Doubt anyone will read it this late, but I'll amend my answer to make it more correct.... it is actually only the very earliest cells in a zygote that are able to make ALL other cell types, which is called "totipotent", whereas later embryonic/fetal cells are "pluripotent" meaning they have flexibility in their development, but probably not unlimited flexibility. It is believed that umbilical cord cells, and the stem cells isolated so far from adult tissue, are only "multipotent", meaning they can make several possible tissue types but not everything.... so both umbilical cord samples or baby tooth samples may be useful in some ways for the production of stem cells genetically matched to a particular kid, but each kind probably has some limitations which may be different between the two. The part of my answer about needing more research is definitely true.
> The human genes are one of the few things we should not muck around with too much, except perhaps to remove "bugs" in our genetics which allow for horrible diseases like parkinson and thousands of others.
Hmm, only few thousand changes*, that's not mucking around too much right? And of course we all agree on which diseases and conditions are undesirable right? Should be no problem at all to figure this out!
*I'm assuming some diseases take more than one change, since several common diseases like diabetes/heart disease are multigenic
Maybe! More research is needed to see how versatile the stem cells found in baby teeth are. So far the researchers found the cells from baby teeth can make several types of differentiated cells, but these cells may not be able to make all kinds of other cells (medical jargon: they may not be pluripotent) like embryonic stem cells.
No, GigsVT, you are VERY confused. The technique we are discussing, of using a viral vector to turn a fraction of liver cells into pancreatic cells, does NOT need immuno-suppressing drugs. That was a totally different method also mentioned in the Guardian article. And this technique was NOT done in vitro, it was done in vivo in mice. Please get some reading comprehension lessons before posting again, ok?
>all of these genetic tests will be done using chip based technology
OK, Bradbury, you are probably right when you are looking ahead some number of years and suggesting thousands of tests will go on a single chip. In that case LMNA defects will surely make the list. I was looking at the short-term case, where each test is still done individually at a cost of several humdred bucks, through a genetic counselor, and thinking that the rarity of this one makes in uneconomical to even bother to develop such a test for this individual disease.
First, we have to understand what old IS. No, really -- I'm serious -- we have to figure out what the underlying things are that happen in cells to make them old, before we can try to stop them or reverse them. Unfortunately, as another person already mentioned, this is such a bizarre disease, causing defects in the nuclear membrane, that understanding how it works probably will not tell us much about regular aging. Werner's syndrome, on the other hand, might help....
>knowing the gene allows for genetic testing for such defects, so the number of individuals plagued by the disease may decrease in the future.
This is true in principle, but not really applicable in this case because the mutation is 1) very very rare... (one in four to eight million newborns ) so it's unlikely to be worthwhile to reccomend such a test to prospective parents
2) often spontaneously mutated in the patient (the parents didn't have the mutation)
However, this development will let a diagnostic test be developed, so the doctors can figure out if a possible patient actually has this disease or not.
Re:I thought so.
on
Genome Surprise
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I heard about the NEJM article but didn't get access to the full text till today... from the article there about Race and Genomics, quoting:
most population geneticists concur that the bulk of genetic variation (90 to 95 percent) occurs within, not among, continental populations. The central observations remain: variation is continuous and discordant with race, systematic variation according to continent is very limited, and there is no evidence that the units of interest for medical genetics correspond to what we call races.
Re:I thought so.
on
Genome Surprise
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
>Just because an idea is imprecise does not mean it does not exist
It may exist in sociology, but not in genetics.
Race is not a genetically valid concept. It is true that there are genetic differences between groups, but genetic studies have found that the amount of variation WITHIN each group is larger than that AMONG various groups. Attempts to predict race/ethnicity etc. from genetic sequence have all failed. The few differences among our genes that produce physically visible traits are tiny compared to the number of possible variations visible at the molecular level.
