'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."

Comments

My Question

[MyLongNickName]

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?

Re:My Question

[Mprx]

The protein is associated with diseases that mostly happen in later life, so there will be very little evolutionary pressure to remove it. Evolution optimizes for reproductive fitness only, and as elderly mice do not look after their young, genes that improve survival in old age will not be selected. It would require only a minor benefit in youth to evolve a gene which causes harm in old age.

Re:My Question

[darkmeridian]

To get evolved out, a gene would have to kill the carrier before reproduction age. Men used to live short lives, and the diseases prevented by the genes weren't weeding cavemen out as much as the sabretooth tigers and infections were. Furthermore, the diseases caused by the genes, such as diabetes, heart attacks and asthma, probably were not a huge problem in a pre-industrial society that did not have excess carbohydrates, processed sugars, and artificial pollutants. Evolution isn't a process where a divine being aspires towards perfection. It is trial and error. If there is no selective force, then imperfection remains. That's what is happening here.

Re:My Question

[Maxo-Texas]

Something not considered in most of these studies is:

Is RED meat bad for you or..

Is RED meat raised on pesticide polluted corn instead of grass, shot full with hormones and drugs bad for you.

Is CHICKEN bad for you...

Is CHICKEN raised in pens with thousands of others in a highly stressful, low exercise, drug/hormone/pesticide polluted environment bad for you.

I personally think that a lot of the benefits of vegetables, beef, and chicken are not present in factory raised conditions. You have a tomato that *looks* like a tomatoe but which is 80% fiber (so it ships well) and lacks the nutrients. Chicken and beef are good because they eat tons of bugs and plants and concentrate the nutrients and minerals in those plants and we adapted to eating those kinds of animal meats. We have not yet adapted to eating meat that looks like meat but which has different nutritional value than it used to.

Re:My Question

[Artifakt]

Overall, you make a good arguement, except on one point where you put it one way in your first paragraph, and the other in the last sentence. Your second version is right, where you inculd raising and not just bearing the offspring.
        For mammals, there is selection pressure well after offspring are produced. For humans in particular, far more children tend to survice until they themselves can reproduce if those children have good parenting. Alternately, this can be expressed as: People who die before they get their children raised to self sufficiency represent a bad trait that natural selection theoretically should put some pressure against. This probably is the explanaiton why humans are unusual among mammals in that they often live well past menopause ages, as even grand-parents or great grand-parents may be able to increase the survivability of subsequent generations.
        However, there are some alternatives that help soften the selection process. A lot of human social institutions are developed to shift this load from biological parents to the rest of the species: Orphanages (obviously), but also schools, adoption/fosterage, and in some cultures, even military service (i.e. 11 year old tribal soldiers in places like Somalia or Riwanda). Probably even prehistoric humans had some of these institutions - for example there are Neandertal examples that show some seriously geriatric types, with advanced arthritis, osteoporosis, and injuries sustained 30 or more years before death, who were still kept alive by the rest of the tribe. Humans have been finding some advantages in what would seem at first glance a disadvantagous situation for apparently upwards of 100,000 years.
        Unfortunately, Even though all these conditions such as heart disease do greatly impact survival, they aren't common without abundant food. Nature hasn't had many generations to select against them. The gene primarily involved wouldn't be eliminated even if it did pose a threat chiefly to just the raising to maturity part, as that threat was largely masked by other genes that were under more pressure at the time, because they threatened even initial reproduction.

Re:no useful function?

[Mr. Flibble]

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.

Or, it is like the appendix, or some othe holdover. It could be something that once was useful somewhere in other species, and is now not harmful to a individual until later in life, after reproduction years are passed. However, I agree with you, it most likely performs some function that is now likely obselete in our lifestyle, however, I always try to spin more than one hypothesis on any given idea. (The question is, do all species in kindom Mamimalia have this protien?)

Don't draw conclusions

[Pedrito]

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.

what about catyclismic events?

[plasmacutter]

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.

Stupid

[smenor]

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'?