Slashdot Mirror
'Bad' Protein Linked to Numerous Health Problems
nbahi15 writes "A report in the July 13th edition of the online Journal of Clinical Investigation has linked the aP2 protein to asthma and several other diseases. It also suggests a connection between the metabolic and immune systems and these diseases." From a related Forbes article: "To study the effects of aP2, the researchers created genetically engineered mice that could not produce the protein. 'They're metabolic supermice,' Hotamisligil said. 'We cannot make them obese, diabetic or atherosclerotic. They don't develop fatty liver disease, and they don't develop asthma.' In mice with an animal model of asthma, the researchers found that aP2 regulated the infiltration of inflammatory molecules into the lungs."
Great. Kazaa just gave me asthma. Well, let's just get the MPAA and the RIAA to file some lawsuits against these bad aP2Ps. That'll fix their wagon. They've got to learn that it's wrong to steal the pharmaceutical industry's property. Wait. What?
I, for one, welcome our genetically modified supermouse overlords.
would be nice if they listed some side effects that this has first link is to some auto-download pdf bullshit
Are these "bad proteins" anything like the prions that cause mad-cow or Crutzfeld-Jacob disease?
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
If these proteins are so bad, and so easy to genetically engineer out, then from an evolutionary standpoint, why do we have these genes? Are we sure this protein doesn't have a big positive effect that we are not aware of?
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
i think i have that bad protein.
Wow, I could so go for a pill that would inhibit production of this protein as a wieght loss drug that does not rely on stimulants.
Priors! Oh shit! The Ori are coming!
Ah, man, and my mod points expired yesterday...
and it causes The Evil Bit, too!
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
would be nice if they listed some side effects
See the original quote in full:
All the mice died instantly, but on the positive side we cannot make them obese, diabetic or atherosclerotic. They don't develop fatty liver disease, and they don't develop asthma.
Apparently dead mice don't have much appetite. The scientists are continuing their investigations.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Let's see, how long before we can buy the vaccine? Better yet how long before doctors start selling it on the black market?
If this really is just a single protien, well then, it's going to be sold. How do we find it? How much will it cost? If it's going to be a prescribed drug, how can we buy stock? If it's a vaccine, how can we get one?
I don't know, I suppose right now none of this matters because the earth wont last long enough to even make this drug and test it. Chances are, we will die of the flu before we die of heart disease. Chances are will we die of food pollution or water pollution or air pollution.
So, yes if this is the truth, well this is good, but theres a lot of good news that we will only see in 10 years or more, and considering the current state we could be back in the stone age or tribal, who knows. What I do know is that this will be very valueable knowledge.
Called aP2, the protein has no useful function in the body. It only appears during the course of disease, and seems to cause adverse effects on blood sugar levels and fatty acid metabolism.
Proteins without useful functions tend not to stay around in populations. Chances are that this protein is important for something. Good candidates are fighting off various parasitic infections, or dealing with some kind of physiological stresses. Those conditions may not arise much in Western lifestyles, and hence getting rid of aP2 may be a good idea for us, but the protein almost certainly has some kind of useful function under some conditions.
So that's that secret ingredient in my Big Mac!
That is an interesting direction of thought. If they are, well we might already have Crutzfeld-Jacob disease. Think of it this way, if we do have it, you cannot tell anyone for the same reason you cannot talk about alien invasions and other weird unlikely events. Sure it's possible, but if we think about every possible unlikely event, we all will go batshit crazy and be wearing tin-foil hats. I don't really think tin-foil hats do much except fry your brain.
if we had superior beings in our society, then what would happen to us
regular jacks, and joes, jills, and janes?
we would be obsolete, and
used only for manditory labor (sharpening pencils, licking envelopes and such)
We may have the proteins because they didn't stop us from making lots of babies and raising them. "Obesity", iow tending to accumulate fat is actually a survival trait in a world where food is scarce (as it was for the hunter-gatherers we were for most of the time we were evolving).
Thus the usefullness of these proteins may be of no use at all in the world we've created for ourselves, where some people tend to live long enough and/or eat enough food to have the effects of said to cause problems.