>What I find most disturbing is that that the stupid comments originate from the scientist
I can't be sure in this case, but it's not unusual for reporters to quote out of context and to take the most simplistic and sensational comments out of a long interview, eliminating the more scientifically measured and difficult to understand parts in favor of "sound bites".... just something to consider.
It is impressive that this lab quickly cranked out the complete sequence of this coronavirus, and it's alot more informative than the story that made headlines a few days ago here . But, spotted dolphin rightly points out that this is only the coronavirus. As far as I'm aware no on has fulfilled Koch's postulates to prove THIS virus is the causative agent of "SARS". It's possible this sequence will be very useful, but it's too early to tell.
The BBC article seems to be nearly scientific content free... the company has a press release about this drug which at least gives some highlights of their animal tests. Now, does anybody know what the people at the British Society For Haematology meeting who saw the details thought of this?
>Would cloned animals really have a chance of prolonging the life of the species?
Well, if we are talking about starting with an extinct species, it doesn't seem likely (at least given current techniques and success rates) we can revive enough variation for the species to be viable in the longer term. Certainly trying to re-start a species from one individual alone is doomed, because there is no genetic diversity to deal with adverse conditions, as you point out. However, in this case of the bentang, there are 3000+ additional animals in the wild and the animal being cloned was dead, so making one more might help. At least it could be bred back into the existing gene pool. Would this help significantly in saving the species? Weeell, maybe. The experiment has never been done, so I'm hesitant to say it can't possibly do any good.
FYI: the DeRisi lab has a copy of their Nov2002 PNAS paper online here . Interestingly, according to this paper their chip has 1600 oligos from "~140 distinct viral genomes".
This is a nice and useful, but predictable, way to use "gene chips" (DNA microarrays). As usual there are some inaccuracies in how the press talks about science though... Here are a few comments on the article from my point of view, as a professional molecular biologist:
1) "Gene chip helps identify cause of mystery illness" --this is only sorta true. The chip data suggests that the samples from the SARS victims contain something that is related to coronaviruses. However, the gene chip alone cannot tell you what something is if it is new, only that it's close to some of the 1000 (in this case) known things on the chip. As in, this is a four-legged mammal like a horse or pig; doesn't tell us it is a cow, just that it's similar to other four-legged animals in some ways. Also, finding the same thing in multiple samples is suggestive, but certainly not conclusive proof that this is the cause of the illness! It could be a big coincidence that they all have it, and the article doesn't even tell us how many samples were tested.
2)Article states "[DeRisi] knew he was dealing with something the world's scientists had never seen before. " --No, the results just show that the samples are not one of the 1000 on the chip, not that this virus has never been seen elsewhere in any hospital or lab....
2) " a corresponding boom in microarrays containing those nonhuman genes hasn't occurred."
--On the contrary, microarray tech is a hot topic in every organism that has a sequenced genome, and in some where they only have partial sequence as well.
Last month. I don't use it often, but if I'm out of the house (I only have web-access at home) it can come in handy. Eg, making restaurant reservations or getting directions to a shop.
Further backtracking traces "more than 90 percent of Hong Kong's infections to a single visitor from neighboring Guangdong Province" [in China], see article at Int'l Herald Tribune . The article notes that details on what's happening in China (total # of cases etc) are not readily available and it will be hard to learn more about the history of the outbreak's development without such information.
>you'll be able to own your cell phone number [infoworld.com].
Er, yes it is true that the FCC is trying to require number portability, but the article that you cite at infoworld.com just says that this has been delayed repeatedly ("Responding to industry requests, the FCC has delayed implementation of the rules several times.") It does not give a date of implementation of the change...
The media is now reporting that most of the cases from Hong Kong all seem to have been exposed at a particular hotel floor... Here's a link to the story.
> Now I have to say that I don't like the idea of cloning and genetic enginering (of humans) in the first place.
Neither of those things is being discussed in this case.
>I'm very focused on the needs and well being of children
OK, then, why are you spending 100's of words arguing against giving a child the treatment most likely to cure her/him of a terminal illness? Hello? Given the logic failures in your first two sentences, I'm not going to waste my time replying to the rest.
