from the body, but now we have concrete evidence, and this should hopefully open the doors to further investigation. I am certain that loneliness is just the tip of the iceberg–chronic guilt, resentment, and ingratitude must also have a tremendous impact on the human body; it’s just a matter of time before we find out how much so. The exciting news is that it must work in the opposite way as well. A strong social network, support, and a feeling of belonging must also enhance the health. And I’m certain that being in a state of gratitude has physical benefits well beyond what we can comprehend at the moment. So hats off to these innovative researchers for opening the doors to the future–I can’t wait to see what else is inside.

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.