Slashdot Mirror


Molecule Cuts Off Fat's Food Supply

hords writes "New Scientist reports a magic bullet that destroys the blood vessels that feed fat tissue enables mice to lose a third of their body weight. They first screened millions of peptides and identified one that binds to a membrane protein found only in the blood vessels supplying white fat. Then they hooked this up to another peptide that triggers cell suicide or apoptosis. Mice that had grown obese on a high-calorie diet were given daily injections of the combined peptide they lost 30 percent of their body weight in four weeks, whereas control mice given the two peptides separately grew even fatter."

23 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    These drugs work great for curing cancer in mice but don't work as well in humans. Given that, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't work well in humans for this either....

  2. Tsk tsk by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Funny

    Only 1 comment so far? Oh right, like this story isn't of concern to most of us here.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:Tsk tsk by k4rm4_p0l7c3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      i would have replied earlier, but i was eating cake.

  3. And... by eingram · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...in five years after the entire world is hooked on it, we'll see, "Have you been taking MOLECULE DIET PILLS and started bleeding UNCONTROLABLY? If so, YOU could get up to $1,000,000 in damages! Call 1-800-NO-BLEED!" commercials.

  4. Doesn't obesity come with other symptoms though? by Dylbert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure this might reduce fat cells and overall body weight, but does it do anything to control cholesterol levels, blood pressure, etc?

    Giving this to patients by itself wouldn't do much to discourage healthy eating. You'd have to combine it with treatment for cholesterol (and other obesity symptoms). Of course, then people could get a dependancy on it, meaning healthy eating and exercise become pointless to them.

    Just some food for thought (h0h0h0, its puntastic)

    --
    I swear, if I see another Slashdot comment with "It will be interesting to see"...
  5. Yurgh by judd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I see all sorts of potential problems here. But here are two.

    1. We don't know what else fat cells do in your body. They may have other roles than fat storage.

    2. The health risk associated with obesity is not necessarily causative, just correlated. It has a lot to do with being sedentary. A fat person who takes these pills and becomes thin probably doesn't alter their health status much unless they take the opportunity to be less sedentary as well.

    I bet the potential for abuse for cosmetic purposes, a la anabolic steroids, will be huge.

    1. Re:Yurgh by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 4, Informative
      If you look for a more accurate story (New Scientist? did /. fall so low already?), you'll see they're well aware of potential problems. From this yahoo story:


      When fat mice were injected with the new "fat-zapper" every day for a month, they all slimmed down to normal weight with no visible side-effects, the researchers reported in the June issue of Nature Medicine.

      But they stressed the experiment is still in the very early stages and it affects a function found in virtually all cells -- meaning it has a high potential for serious side-effects.

      "I am trying to un-hype this," said Dr. Wadih Arap of the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who led the research.
    2. Re:Yurgh by Dros68 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "1. We don't know what else fat cells do in your body. They may have other roles than fat storage." For instance, fat contains stem cells that can heal fractures too large to heal by themselves. It seems likely that any reduction in blood flow would kill off the stem cells as quickly as the fat cells themselves. It would be unfortunate to be finally skinny, then break something because you lack your normal "fat cushion", then you are unable to heal yourself because you lack your fat derived stem cells!

  6. Unforseen side effects by spineboy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    A 30% loss of total body fat in a month will probably result in some rather harsh/detrimental side effects. Can you imagine what will happen to the HUGE increase in cellular breakdown products from all the fat, triglycerides,proteins and nucleaic acids that are liberated? Gout, kidney damage, brain infarcts are just a few. The human body is probably not equipped to deal with massive cell apoptosis (cell death) on a level like this.

    On the other hand, morbid obesity is probably the number one preventable health concern in America. I am doubtfull that this will ever be a useful drug (i.e. too many side effects, like DEATH), but if somehow it makes it's way onto the list of FDA approved drugs, this will have a MAJOR affect on the American lifestyle (even less exercising?). Whatever pharm company invents this will be filthy, filthy, filthy rich.

    N.B. It usually takes about 10 years and close to a bilion dollars to go from a chemical/protein to an approved drug in America. Let's check back in a few years.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:Unforseen side effects by Kris_J · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My instincts point to liver failure. No way it could process all those disolving fat cells.

    2. Re:Unforseen side effects by Dylbert · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The number of cells broken down would depend entirely on the dosage. If the FDA (Note: I'm not an American) were indeed to approve it, doctors would need to limit a person's intake so as to ensure the liver and associated organs can handle the increased load. Having the treatment span out over the course of 3-6 months might not be as much a problem than taking one hit in a month.

      What I'd be more inclined to look at is the political stance on a drug such as this - if (i.e. when) obesity turns into a major political issue, wouldn't the FDA be under pressure to fast-track the approval process?

