One of the big health stories that have emerged this week is the formulation of a new blood test which will have the potential 'to detect which people with failing memories will go on to develop Alzheimer's disease'. When I quote 'failing memories', what I am referring to is mild cognitive impairment. Statistically, 60% of those who have this form of memory loss go on to develop Alzheimer's. For the general public, it is imperative to note that this a diagnostic solution, not a cure. Nevertheless, getting a correct diagnosis with vast amounts of research can lead on to the synthesis of new drugs which can be used to treat the disease. Increases in research funding would allow scientists to draw closer to a solution - but this is difficult as scientific research isn't advancing at a rate we might think. There are inevitably restrictions due to funding and legal issues.
Only 'after a decades work', has this new blood test been derived which shows the unbelievable timescale of innovation. The test involves looking at 10 sets of proteins that are suspended in the blood. Kings College London in conjunction with Proteome Sciences have published the study. The claim is that this test 'can predict the onset of Alzheimer's in the next 12 months in people with memory problems with an accuracy of 87%'. The cost of such a test can be estimated at around £100 to £300.
Instantly in my brain I question the "87%" accuracy as I'm concerned that for a test as significant as this, a very high high accuracy is desired in order to diagnose the right people. Alzhiemer's and other forms of dementia are one of the most common diseases in our society - according to David Cameron, it "stands alongside cancer as one of the greatest enemies of humanity". I fear he is right. With an ageing population and with the development of the latest treatments to prolong life expectancy, epidemiological evidence says the incidence of these diseases are rising.
With this new test, the key turning point is that people will be identified as having the potential to go on to develop Alzheimer's. Not simply diagnosing those who have Alzheimer's. This is crucial. Read enough into the disease and you'll probably realise that Alzheimer's is very complex. This is why we need to diagnose people at the earliest opportunity. Professor Simon Lovestone from Kings College London puts it perfectly: "Alzheimer's begins to affect the brain many years before patients are diagnosed with the disease. Many of our drug trials fail because by the time patients are given the drugs, the brain has already been too severely affected".
The scientists in the investigation wrote for the journal Alzheimer's and Dementia, and investigated in a variety of proteins that have been linked to Alzheimer's before. Blood samples were taken from 1148 individuals. A large sample some may think, but the size of the problem we are confronting means the next stage for this test is for it to be trialled on around 5000-10000 people.
A larger sample size means more reliability which will make this study more valid and thus promising. Also getting more accurate results with the test will reduce the risk of misdiagnosis which is outstandingly important.
Personally I believe this to be positive and promising news, but we need to be sure that this will work. I hope that in the end this could develop into effective treatment for one of the most devastating diseases that exist in our society today.
Credit to Sarah Boseley, health editor for The Guardian on the original article. More on the story can be followed here.
Sunday, 13 July 2014
Wednesday, 9 July 2014
Organ Transplant Increase Globally
With organ transplantation becoming increasingly in demand, it seems as though steadily the healthcare services of the world are steadily reaching that demand. According to the BBC, 4655 organ transplants were carried out between 2013 and 2014. In fact this is a 10% increase on the interval of the previous year which is interesting to note. But what is more important is that over many years, the numbers have only increased.
This is very encouraging with this rate of progress however many patients are still left over extended periods of time without an organ transplant available.
However how many of us are actually organ donors? The short answer is 20 million registered. The major problem today is the inability for families to give consent of their deceased loved ones to be organ donors after death. The families decision can therefore override the decision made by the loved ones to become organ donors. This could explain the fact that 3 people a day die because organs aren't simply available for transplant, according to NHS Blood and Transplant Data.
I must agree that the decision of the family must be taken into consideration, however it must be the duty of the donor to inform their family of their decision. Ensuring the whole family has made an informed decision is imperative so that their is less risk of organs becoming unavailable 'at the last minute'.
Nevertheless, living donors are equally as important, if not more so. 'Just over 1000' transplants were possible with living donors.
The bottom line question that is asked in this article is "If we would accept an organ for ourselves or would want someone we love to be saved by a transplant shouldn't we be willing to donate one too?".
In fact while we are on the subject, I would like to elaborate on the idea of organ transplantation and consent. In February, I received my quarterly copy of the Biological Sciences Review. I remember there being an interesting column on how consent for organ donation has changed over the past decade or so, with specific insight into the work of the Human Tissue Authority (HTA).
