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."

Comments

Never a single gene

[maddu]

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.

Re:Never a single gene

[Smidge204]

From the article you probably didn't read:

The gene makes a protein that regulates some other genes and Topol said those will now be analyzed to see if they can be linked generally to heart disease.

So no, it's probably not just that gene, but in general it seems the problem starts from here and cascades down.

I'm not a biologist, but I think until they've mapped out every single gene and know exactly what it does, it might be wise to refain from words like "never" and "always". :)
=Smidge=

Gene knowledge has an ugly impact on ethics

[G4from128k]

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.

Re:Gene knowledge has an ugly impact on ethics

[Viadd]

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.

If my genetic test shows that the cyanide in almonds can cause me lung damage, and somebody else's test shows that the aflatoxin in peanuts will cause her liver damage, then I'll eat peanuts and she'll eat almonds and everyone will have a healthy, nut-enhanced existence.

The argument for ignorance says that we should ban genetic testing, criminalize peanuts and almonds, and have everyone just eat tofu. If that happens, and I can't get genetic testing to see what is and is not healthy for me, I'll be forced to buy mixed nuts of dubious origin from the local nut-house and die coughing my lungs out in the gutters of Squirrel Alley.

This is not hyperbole. The health fascists are trying to ban peanuts in various public places (because some people have allergies) and have everyone go on a low-salt diet, even though most people (even most people with high blood pressure) don't have sodium-sensitive hypertension.

What this gene does

[Scrameustache]

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...

How long before...

[gillbates]

DNA testing is required to get a job, health insurance, etc....

Gattaca isn't far away...

Heart attack gene and lifestyle

[XenonChloride]

Whoever isn't really satisfied with the information given in the CNN article might want to have a look at the Heart News, where Eric Topol points out:

People with this exact MEF2A mutation have essentially a 100-percent chance of having a heart attack or developing coronary artery disease [...] For people without a genetic predisposition, they must make it their responsibility to take care of themselves to prevent heart disease from developing.

So for all the obese guys out there:
Think about some other famous last words than It is all genetic [...]

What? How about sickle cell, CFTR, PKU, etc.,

[rump_carrot]

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.

Re:Never a single gene..WRONG!

[rump_carrot]

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.

Which sugar? (Warning: contains rambling prose)

[quinkin]

Ok first and foremost we need to define what we are actually discussing here. "Sugar" is not sufficiently specific.

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)