      --
      I swear, if I see another Slashdot comment with "It will be interesting to see"...
    3. Re:Unforseen side effects by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are assuming that humans would be administered a dose that would cause 30% of your fat cells to die. Each molecule can only kill off one fat cell, correct? So it should be possible to figure out how many molecules are needed to kill 1% of your fat cells in a month. That might be hard on your kidneys, but if it were medically necessary (i.e. you were so fat you can't walk, and thus can't excercise -- basically the same people who qualify to have their stomach stapled) to save a life, it might be worthwhile. And, dialysis is around. Couldn't they just hook you up to a dialysis machine while your fat cells die? Perhaps it will become a new form of liposuction that will leave no scars.

      I do think this may be one of the first non-mind altering drug to become a controlled substance if it gets approved because of the danger involved. Although I don't doubt there may be a way for it to be helpful, I also don't doubt stupid people will pop a bottle of pills in the hope it will just make them skinnier faster, or buy it off the black market without understanding hte risks. Then again, who am I to judge? Darwinism works because the stupid and the weak die off before they can procreate.

    4. Re:Unforseen side effects by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Controlled substances are labeled as such because there is a large danger of abuse. I used to work at a pharmacy, and generally these drugs were narcotics (i.e. morphine), and things that could be sold illegally (apparently there is quite the black market out there for valium), and things which are very easy to get addicted to (i.e. OxyContins). Most of these drugs fit into the category of things people pop for fun. However, I can see people popping this drug in order to lose weight. It's a well known fact weight loss drugs are dangerous, but how many people bought ephedra based pills after phen-phen was outlawed?

  7. I wouldn't hold my breath by JGski · · Score: 4, Informative
    The original, original article's (scientific paper) author reminded a Reuter's interviewer that there as a good chance that this won't pan out for humans. There have been plenty of previous "fat factors" that only worked on rodents and didn't transfer to primates.

    The genomes of rats, mice and humans have a lot of key differences in the basic metabolic pathways. That recent study explains a lot about why rat and mouse studies can be so wrong about human responses to drugs and things.

    1. Re:I wouldn't hold my breath by Dros68 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not going to say this is a sure thing. However, it helps that they are merely using the presence of the protein in blood vessels supplying fat cells as a marker for attaching the cell death factor. They aren't trying to tweak a metabolic pathway, which would require the interplay of all the components to be preserved between mouse and human. Instead, they are just killing blood vessels that contain a particular protein. It seems like this is a little simpler and requires fewer caveats than a metabolism-altering drug. It is true that human fat cells may respond to the absence of blood vessels differently than mouse fat cells, but most parts of the body do poorly without oxygen or nutrients or waste removal.

    2. Re:I wouldn't hold my breath by JGski · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It is a good thing. And you're right, there may be a homology in humans. I used to work in biotech, specifically a genomics company, so I'm pretty familiar with how this works.

      I also know how little we really understand on genomic-proteomic-metabolic pathways. In most cases the math needed to grok this isn't a common skill in the biological community. An organism's genomic-proteomic-metabolic pathways have similar complexity to the system of operating system, plus firmware/microcode, plus transistor-level circuit, plus process-level (e.g. doping) interactions of a Pentium processor-based computer, though:

      1. the Pentium computer is far more simple than most biological organisms,
      2. we don't yet understand the components, specification languages or algebras/calculi yet. Imagine having only a late 19th century understand of the workings of a modern computer including: programming, os theory, processor architecture, boolean logical/reduction, circuit analysis, Maxwell's equations, device level doping and manufacturing, semiconductor quantum mechanics, etc. but then thinking you grok such a computer well enough to make changes to function to "improve" it; this is where we are today with proteomics and enzyme/protein/substrate circuits and still to a large extent with genomics.
      3. there are as many different biological "processor" types as there are species. Most computer processors have registers and alu's but then it diverges pretty fast, especially if you want to tweak something based on what worked on another architecture. Do a pipeline tweak on a PowerPC that worked on a Pentium and the chances of seeing the desired results are pretty low.

      There has been some interesting work but the heavy math and analysis required has only recently become common option for biology degrees, and then only those folks who do bioinformatics are going to have the education for 21st century biology. Biology will soon be part of the engineering school and/or part of the hard sciences like physics. It will not be a major you go into to avoid math like it has in the past.

      I'm also remembering how slow and meticulous a process this research is and must be, and how uncertain the end result may be compared to initial hypotheses. Compare this to the scientifically illiterate mass-communication sound bite that type of research gets in the general media, and well, that tends to temper my enthusiasm when I see something like this outside the realm of a journal (my, how academically elitist of me :-) ).

  8. Hey, fathead! by Goon+Number+1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    What's my brain made out of? Oh yeah, Fat. Let's mess with that, shall we?

    --
    http://radio.weblogs.com/0103443/
    1. Re:Hey, fathead! by Molina+the+Bofh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, dude, but it's completely unrelated.

      While the brain does use some fats to isolate neurons, it does not get it from fat cells. In fact, there are no fat cells in the brain.

      Fat cells are cells are specialized cells that store fat. That's their job. The fat takes up to 85% of the cell volume.

      If 30% of the fat cells are destroyed, that only means that the body's fat storage was reduced by 30%. This probably would be excess fat that the body would never use.

