Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cells Need Gravity to Develop

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the but-i-wanna-live-in-a-space-station! dept.

grytpype writes "According to a recent news article, a team of French researchers has reported that cells that develop in zero-G conditions fail to form critical "microtubules" needed for proper cell structure. The problem persists even after the affected cells are returned to gravity. The implications for long-term human space travel are interesting."

16 comments

  1. Re:So spin your station by SirTreveyan · · Score: 1

    Why do you think 1 G is needed? The article just says that some form of gravity is needed for proper developement. 1/2G or even 1/5 G would be able to supply the proper "direction" for proper cell development.

    --

    SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0

    0 rows returned

  2. Re:so what happend to all the mice? by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    The mice were born in space, but for how long did they grow in zero G? Actually, as full gestation would be needed for a complete experiment, I'm wondering how the mice dealt with 0g sex...

  3. Effects After Birth? by SEWilco · · Score: 1
    Notice that this is referring to possible effects when a cell is being created. That means that any cells which are dividing in a normal kid or adult may fail to form properly.

    So when you're in zero G, your hair cells die rather than multiplying. Same for the other frequently-multiplying cells: white blood cells, red blood cells, sperm cells, stem cells (cornea, brain, marrow, etc), and cancerous cells.

    1. Re:Effects After Birth? by yolto · · Score: 1

      I'm prety sure that brain cells are NOT frequently multiplying.
      -----------------
      Kevin Mitchell

  4. Re:So which side do I sleep on? by quadong · · Score: 1

    "skinner boxes" Do you actually know what a skinner box is?

  5. birth control? by Nerf97A4 · · Score: 1

    So 0g is the perfect birth control!

  6. freeze up! by crovax · · Score: 1

    The 0g affect is along term one. For long term space travel we would use cryogenics(sp?) or use a spinning ship to sim gravity any way so what is the problem?
    Or would this still affect frozen people?
    As for 0g sex, short term exposure to 0g would not be harmfull;-)
    -----
    If my facts are wrong then tell me. I don't mind.

  7. So spin your station by [Xorian] · · Score: 1

    The article suggests that centrigufal force is just as effective. Have a spinning section of your station that pproximates 1g and spend most of your time in there. You'd probably be more comfortable that way anyway.

    This result doesn't really surprise me much. We're adapted to the environment we evolved in.

    --
    CVS is teh suck. Use Vesta instead.
  8. How does this effect the theory of evolution? by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 1

    I'm interested if anyone thinks this changes the modern day theory of evolution?

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  9. Re:so what happend to all the mice? by ca1v1n · · Score: 1

    Actually, most animals would probably have great difficulty with 0g sex, because they don't have any grasping capability, and rely on gravity to provide a stable base so that friction can keep them in the right position. Humans are gifted with the power to grasp, and therefore copulate in space. Of course, dolphins do it swimming, which is a buoyant condition. Maybe they were also intended to travel the universe. Douglas Adams, call your office.

    --
    WARNING: there is a trojan on your
  10. Re:Your station would have to be huge!! by IdahoEv · · Score: 1

    All valid points but fuel/money isn't one of them.

    It is if you have to *launch* the components of a large station

    My argument is different - to wit, 'so what'? If you really want to have people living in space for long periods of time, you want to have a lot of people in a fairly large space, or they go stir crazy and develop serious social problems. Mir was not always a fun place. Even a place as "big" as McMurdo station gets pretty loopy during the winterover. (pop: 200)

    Really, if you want people in orbit permanently, you ultimately need to be prepared to send a small city. At which point making it a rotating city (and all the designs are) is not much harder.

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
  11. Your station would have to be huge!! by andrewtea · · Score: 1

    in order for this to work properly you space station would have to have an incredibly huge radius...if it didnt, the change in "gravity" from your feet to your head would be considerable enough that you would black out.... a bigger station means more mass, which means more fuel and more money...

    --

    admit defeat, live in decline, be the victim of our own design

    1. Re:Your station would have to be huge!! by King+of+the+World · · Score: 1

      All valid points but fuel/money isn't one of them. Rotational motion is conserved and spining a space station up to 1G wouldn't be particularly expensive or difficult.

      --
      --Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
    2. Re:Your station would have to be huge!! by boarder · · Score: 2
      But fuel/money IS one of the big issues. The new International Space Station will be around 360 feet long and costs billions of dollars. Imagine something that had to have a DIAMETER of 360 ft. It would cost 10x as much (I'm guessing).

      You also aren't considering the incredibly large effects of spin on the system. All the systems have to be more complex, not to mention the thermal gradients and all the other wacky things that happen to a space vehicle (I'm an engineer working on the ISS's guidance and control so I know some of the odd things that happen). We're currently spin stabilizing the ISS (we have to stop for thermal reasons once the Z1 truss gets there and for obvious reasons once humans inhabit it in January) and it takes fuel for spins and reboosts and other station keeping maneuvers.

      "spining a space station up to 1G wouldn't be particularly expensive or difficult."

      To spin something up to 1G to simulate gravity to a decent degree of normality would be require a sizable system. I won't do the math because nobody really cares, but I have seen the numbers and they ain't small. A large system costs more to put in space than a small one (gotta love our gravity hole) so cost is the major issue. If it were reasonable, trust me, they probably would've tried it.

      --
      IANAL, but I play one on /.
  12. Applicability is not clear... by IdahoEv · · Score: 2

    I looked up the abstract of the original article because the news article reference wasn't all that clear. It's listed in P.N.A.S. as a chemistry study, not a biology study.

    It appears the researchers were examining self-organization of microtubules in solution, but not actually sending living cells into space. And it's pretty big stretch to extrapolate from a simple chemical solution to living cells in a human body.

    I'd hold off for now on calling this study the solution to the question long-term health deterioration in space.

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
  13. so what happend to all the mice? by thogard · · Score: 3

    There have been plenty of healty mice born in space. Mice have been studied for a long time by both the US and Russian space programs.

    I like the bit about the supressed immune system. The the theory for that (in the 1960s) was that the astronauts were all issolated in a germ free areas for long periods before and after flights.