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."

13 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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"...
  4. 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.
  5. 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 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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/
  8. 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 :)

  9. 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.