*One of the best arguments against "Intelligent Design" is that we are not particularly well designed at all, either the designer wasn't very good at it or was a sadist.
When the country falls into chaos, politicians talk about 'patriotism'. Lao-Tzu
Or because we've had 6,000 years to accumulate deleterious mutations, boosted by a catastrophic population bottleneck at around 1656 years into the experiment.
IF we follow your logic to it's conclusion, the human species is unfit for breeding. Let's see, every human dies, and will die at an earlier and earlier age as pollution decreases lifespan. So according to your own logic, you adocate suicide?!
:"Everyone wants to look good, but do you want the species to look good, and be incredibly lazy, eventually to the point of not even bothering to breed anymore."
In nature, the fit are the ones who declare themselves fit. If obese out of shape old men declare themselves more fit than young teenagers in their prime, then they are more fit. Do you see that animals actually have brains and decide among themselves who will be fit and when? Second animals are not rational, mice will decide their individual families are fit even if they arent. A family of fat mice working together might be more fit than a group of independent skinny mice. Lastly, fitness of the individual mouse has nothing to do with fitness of the individual species.
So, we could pick out the most beautiful atheletes, but if they have the smallest brains, well, thats going to limit the overall long term survival of the species.
Logical flaw in your arguement
This is an assumption, and what is the basis? If you view yourself as a physical body, and not a part of an ecosystem, then yes how your body looks matters, but obesity really has nothing to do with fitness as in the right environment being obese will keep you from starving and is physically attractive. The way to survive is intelligent selection, and most humans don't intelligently select. Natural selection isnt always intelligent. Intelligent selection is selecting the human most likely to improve the quality of the species itself, which almost no one does. Geeks get no love, and geniuses often get treated like somethings wrong with them. If the goal is the survival of the human species on a long term basis, it's intelligent selection. If the goal is survival of the fittest by todays standards, at the cost of tomorrow, well then mate with the most physically attractive person you can find, and in the future you will have a physically attractive yet most likely extinct human species. What you have to understand is, the long term survival of a species requires both the obese genes and the skinny genes, it requires both the lazy and hard working, it's the lazy who created the personal computer and increased productivity, otherwise we'd still be using typewriters. It's the lazy who invented the car, the bike and modern transportation. It's the lazy who invented the factory.
It could be that we are far too lazy, I will not say too much lazy is good, but there is a need for lazy. There is a need for hard labor. Most importantly, we have a shortage of intelligent minds, and a massive over supply of simple minds. Many people, are happy to just party through life, and expect life to get better, and then be surprised as each year progressively gets worse. If you want the key to survival of the fittest, mate with the people who make your life and other peoples lives better, you can be sure the offspring will carry that gene, otherwise you'll mate potentially with a person who will make your life and everyone around you miserable, and we already know where this can lead, a divorce perhaps? But it has a much greater impact on the lifespan of yourself as an individual, and on the lifespan of the species itself than people realize.
Vegetarianism has health benefits depending on your body type, your gender, and many many other individual based diet observations. In general, sure we should be eating less meat, but to simply demand everyone eat your favorite veggies is not going to work. If you want to promote vegetarianism, the first thing you need to do is focus on cleaning up food in general, because vegetarian food is no healthier with all the pesticides and other issues. A genetically engineered veggie is no healthier or safer than eating the steak, and vegetarians get cancer too.
And, this way is a lot safer that subjecting your body to pre-clinical drugs tried only on mice.
Osho
First, solve pesticides and genetic engineering, because as things are right now, the vegetarian eating habits arent much better. I agree, I don't eat certain meats. But seriously, fish is healthy. Omega fatty acids are found in fish, and despite what you might think, humans need fat and calories.
So the question here, or the debate we should be having is how to make food cleaner. We all agree on this that food is dirty, and we want clean food and water. You will not have clean food and water if you are focused on trying to make people all eat like you, food nazism is just not the answer. If you want to do something useful, focus on functional foods, and clean foods. Instead of making fake meats with veggies, invent new foods. Also, stop supporting those processed fake veggie foods, how am I supposed to take vegetarianism seriously when vegetarians are drinking soy milk?! and fake meat?! That stuff is as bad as drinking cows milk and eating the real thing.
