Researchers Find Off Protein For Immune System

canning writes "A team of Canadian scientists has discovered the "Holy Grail" of the signalling process the human body uses to control its immune system, a finding that could one day halt the development of cancer, diabetes, arthritis and heart disease. This article explains what Dr. Penninger's team plans to accomplish with such a discovery and gives a brief history of this highly successful group of researchers."

Comments

Re:Diabetes?

[Zachary Kessin]

Actualy alot more is related to the immune system than you might think. I believe Arthritis actualy at least in part is related to the immune system.

Also if you could selectivly turn off parts of the immune system it would make transplants much easer.

The cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.

Re:Diabetes?

[Mindwarp]

Type 1 diabetes is almost always caused by an incorrect immune system response. In type 1 diabetes, the immune system typically attacks the Beta cells in your pancreas that create Insulin for you.

Arthritis (more specifically rheumatoid arthritis) is caused by the body's immune system attacking the cartiledge layers in between your joints. Under attack the cartiledge layers become inflamed, causing the characteristic joint swelling and immobility.

Heart Disease is a common term to describe medical conditions that cause damage to the heart. These can be physical conditions (such as obstructions to the blood supply to the heart), viral/bacterial infections, or auto-immune responses.

More information on Diabetes can be found at the American Diabetes Association. Information on Rheumatoid Arthritis can be found at the Arthritis Foundation

--

You cannot escape natural selection

[StrawberryFrog]

> - the fittest no longer survive.

A common misconception. Darwin's use of the word "fittest" *does not* mean "most healthy", it means "best fit to the environment". All that's happened is that the environmental selection criteria have changed. Our environment, for instance, is no longer so unfriendly towards short-sighted people.

> Now everyone makes it,

Do they? Do homeless people have as many children as .com billionaires? Do Dumb/unlucky/reckless people still get killed before they breed? Is there still differential reproduction based on some (any) criteria? Point made already.

You cannot escape natural selection. Ever.

Anyway, for 80% of the earth's population, the selection criteria are the same as they ever where. Which is why whilst Americans are getting fatter, lazier and dumber, they will eventually be wiped out by the tougher, craftier Somalis. This IMHO a good thing - the good of the individual is not the good of the species.

Re:You cannot escape natural selection

[(void*)]

I agree that you can't escape natural selection.

But you assertion that homeless people have less children than billionaires is a bit far from the truth. It is a known fact that as populations get wealthier, their birthrate goes down.

The "wiping out" of Americans by Somalis is simply the effect of numbers. The fraction of Americans, as well as Europeans, of the world population is a dwindling number. This has nothing to do with laziness, fatness or dumbness.

Re:Is nothing sacred?

[Abcd1234]

Bah, either this is a troll, or you've got a really twisted view of the world. I would argue that a VERY large number of technologies developed which make our daily lives easier would never exist had we followed this mantra of paranoia. If we argue like this, well, we shouldn't have funded rocket programs, because now we have ICBMs. Ignore the fact that we also now have satellites, the ISS, and missions to the moon. Perhaps we shouldn't have funded research into computers. After all, computers can be used to develop new biological weapons! Or guide missiles to their targets! Or, they could even become super-intelligent and turn the human race into a huge system of bio-batteries! Oh, and don't get me started on theoretical physics... if we hadn't let those pesky University professors go on learning about the Universe, we never would have developed nuclear weapons. Or nuclear power plants... or a myriad of other technologies directly influenced by the development of nuclear and quantum theory.

The fact is, virtually any kind of research has it's dangers. But claiming that we shouldn't do this kind of research, simply because there's potentially evil uses for the knowledge? That's plain ridiculous.

Research should be opensourced ;-)

[revin]

For years, scientists thought that they knew everything there was to know about how CD45 functions. Here's a bit of what Dr. Penninger had to say about the discovery (Nature)
"People weren't interested in it any more, because everyone thought they knew what it was doing. We only found this because we wanted to revisit an old finding." "This, I found scientifically exciting. There we were thinking we had figured out this thing and then we had a completely new function which we had missed for the last 10 years. This was definitely a Eureka moment."