There a couple cases like this in the UK news recently. Here are some links from the BBC: first, second , third . The middle article says the UK authorities' (HFEA) official position is "while it was acceptable to test and select embryos to prevent the birth of a baby with a genetic disease, it was not ethically acceptable to select them in order to help another child." The parents in one case have gotten IVF in the US, and the others have vowed to "go abroad" for IVF... I guess now they choose to go to Australia as well as the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Doubt anyone will read it this late, but I'll amend my answer to make it more correct.... it is actually only the very earliest cells in a zygote that are able to make ALL other cell types, which is called "totipotent", whereas later embryonic /fetal cells are "pluripotent" meaning they have flexibility in their development, but probably not unlimited flexibility. It is believed that umbilical cord cells, and the stem cells isolated so far from adult tissue, are only "multipotent", meaning they can make several possible tissue types but not everything.... so both umbilical cord samples or baby tooth samples may be useful in some ways for the production of stem cells genetically matched to a particular kid, but each kind probably has some limitations which may be different between the two. The part of my answer about needing more research is definitely true.
"Super"-smart may not be here yet, but we had the "smart" mouse 4 years ago.
Hmm, only few thousand changes*, that's not mucking around too much right? And of course we all agree on which diseases and conditions are undesirable right? Should be no problem at all to figure this out!
*I'm assuming some diseases take more than one change, since several common diseases like diabetes/heart disease are multigenic
Maybe! More research is needed to see how versatile the stem cells found in baby teeth are. So far the researchers found the cells from baby teeth can make several types of differentiated cells, but these cells may not be able to make all kinds of other cells (medical jargon: they may not be pluripotent) like embryonic stem cells.
No, GigsVT, you are VERY confused. The technique we are discussing, of using a viral vector to turn a fraction of liver cells into pancreatic cells, does NOT need immuno-suppressing drugs. That was a totally different method also mentioned in the Guardian article. And this technique was NOT done in vitro, it was done in vivo in mice. Please get some reading comprehension lessons before posting again, ok?
No, only part of the liver is being changed, there is no problems in the mice with their original livers.
OK, Bradbury, you are probably right when you are looking ahead some number of years and suggesting thousands of tests will go on a single chip. In that case LMNA defects will surely make the list. I was looking at the short-term case, where each test is still done individually at a cost of several humdred bucks, through a genetic counselor, and thinking that the rarity of this one makes in uneconomical to even bother to develop such a test for this individual disease.
First, we have to understand what old IS. No, really -- I'm serious -- we have to figure out what the underlying things are that happen in cells to make them old, before we can try to stop them or reverse them. Unfortunately, as another person already mentioned, this is such a bizarre disease, causing defects in the nuclear membrane, that understanding how it works probably will not tell us much about regular aging. Werner's syndrome, on the other hand, might help....
This is true in principle, but not really applicable in this case because the mutation is 1) very very rare... (one in four to eight million newborns ) so it's unlikely to be worthwhile to reccomend such a test to prospective parents 2) often spontaneously mutated in the patient (the parents didn't have the mutation)
However, this development will let a diagnostic test be developed, so the doctors can figure out if a possible patient actually has this disease or not.
It may exist in sociology, but not in genetics. Race is not a genetically valid concept. It is true that there are genetic differences between groups, but genetic studies have found that the amount of variation WITHIN each group is larger than that AMONG various groups. Attempts to predict race/ethnicity etc. from genetic sequence have all failed. The few differences among our genes that produce physically visible traits are tiny compared to the number of possible variations visible at the molecular level.
I can't be sure in this case, but it's not unusual for reporters to quote out of context and to take the most simplistic and sensational comments out of a long interview, eliminating the more scientifically measured and difficult to understand parts in favor of "sound bites".... just something to consider.