Yes vegetarianism is good for health, I absolutely support it, but I don't think you can support vegetarianism by jumping in peoples face with fake health benefits. Clean food is food which is not processed, which has verified chemistry, which passes all the organic genetic tests, and which has no form of pesticides. Most veggies you buy from a store, is genetically modified, filled with pesticides too, and then theres the processing and altered chemistry.
So, first step is to actually have a place people can go to and buy clean food, and have groups to test food and make sure it's clean. Otherwise you arent any healthier as a vegetarian if you arent growing it yourself.
It's far too soon to draw any conclusions about this. Yes, removing it appears to have a positive effect on mice. Mice, as some people have to be reminded, are not people. Others have mentioned this protein may have a positive effect. It may. It may have a crucial effect in people. We've cured just about every type of known cancer in mice in about a few dozen different ways and yet the cures for these cancers in people continue to elude us.
Now that said, it doesn't mean that more research isn't in order. At some point, they'll want to create a drug that binds to or otherwise inhibits this protein and then probably test it on primates. Who knows, it may turn out to be a wonder cure for asthma and obesity and other things. But it's FAR too soon to draw that conclusion. There's a lot of amazing research going on out there, but this is simply one of many pieces of research that come up witht these kinds of positive results every week. Most don't pan out and until they have a drug for people, it's hardly worth mentioning on Slashdot. If Slashdot mentioned every one of these, that'd be all it did.
I'm trying to be a clean consumer, I'm not really focused on which clean foods people consume. Vegetarianism is good for animals? OF course. If it good for you? Maybe not.
Clean food is food which is healthy for you, if we can have clean vegetarian food, and with our technology it should be possible, we should do this, I'd go vegetarian if I can get a meat equal. Nuts and stuff, seriously, not many people are going to go fully vegetarian, most humans arent designed for it, yes we should eat a lot less meat, but no meat at all? Maybe someday when we have clean healthy food and can universally decide to eat however we want, but most of us eat according to our individual health.
It's the chemistry of it. Don't you get it? Processed foods are what cause health reduction, along with the other chemically altered ingredients. Veggies are really no less processed, but if you know a good place we can buy veggies show us a farm we can buy directly from.
nt
When the country falls into chaos, politicians talk about 'patriotism'. Lao-Tzu
People talk about evolution as if we do not control it. Evolution has been a controlled art for a while now, and obviously we are getting it wrong because, well look around you. Sure we could focus on improving our species and our evolution, but it has nothing to do with natural selection, thats ignoring the fact that we have science and brains capable of actually directing our own evolution. Our lack of evolution is due to the fact that we just recently discovered genetics, and even now while we know what genetics is, we rely on religion to tell us how to evolve and live. We are focused a bit too much on appearance and not really focused at all on survival. Read up on transhumanism.
If you have a population of creatures that share an ecological niche, and one has this mutation that allows them to be more successful and thus drive the non-mutated population toward extinction, then the mutation becomes self-selecting and becomes predominant.
It is not strictly necessary that the mutation acts before reproduction.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Instead of aP2, I read a2p, which is the awk to perl translator. Everybody knows a2p is bad for you. First I've heard of aP2.
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
I'll let his characters explain this all for me, including the big business angle.
Dr. Hibbert: "Well, only one in two million people has what we call the 'evil gene'. Hitler had it, Walt Disney had it, and Freddy Quimby has it."
remember the wisdom of Mahatma Gandhi: If enough peasants die horribly, someone will probably notice
It prevents leathal infections caused by public telephone receiver useage.
It may be bad for us now.. but it apparently helps us more efficiently process foods and store energy (that is what fats are, stored energy).
Sure we have an abundance of food and a sedentary lifestyle now, but our society is quite fragile. If some catyclism were to happen, such as the mile high pacific tsunami predicted if that shelf of hawaii (which is sliding) were to suddenly give way, then we may lose that infrastructure.