I can see this one already...

[autocracy]

It's like playing with matches next to gasoline. You might discover the power of gasoline, and then again you might discover that gasoline has the power to blow you away.

I think that this could be a good development, but I'm curious as to how they're going to test this without making anybody croak.

One more thing: we're slowly destroying Darwin's theory - the fittest no longer survive. Now everyone makes it, even if they have some genetic disease that gives them no chance in life. It's just another view to consider...

My karma's bigger than yours!

Is nothing sacred?

[Jon Erikson]

Although I've kept a concerned eye on the risks of biotech as a whole, this advance in the state of scientific knowledge is quite incredibly worrying for anyone considering the wider ramifications of biotechnology. I mean, it's one thing to make a tomato that stays juicy for longer, it's a different thing entirely to play around with the chemical that regulates the immune system!

I mean come on folks, this is getting to the point where there are immense risks to the health of millions. As the article says, mice which couldn't make the protein CD45 died very quickly from cancers and auto-immune diseases. This sounds like a perfect opportunity for nefarious rogue states to develop biological weapons for use against Western targets. I'm sure Saddamn would like to have a "cancer bomb" with which to threaten the US.

Although scientific openness has got us this far, I think that when it comes to developments that are inherently dangerous we need to have a little less self-promotion and a lot more respect for the potential consequences. Government bodies that fund these projects should be a lot stricter about the conditions for which they grant research funds to ensure national security in the face of a world increasingly anatagonistic to our rich culture.

Survival of the truth? DOA

[Kibo]

Chucky Darwin was always clear that his theories of evolution didn't apply to us in the strictest sence. Natural selection largely does not apply to humans at the individual level. Why is that? Our use of tools, and extended social networks coupled with a diffuse sence of responsibility to one another provide a shockingly effective saftey net. Take a moment an really think about what it takes to kill someone in this day an age. Shot in the head with a 12 gauge? Don't worry we'll fly you to the trauma center. You'll never be yourself again, but you may well live. Enough about tools, I think we all have a good idea how much we can do with those.

But what about those networks.... In short others will provide resources to those who cannot provide for themselves. Humans aren't the only animals that do this, but we are certainly the only ones that do it on the scale of millions, and our effectiveness in this endevour is difficult for the animal kingdom to match. (Note that examples of bees, ants etc, and any animal raising young don't apply as they're genetically related.) We use our network sort of like karma. We constantly put a little good karma in the bank and know that if we need to make a withdrawl the bank will be there even if we need to take out more than we've put in. Hell, our taxes and FEMA help buy new houses for people who live on rivers that flood every damn year, yet who for some reason didn't think to buy flood insurance. The farther someone is from me the less responsibility I have. If someone has a heart attack in front of me, I have the obligation to at least call 911 and perform CPR if I can. Farther away? I might just contribute some of my tax dollars. Another country? Foreign aid programs, buying habbits, charity. Other social networks in other countries will work in similar fashions, but they might not be as rich and powerful as the one I enjoy. If people can choose which network to be in why wouldn't they choose the best? They will, they do. Sometimes they pay smugglers a lot of money to pack them into a shipping container for a trip they might not survive. Or maybe they're smart, or beautiful.

In short, our social network insulates us from enviromental pressures. It does however create new pressures. But Darwin's theory only applied to enviromental pressures, should one apply the hypothesis to social pressures one must draw different conclusions. People aren't rich because they're better people, they're rich because they're fortunate to be rich in the vast majority of cases. Poor people aren't poor because they deserve it. Strict application of Darwin's ideas to our social structure leads to some fairly stupid expectations. At this point in time, our only real enviromental pressures are global warming (if you believe in bad science), or a celestial object striking the earth.

Lemme pose a question: Which is better being beautiful, or smart? I'd say beautiful. If you're smart you can create opportunity, but if you're beautiful other people do that for you.