The HTA was set up in 2005, following events where sometimes hospitals 'retained human organs and tissues without consent'. Therefore the subsequent purpose of the HTA was 'to ensure that valid consent is in place for the removal, storage an use of human tissue and organs'. Living matter that was catered for by the HTA ranges from the very small to the large, cells to organ systems.
In 2012, the HTA decided to take on responsibility not just to ensure consent, but ensure that if organs were retained, they would be preserved for their quality. Also making sure the organs were safe for transplantation.
Another important duty of the HTA is to regulates the actions of 'all organisations that remove, store and use tissues and organs for research, medical truing, post-mortem examination, education and training, and display in public'.
In addition to handing organs and tissues from dead donors, the HTA also has responsibility for the viability of all organs and bone marrow tissue from living donors.
I really like the idea of having a HTA as it reassures the public of the safety and viability of organs when organ transplantation is needed. It acts like a 'watchdog' by inspecting organisations that store, remove and use human tissue. By licensing these organisations, hospitals, and the public will know of the quality of the organs that will be used for transplantation.
Another positive aspect I feel that will emerge from this is increased confidence in organ donation. The HTA 'hopes more people will donate their tissues for scientific and medical research…for transplants…fore medical education and training.'
What astonishes me the most is that according to this article, in the year 2011-2012, 'the HTA approved 1214 living organ donations…the vast majority (96%) were kidneys'. It seems that kidney transplantation, living kidney transplantation is very much in demand. Only the remainder were donated liver lobes.
But who receives the donation? In fact 9 out of 10 donations were for the family members. Converesly there were 39 "altruistic" donations, were the donor wishes there organ to be directed to the patient in the hospital with the most clinical need.
In truth, I have endless appreciation for the donors that give up part of their own body, to help others, sometimes others that they even don't know. No knowledge of family history, personality, causes of the health issue…nothing. It is the ultimate selfless act.
Credit to Alan Clamp, current Chief Executive of the HTA, who wrote for the Biological Sciences Review (Volume 26, Number 3)
Additional credit to Nick Triggle of the BBC whose article can be found here
This is very encouraging with this rate of progress however many patients are still left over extended periods of time without an organ transplant available.
However how many of us are actually organ donors? The short answer is 20 million registered. The major problem today is the inability for families to give consent of their deceased loved ones to be organ donors after death. The families decision can therefore override the decision made by the loved ones to become organ donors. This could explain the fact that 3 people a day die because organs aren't simply available for transplant, according to NHS Blood and Transplant Data.
I must agree that the decision of the family must be taken into consideration, however it must be the duty of the donor to inform their family of their decision. Ensuring the whole family has made an informed decision is imperative so that their is less risk of organs becoming unavailable 'at the last minute'.
Nevertheless, living donors are equally as important, if not more so. 'Just over 1000' transplants were possible with living donors.
The bottom line question that is asked in this article is "If we would accept an organ for ourselves or would want someone we love to be saved by a transplant shouldn't we be willing to donate one too?".
In fact while we are on the subject, I would like to elaborate on the idea of organ transplantation and consent. In February, I received my quarterly copy of the Biological Sciences Review. I remember there being an interesting column on how consent for organ donation has changed over the past decade or so, with specific insight into the work of the Human Tissue Authority (HTA).
The HTA was set up in 2005, following events where sometimes hospitals 'retained human organs and tissues without consent'. Therefore the subsequent purpose of the HTA was 'to ensure that valid consent is in place for the removal, storage an use of human tissue and organs'. Living matter that was catered for by the HTA ranges from the very small to the large, cells to organ systems.
In 2012, the HTA decided to take on responsibility not just to ensure consent, but ensure that if organs were retained, they would be preserved for their quality. Also making sure the organs were safe for transplantation.
Another important duty of the HTA is to regulates the actions of 'all organisations that remove, store and use tissues and organs for research, medical truing, post-mortem examination, education and training, and display in public'.
In addition to handing organs and tissues from dead donors, the HTA also has responsibility for the viability of all organs and bone marrow tissue from living donors.
I really like the idea of having a HTA as it reassures the public of the safety and viability of organs when organ transplantation is needed. It acts like a 'watchdog' by inspecting organisations that store, remove and use human tissue. By licensing these organisations, hospitals, and the public will know of the quality of the organs that will be used for transplantation.