If we engineer out or impede this gene, we may end up going extinct in the absence of abundant food supplies, which exist now only because we are artifically, and some argue only temporarily, increasing the carrying capacity of our planet.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The gene that produces this protein wouldn't be eliminated if in the past it posed no threat to producing offspring and raising them to maturity.
It doesn't work that way. Genes that don't have any function tend to disappear. If this gene is actively expressed in a significant part of the human population, it must have some function.
That people die from heart disease, obesity, and diabetes seems like proof positive that selective force is being applied. That coupled with children being born later, and people choosing not to have children, also select towards healthier, stronger, and more fertile people.
If we can continue selecting for later childbirth and healthier parents for the next hundred years, we may see some real evolution at work.
GPL Deconstructed
Imho that question is premised on flawed assumptions:
1) evolution might have selected against this gene as easily as geneticists
2) evolution had cause to, in historical context
3) therefore the gene must have some other benefit
The article suggests that a2P production is amplified by excessive fat storage, a condition rare to non-existent throughout evolution. Their hypothesis suggests:
a2P production may increase as a result of obesity
a2P -> inflammation
inflammation -> reduced metabolism and immunological functioning
That + modern living (calories, stress, sedentary) = exacerbated obesity.
Hence more a2p production, in a vicious cycle.
Historically calories were always scarce and required exercise. Hence there would be no natural precedent for selection against the a2P gene. Put simply a2P may be a byproduct of modern living. That's an important general principle: we're not adapted by evolution to modern life because we're changing our environment faster than biological evolution can keep up.
Our instinctual desire/effort/reward equation towards eating and rest are evolved proportional to historical scarcity. Today, successful adaptation and evolution is dependant on conscious choices individually and culturally, as well as the technological ability to re-program ourselves, both psychologically and physiologically.
well i guess some of the genes that we have programs ourselves to die. just imaging if nobody would die today. i'll just image chaos in the world due to scarce resources. going to the lemmings path?
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
"We've cured your athsma and diabetes, you will also lose those love handles in a matter of weeks. That said, our slashdot researchers have discovered that you will never get an erection again nor be able to compile a linux kernel. Have a good one!".
/got nothing.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No offense meant, but that (and the assumption that evolution is only relevant to reproductive age made by another poster) is actually false and a rather unfortunately common over-simplification of evolution. It presumes every gene must manifest in every individual during reproductive age and lead directly to reproduction to be of value. Not so.
Darwin and serious evolutionary biologists since have understood that's false; and in fact fails to explain the evolution of many social species especially primates/humans.
Many important fitness traits are shared by the group but only manifest in specialized ways in individuals, and may bear no direct relationship to that individual's reproduction. Yet, those genes still contribute to group survival and therefore would be selected for overall in the long run. Its group genetic potential leading to group increased fitness and reproduction as opposed to specific individual genetic manifestation and reproduction.
I've had many girls tell me that protien makes their eyes sting. It can't be good for 'em. This is news? ;-)
Libertas in infinitum
I did a Google search on "aP2", and I noticed two distinct types of results. It looks like "aP2", which the main article discusses, and "AP-2", which is discussed in the articles you linked to, are two very different proteins, with confusingly similar abbreviations.
"aP2", the topic of the main article, is the "adipocyte lipid-binding protein", also known as "ALBP".
"AP2", or "AP-2", is "Activator protein 2" or "Activator protein-2alpha". It seems to be associated, not with fat, but with cancer.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
He doesn't seem to care. Maybe he's living according to the philosophy, "Let us eat drink and be merry for tommorrow we die". Or maybe, "Oh well, if it can't be helped, it can't be helped."
Stuff like this Forbes article is the reason I hate the popular press's presentation of research - especially when those doing the research are interested in self-aggrandizing (for fun or profit).
Yeah - deleting it prevents them from becoming diabetic and from developing asthma - because without it endoytosis doesn't work right, the immune response is hampered and and so some autoimmune diseases don't happen.
Deleting it also screws with absorption of lipids, hence no fatty liver disease, atherosclerosis or obesity.
