Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Discover the First 'Heart Attack' Gene
jimi1283 writes "A group of researchers recently conducted a study on 100 members of a family that had a high percentage of heart attack and other coronary disease. The study lead to the discovery of the gene responsible."
There is never *one* gene that causes a particular problem. Multiple genes are responsible almost always. Something as common as a heart attack will have multiple causes.
I was just about to head out for some lunch...maybe i will grab that cheeseburger i was thinking of...
Wonder how many people will use this finding as a reason not to work out / eat right.
what?! 100 members? Did they do this research on the Clampetts or something!? ;-)
-psy
Ethics and public policty really can't handle this type of knowledge on who can get what disease after exposure to common environmental factors or habits. Current health policy standards and EPA guidelines assume that "all people are created equal." Thus, the EPA sets carcinogen levels to create a less than one-in-a-million chance of getting cancer. But what happens now that we know that we are not all created equal -- instead of everyone having a one-in-a-million chance, we have 999,999 people with no chance of cancer and 1 genetically identifiable person per million with a 100% chance of cancer.
The existence of distinct genetic susceptabilities to high-fat foods, smoking, carcinogens, medications, etc. makes it hard to create uniform regulations for food, medicine, and occupational conditions.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
It seems that it is a gene also responsible for an organ called a "heart" wich has some function within the circulatory system.
Scientists will now attemp to remove that gene and see how things develop...
You can't take the sky from me...
DNA testing is required to get a job, health insurance, etc....
Gattaca isn't far away...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
a little offtopic but Slashdotter's in particular should know -
avoid sugar
Unfortunately it's in nearly everything in the western world.
A blog I run for the wealth
Since it's a common scenario, and it's severe, i'd be in favour of classrooms asking parents not to pack peanut snacks in kids' lunches. On the other hand, the odds of a kid being allergic to something like celery are so low that it makes more sense to have those parents take charge of their kids' health. There really is a sort of fuzzy boundary. If the inconvenience is severe and the allergy isn't, then tough luck. But if the allergy is severe and the inconvenience is negligible, then the allergen goes, instead.
Cancer is a slightly trickier measure. Since it would probably require repeated doses over a lifetime, it's likely that the tests will be developed, because you'll be the one having to safeguard your well-being by avoiding them. I'm getting to experience this firsthand with my own food-triggered-autoimmune experiences. Common foods are likely to stay- but segregation of foods will get better, and hopefully so will labelling of foods. In the meantime, i pack my own celery. *sigh* And i've stopped eating it with peanut butter at work.
sol
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
Things are never that easy. Most people (at least Americans) get far too much suger. However sugar is a nessiary part of life, and if you ate no sugar you would have a lot of problems. Even diabetics need to get a minimal amount of sugar, just that the real food we normally eat contains too much. (and that is before you get into junk food)
Eat a well balanced diet, avoid too much of anything. Don't overeat, don't under eat. (But a fast once in a while might or might not be benificial) Anytime someone gives you an absolute of what to do or not do, make sure they are a medical doctor who knows your particular unique situation. What works and is healthy for me might be a bad idea for you.
Think about some other famous last words than It is all genetic [...]
I tried to go without sugar and (!) nearly all carbohydrate as well as an experiment, managed it for 6 days until I got caught short at work and had to buy a flapjack and bananna.
was mostly living off Tuna, mackrel, lettace, ham omlettes and chicken.
Wasn't as hard as was expecting, but then I'm a student so I've got time for this messing about. In fact the only problem is the fruit and veg that you need of course, if it wasn't for that I'd try to carry on doing it at such an extreme.
The suprise was that I felt better eating just protein and fat when I expected to feel tired. But who knows, it's got to mess you up in the end.
The main thing I've learnt from the experiment is that if you eat/drink something sweet, it may satisfy immediately but then you only want more shortly later. This means you can be in a constant state of "what am I eating next" and that's how I felt before the experiment. No need to go extreme but I definately bear it in mind now which was worth proving to myself.
After work the day I had the (very sweet) flapjack and bannana I tried the Gym. I had to give up and go home because I fgelt so week... I was really, really shocked.
I suggest you try it - do as many pressups as you can before the experiment, note how you feel then, - fish, meat, eggs, lettace, vitamins for just 2 days. Pressups again.
then eat some usual sugary things and retest with pressups. See how it goes. I may try it again also to be sure.