It is impressive that this lab quickly cranked out the complete sequence of this coronavirus, and it's alot more informative than the story that made headlines a few days ago here . But, spotted dolphin rightly points out that this is only the coronavirus. As far as I'm aware no on has fulfilled Koch's postulates to prove THIS virus is the causative agent of "SARS". It's possible this sequence will be very useful, but it's too early to tell.
The BBC article seems to be nearly scientific content free... the company has a press release about this drug which at least gives some highlights of their animal tests. Now, does anybody know what the people at the British Society For Haematology meeting who saw the details thought of this?
Well, if we are talking about starting with an extinct species, it doesn't seem likely (at least given current techniques and success rates) we can revive enough variation for the species to be viable in the longer term. Certainly trying to re-start a species from one individual alone is doomed, because there is no genetic diversity to deal with adverse conditions, as you point out. However, in this case of the bentang, there are 3000+ additional animals in the wild and the animal being cloned was dead, so making one more might help. At least it could be bred back into the existing gene pool. Would this help significantly in saving the species? Weeell, maybe. The experiment has never been done, so I'm hesitant to say it can't possibly do any good.
Oh you meant.... nevermind.
FYI: the DeRisi lab has a copy of their Nov2002 PNAS paper online here . Interestingly, according to this paper their chip has 1600 oligos from "~140 distinct viral genomes".
No, gene chips are amazing actually... Maybe there's a special pr0n movie on right now?
1) "Gene chip helps identify cause of mystery illness" --this is only sorta true. The chip data suggests that the samples from the SARS victims contain something that is related to coronaviruses. However, the gene chip alone cannot tell you what something is if it is new, only that it's close to some of the 1000 (in this case) known things on the chip. As in, this is a four-legged mammal like a horse or pig; doesn't tell us it is a cow, just that it's similar to other four-legged animals in some ways. Also, finding the same thing in multiple samples is suggestive, but certainly not conclusive proof that this is the cause of the illness! It could be a big coincidence that they all have it, and the article doesn't even tell us how many samples were tested.
2)Article states "[DeRisi] knew he was dealing with something the world's scientists had never seen before. " --No, the results just show that the samples are not one of the 1000 on the chip, not that this virus has never been seen elsewhere in any hospital or lab....
2) " a corresponding boom in microarrays containing those nonhuman genes hasn't occurred." --On the contrary, microarray tech is a hot topic in every organism that has a sequenced genome, and in some where they only have partial sequence as well.
Last month. I don't use it often, but if I'm out of the house (I only have web-access at home) it can come in handy. Eg, making restaurant reservations or getting directions to a shop.
Further backtracking traces "more than 90 percent of Hong Kong's infections to a single visitor from neighboring Guangdong Province" [in China], see article at Int'l Herald Tribune . The article notes that details on what's happening in China (total # of cases etc) are not readily available and it will be hard to learn more about the history of the outbreak's development without such information.
Er, yes it is true that the FCC is trying to require number portability, but the article that you cite at infoworld.com just says that this has been delayed repeatedly ("Responding to industry requests, the FCC has delayed implementation of the rules several times.") It does not give a date of implementation of the change...
The media is now reporting that most of the cases from Hong Kong all seem to have been exposed at a particular hotel floor... Here's a link to the story.
Neither of those things is being discussed in this case.
>I'm very focused on the needs and well being of children
OK, then, why are you spending 100's of words arguing against giving a child the treatment most likely to cure her/him of a terminal illness? Hello? Given the logic failures in your first two sentences, I'm not going to waste my time replying to the rest.
There a couple cases like this in the UK news recently. Here are some links from the BBC: first, second , third . The middle article says the UK authorities' (HFEA) official position is "while it was acceptable to test and select embryos to prevent the birth of a baby with a genetic disease, it was not ethically acceptable to select them in order to help another child." The parents in one case have gotten IVF in the US, and the others have vowed to "go abroad" for IVF... I guess now they choose to go to Australia as well as the US.