In addition, it's involved in recycling of presynapric vesicle membranes so it wouldn't surprise me if deleting / blocking it had cognitive / behavioral effects.
So, yeah, it sounds like getting rid of it is a miracle cure, but (as others have pointed out), it's there for a reason.
Come on, does anyone really believe that knocking out a single protein would make a 'metabolic super-mouse'?
In ancient times you hunted and grew the food yourself. Why would you need to have some complete strangers who don't know you inspecting your food? In ancient times you were personally responsible for your own food because there was no super market.
I honestly think, that if you allow your food to go rotten then you should have salted it first and dried it. You act like ancient people were stupid or something, but it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out how long food will keep before going bad, or how to dry it and store it. Yes people got sick more often from food poisoning and died of it, but people still die of food poisoning now. The only difference now is that theres a slight chance that you can buy food from a store and still get food poisoning and die. There are no food police except you, the only way to inspect food is to inspect it yourself because when complete strangers are doing it, do you know for sure they are doing a good job? You trust big government now?
So wait, any doctors up in here? Any idea what this protein is or where it's from? Does our own body produce it? Is it the result of diet in some way? Is it a genetics problem or disease? Does this mean I can't eat the dogmeat they dish out at McDonald's anymore? Seriously, don't just tease me you bastards, I'd like implications for me personally now or in the future.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Google, and other corporations already have the entire internet on file somewhere. All human knowledge is already stored. So theres really no point unless the super sized harddrives wear out.
The point is this, if the world is going to end, you or I arent the ones who will decide. Hey I don't look forward to the end of the world, I'm as young as you, but perhaps we were simply born in the wrong era, on the wrong planet. Let's just face it, humans don't care about each other, the species, or value life, so how exactly can the species survive when it doesnt care about itself or even recognize it's own existance or right to exist?
If you didn't know already, this is about energy, and the energy crisis creates a domino effect. Human's have the option to survive, but once again you and I arent the decision makers, we are the actors, we get fed the script from the decision makrs and given a set of rules as to how to act. You obviously arent a decision maker, it's something you are born into, if you are a member of the lucky sperm club then you'll get to make important decisions, and if not then you'll wait until it's your turn. It won't be our turn anytime soon if ever, assuming the world does last another 20 years, then it will be our turn, but thats assuming it can last through the next 20 years and I doubt it. Do you really see technology making things better? Technology will speed up our self destruction.
I'm a technologist too, and no I'm not psychotic, I'm not hopeless, but the forces at work here are so massive that they are beyond our control. We are the peasants here. All we can do is adapt to the situations we are placed into by our leaders. If you want to work on something, figure out a cure to the avian flu. If you want to work on something, figure out how to secure nano technology because it's the next nuclear technology. Ultimately, we barely survived the nuclear age, and if we manage to survive the diseases and natural disasters, we might still be wiped out by nano terrorism. This is the kind of situation where, most people are asleep and don't know whats happening, or people who know don't care, and the few who do care are all in third world countries or just peasants. Face it, unless you are a CEO, and have a lot of support, you arent going to be in a position to make a decision. Sure you can change laws but no one will follow laws that you cannot enforce. Here is some advice, since we all know the world is ending, and we have an idea as to how, the future is very predictable. A wise decision would be to make some investments based on what we do know to take advantage of the chaos ahead. You cannot do much else but turn chaos into oppurtunity and profit. Start a business, or work for one that is starting. Maybe you'll have a better chance of survival if you save some money.
i have runny nose alot. it's part of me.
_ report.cgi?id=MGI:2176682
had asthma as a kid. i smoke now.
http://www.informatics.jax.org/searches/accession
It should be obvious: birth control
We will evolve to defeat birth control. I think we can mostly do this in less than 400 years.
The ultimate survival trait is to have an insatiable desire to have kids. Merely wanting sex is no longer good enough. Someday, normal people will desire babies at least as much as normal people today desire sex.
We can also evolve to be more religeous, shortsighted, and careless. This is the easier path for evolution to take, but not as effective in the long term. It leads to the collapse of civilizations.
"shut your mouth" ...I'm talking 'bout proteins.
"and we can dig it!"