Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Discover A Surprising New Role for Lungs: Making Blood (ucsf.edu)
schwit1 quotes ScienceAlert:
In experiments involving mice, the team found that lungs produce more than 10 million platelets (tiny blood cells) per hour, equating to the majority of platelets in the animals' circulation. This goes against the decades-long assumption that bone marrow produces all of our blood components. Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco also discovered a previously unknown pool of blood stem cells that makes this happen inside the lung tissue -- cells that were incorrectly assumed to mainly reside in bone marrow. "This finding definitely suggests a more sophisticated view of the lungs -- that they're not just for respiration, but also a key partner in formation of crucial aspects of the blood," says one of the researchers, Mark R. Looney.
The platelet-producing cells actually migrate from the bone marrow to the lungs.
The platelet-producing cells actually migrate from the bone marrow to the lungs.
I thought they outsourced all their STEM workers? It was kind of a big deal...
This is another reason not to smoke.
First Post! Bet you wish it had something worthwhile to contribute but what do you expect from an Anonymous Coward.
I wonder if this is where HIV hides when people who are HIV+ are on meds and the virus is undetectable. I don't really know anything, but it was my first thought.
And this is only now being discovered. Another reminder of how little we know.
by Cyphase ( 907627 )
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1850212/
Only humans feel pain. Animals don't feel pain and can therefore be cut up while still alive, after all, they obviously evolved to not feel pain, so if a predator tried to eat them, they would just sit there and allow it to happen, or if they wanted to jump off a cliff, they would do it, because they would have no fear of the consequences.
Also, animals are incapable of feeling parental love, which is why there are no animals in the world, because all the animals who gave birth to children just walked away and left them to die, because animals have no emotions, unlike humans, who are far superior in every way.
And the animals that you pay people to torture and kill so you can eat their bodies, and their milk and their eggs, are far morally inferior to you, because they (being herbivores) each kill around 6,000 animals during their lifetimes, just so they can eat them.
And there aren't millions of violent criminals on the planet, who will stab you to death for looking at them the wrong way, rape you (or your wife, girlfriend, sister, mother), burgle your house and terrorise you, crash into you while driving dangerously, or assault you while you're just trying to go about your daily life.
See? All human beings are by definition superior to animals, and all animals' lives are worthless, and they should be used to save our sorry asses from dying early from largely self-inflicted illnesses.
And the fact that this has only JUST been discovered tells you what a bunch of shit most 'research' is, especially vivisection.
I'm sorry, this is wrong. The science has already been settled. You are INCORRECT, go back to the drawing board and do it until you get it right.
THAT's what irks me about that line. If we know everything, if it's all actually settled and done with (except for a few minor lose ends), then we need no more scientists or research -- DO WE? SETTLED science then just becomes dogma, no better than religion.
If "The Ancients" knew everything -- or if the current set of scientists know everything -- then we're done, all we need are yet more marketeers to sell us things in different combinations. That being said, you move forward with what you believe you know but you don't set it in stone, never to be examined again.
Good for these guys.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Such an amazing concept!!
This also gives insight into lung cancers. If the cancer-creating corruption occurs in a pluri-potent cell instead of a typical tissue, perhaps the route to metastasis is less difficult.
-engrstudent
"In experiments involving mice..." Let me know when they find out how much blood humans produce in the lungs.
at all if you understand human physiology. Sounds like another thesis, to me, and I fear for us that new scientists routinely parade such ignorance and obliviousness. Another fine Monday morning at Tiger Beat. Sigh.
I get the feeling you're in for a long week.
I would suggest "nineteen-oh-nine"...and "zed" (or "zee") would be used to represent "z".
I come here for the love
If the conclusion of this study is correct, why are bone marrow transplants successful at treating leukemia?
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
I take it from your post you're not a scientist? I will assume you're an engineer for designing an analogy. If I have a meter stick, that it is a meter can be 'settled' even if our degree of certainty as to how precisely it is a meter is in question. If it is to be used for framing a house, we probably don't even need to check. If we're going to use it to build a machine, then we have to see about measuring its degree of precision. This research showed that while we were correct about how platelets are generated, the progenitor cells can migrate to the lungs. While we have a more precise view than we did before, the previous view is still essentially correct on the important points. Similarly, it can be settled that we have a common ancestor with dogs, even if the precision of our dating for the common ancestor is under frequent revision. This is how science can still be both settled and subject to change.
You think you're standing up for science but actually people like you give it a bad name. Stop claiming everything is settled.
Some things can be settled while others are not.
There's a meaningful difference between provisional knowledge and solipsism.