(It would be handy to know if mine wasn't a fluke too)
The main thing seems to be preparation since you won't find anything but sugar in convienience. Temptation isn't a problem once you've done it for a day or 2.
crazy
A blog I run for the wealth
To claim that there is a gene or a number of genes that leads to a propensity to have a heart attack seems to be putting the cart before the horse. While opinions differ, there seems to be no clearcut answer the the question "What is a gene?" Now we can talk about cistones and amino acid sequences, but such a question runs deeper than that. Richard Dawkins, author of the "Selfish Gene Theory" claims that genes are active replicators or that genes replicate for the purpose of increasing its population and not for the expression of a phenotype. Other gene claims are that genes are difference makers. A given gene or set of genes is either because of its existence the difference maker in expressed phenotype. This is the assumption that this article seems to use. However, developmental systems theorists seem to have a more robust and empirically correct claim which states that genetics is only one aspect of a larger scheme of phenotypic expression. In other words, mitochondria, DNA, environment, nutrition, and the like all have a hand in the expression of a phenotype. Thus, for any gene that is considered "a gene for X" X is only expressed when the organism has the right combination of other features already expressed. Because of this, it seems faulty for such a claim to be made, that there is a causal connection between strictly DNA and the organism's probability of a heart attack.
Hogwash. Why do people post opinions (and get modded up) when they don't know what they are talking about? Oh, right, slashdot. forgot for a second. I am a biologist (biochemist actually), and I can assure you there are numerous examples of diseases caused one gene: sickle cell, some forms of retinitis pigmentosa (night blindness), cystic fibrosis, etc. etc.
I think, therefore I thought.
Hogwash! There are MANY diseases caused by mutations in just one gene.
Examples include sickle cell, cystic fibrosis, phenylketonuria (PKU), some forms of retinitis pigmentosa (night blindness), etc. etc.
I think, therefore I thought.
well...read my post. I said "almost always". The diseases you have mentioned are rare. And can be traced back to a single gene. On the other hand, heart attack is so common.
I did read your post, after I read your subject header which states "Never a single gene"
Perhaps you meant "almost always". But if you meant that, then should have said that in your subject line.
Thus, I stand by MY response, i.e. "Never a single gene..WRONG" is is factually correct.
Cheerios
I think, therefore I thought.
From the first post, I assume we are referring to sucrose but not the more commonly occurring sugars like glucose, fructose (the major sugar in most fruits - to the troll), lactose, etc. Sucrose does not occur in large concentrations in nature except in a few specific cases - sugar beets, sugar cane, etc. From a bio-historical perspective it is quite obvious that we are not well adapted to eating large amounts of purified sucrose.
If you would like further information on some of the sugars and the differences between them you could have a look here.
What astounds me about the american diet is the amount of sugar that is in EVERYTHING! Even your bread has huge amounts of sugar in it. If I had to eat something sweet in the morning (as seems traditional in a number of countries) I would blow chunks all over the place - salty, fatty, plain, whatever just don't coat it in bloody sugar!
Avoid prepackaged foods and don't cover your food in sugar is the long and the short of it. Buy a bread maker, read labels (usually the ingredients are ordered in terms of weight - so the KFC coleslaw where the ingredients start "cabbage, sugar, carrots..." lets you know that the second largest ingredient is sugar... ack)
Btw, I would not reccomend that anyone eats refined (white) sugar. The processes used in it's manufacture are not what I would like to ingest - raw sugar is far preferable (I still like a bit in my tea:).
While I am meandering from topic to topic - I would reccomend that anyone who uses artificial sweetners tries this experiment. Find an ant's nest, place a unit of of your preferred artificial sweetner next to it, and see what the ants do. If it ain't good enough for ants, it ain't good enough for me.
Ok, one final ramble to the parents out there - be good with your kids. It seems a lot of the attitudes towards sweeteners and sugar content in food is very hard to "un-learn" once taught. I am trying my best to make sure that my son isn't imprinted with too many bad eating habits. This is not to say that they cannot enjoy sweets, but they are not and should not be part of a day-to-day diet. My little boy loves his fruit, and would take a good nectarine over a lollypop anyday.
Q. (Waxing Lyrical)
Insert Signature Here
I suggest this be named the 'Elizabeth' gene.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.