      Reducing total fat is not harmful to the brain, unless it's reduced to drastically low levels (like this.

      --

      -
      Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
  9. Oh boy by Gecedion · · Score: 2, Funny

    So how long until I'm spammed about this latest breakthrough in weight-loss technology?

  10. Different fat by MachDelta · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article said the drug only targets white fat. Virtually all of the "important fat" in your body (eg: membranes around the heart, blood vessels, brain, myelin, etc) is "brown fat". White fat (actually yellow), on the other hand, is the stuff that you find in love handles, beer bellies, fat-asses, and our other beloved yet misshapen body parts. The big difference between to two in your bodies eye is that white fat is for storage, whereas brown fat is for other things like protection and temperature regulation. Brown fat tissue doesn't really get "fat" (you'd be dead if it did) because thats not it's purpose.

    So as long as this drug really only does affect white fat, it should (theoretically) work. It certainly wouldn't be a miricle drug though. For one thing, it seems like it would attack fat indiscriminately. Your body stores fat in preferred locations, but theres no way to tell the drug to "just" go after your gut. It would eat fat away from your entire body - not just your problem areas. Imagine how many women would bitch after their boobs shrunk, their arm muscles were exposed, but their ass was still too big?

    The other major problem with it is that it wouldn't be permanent. Fat cells don't have a specified size - they'll grow or shrink depending on the bodies need. So even if you kill off half your fat cells one week, theres no guarantee that next week your remaining fat cells will just start growing 2 times bigger (this is why lyposuction 'doesn't always work'). This means the drug probably wouldn't work for your "typical fat American kid", because their diets won't change. Sure, they could slice off a few pounds with a pill, but if they keep eating unhealthy their bodies will just pile more into their existing cells. If they go on the drugs repeatedly (or permanently), they could wind up with serious health problems - or worse.
    The best audience for this type of thing would be people who eat healthy, but for whatever reason can't loose fat, or want to loose more of it. People like bodybuilders (for that even more ripped look), or possibly women who haven't lost pregnancy fat after birth, or something. For the majority of us who snack on chocolate cake and pop between our 6 course meals, it probably wouldn't work.
    Sorry to ruin everyones day :)

  11. A point for geeks who like big busts... by sacremon · · Score: 2

    ...much of the bulk of women's breasts is white fat.

    --
    If you can't beat them, embrace and extend them.
  12. Re:Doesn't obesity come with other symptoms though by Sgt+York · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Well, here we have some difficulty, and we start an offtopic rant. Sometimes, what we take as a symptom is, in fact, the illness (AFAWK). These are primary diseases. There are diseases which are a specific pathologic state associated with a particular etiology, and there are diseases which are sets associated pathologies, with no certain associated etiology.

    Take asthma, for instance. There is a distinct set of pathologies associated with asthma, but there is no single etiology, nor is there a set of etiologies which acount fully for the disease state (i.e., two people exposed to the same conditions may or may not develop asthma, even apart from genetics). Type I diabetes is the same way. There is a set of symptoms (airway hyperresponsiveness for asthma, or low insulin for diabetes) with an unknown cause. As that we do not know the cause, we must treat only the symptoms. Oddly, with the primary diseases, controlling the symptoms makes the disease undectable.

    If you treat all of the symptoms of a cold, the cold is still detectable as adenovirus in in lungs (Use Koch's postulates). If someone has cancer and it is forced into remission, there are still ways to detect the presence of an old cancer (exceptionally difficult sometimes, but possible).

    Not so with things like asthma, diabetes and primary diseases. Unless the symptom reasserts itself, the syndrome/disease/etc is undectable. Keep in mind that total ablation of the symptoms is rarely possible. It is only a theorectical concept except in mild cases.

    Back on topic, there are many known causes for obesity the most common of which are eating too much or sitting on your ass too much. Most commonly obesity is a result of a combination of the two. Therefore, it could be aruged that obesity is not a primary disease, because we know the cause. The opposing arguement is that because we do not understand the motivations which cause the self destructive behavior (which is regarded as a symptom), the disease is primary. That is, since we do not understand the cause of the "eating too much" symptom, we must call it a primary disease. I disagree, personally, because I do not see self-destructive behavior as a pathological state in Man. It may not be beneficial, but I don't think it's abnormal.

    Obesity can however be described as a cyclical disease, in that the disease state causes worsening of the state after a certain point. It is these people that truly need help. They essentially dug a hole that is too deep for them to climb out of on their own. These are the people who need intervention.

    --

    There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

  13. Re:Doesn't obesity come with other symptoms though by Tree131 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Most if not all the extra time you get to live (mind you, if any) is spent exercising. Heck, you might even live less when you subtract the exercising time, who knows *grin*

    My health club recently installed individual 15" LCD screens on a whole bunch of treadmills and elliptical trainers... All have full cable access. Now, instead of sitting on the couch at home, I can watch Simpsons or Iron Chef and excersize while doing it. And if Simpsons isn't on, those screens are attached to a DVD/CD player, so I can bring a movie along. Makes my 30 min cardio session a breeze!