Another positive aspect I feel that will emerge from this is increased confidence in organ donation. The HTA 'hopes more people will donate their tissues for scientific and medical research…for transplants…fore medical education and training.'
What astonishes me the most is that according to this article, in the year 2011-2012, 'the HTA approved 1214 living organ donations…the vast majority (96%) were kidneys'. It seems that kidney transplantation, living kidney transplantation is very much in demand. Only the remainder were donated liver lobes.
But who receives the donation? In fact 9 out of 10 donations were for the family members. Converesly there were 39 "altruistic" donations, were the donor wishes there organ to be directed to the patient in the hospital with the most clinical need.
In truth, I have endless appreciation for the donors that give up part of their own body, to help others, sometimes others that they even don't know. No knowledge of family history, personality, causes of the health issue…nothing. It is the ultimate selfless act.
Credit to Alan Clamp, current Chief Executive of the HTA, who wrote for the Biological Sciences Review (Volume 26, Number 3)
Additional credit to Nick Triggle of the BBC whose article can be found here
Monday, 7 July 2014
Rise of Antibiotic Resistance Means 'We are all to blame'
One of the biggest stories in the media brewing at this present time is the consequences of further antibiotic resistance to our current and best antibiotics. Perhaps UK Prime Minister David Cameron is a tad too late to say that this could mean an eventual turn to the "Dark Ages" with our current progress with developing new antibiotic drugs.
Mr Cameron has stated that 'governments and drug companies [need to] work together to "accelerate" the discovery of a new generation of antibiotics'. However, common knowledge of the drug trial system explains that these new drugs won't be available for prescription tomorrow - in fact some particularly gruelling clinical trials can take up to 15 years according to Cancer Research UK. With the alarming rate of increasing antibiotic resistance, perhaps the development of new solutions may not be able to keep pace with the continuing evolution of bacteria. These bacteria acquire 'antibiotic resistance genes' with new, random mutations to their genetic sequences.
Max Pemberton writes for The Daily Telegraph that discovering new antibiotics would be 'nothing more than a sticking plaster, concealing an underlying wound that we all need to accept exists'. Personally I fear he may be probably right, with increased application of antibiotics, there is an inevitable increase in the probability of antibacterial resistance due to mutation.
Although at present we 'render [antibiotics] useless', it seems that it is our only solution to the evolutionary suberbugs. In evolutionary terms, microorganisms such as bacteria can be considered the most successful organisms ever to have inhabited this earth. Their numbers growing incomprehensibly larger.
It is a frightening prospect to know that our seemingly useless drugs are being made to look an insignificant problem to microbes. It is absolutely imperative that scientific researchers all over the world work together to investigate new approaches to tackling this ever-pressing, escalating problem.
But what escalates antibiotic resistance? Pemberton makes a good point that partly it is due to human activity and more particular - our greed. Mass factory farming for example allows diseases to spread 'like wildfire' - this would require mass doses of antibiotic in turn. There has been evidence to suggest farmers treat even healthy livestock with antibiotics, this will fuel further the rise of antibiotic resistance. Measures like banning factory farming and limiting the use of antibiotics on animals could contribute to a long-term solution. But it would be no easy task I guarentee. I am sure many people would appreciate a rise in price of meat if it means combating the problem we face.
This pressing issue has brought about recent changes in the primary care system of the UK for example. Doctors (GP's) have been told to 'make patients wait five days for antibiotics', according to Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent of The Daily Telegraph. This suggestion has been made in an attempt to 'wean people off a reliance on the drugs'. This step is one in a series of others aiming to reduce the need to give people antibiotics inappropriately.
GP's are often pressurised into prescribing antibiotics, some patients insisting that is what will treat their problem. Sore throats are an example: the measures would cut the need to prescribe antibiotics for sore throats 'from 90% to 40%'.
However prescribing the antibiotics in the first place isn't the only issue - how do we monitor the patients taking the drugs after prescription? As a general rule, it is essential for patients to complete a course of antibiotics. Secondary responses of diseases such as with Tuberculosis are possible.
Andrew Miller MP, chairman of the committee for MP's, said it had heard of 'GP's prescribing antibiotics simply as "dummy" placebos', in the attempt to satisfy patients.
In fact according to the article, since 2000 'only five new classes of antibiotic had been discovered and most were ineffective'. Ineffective against Gram-negative bacteria that is. These are bacteria that do not stain using the Gram staining method.
I am keen to see how the UK government will deal with this issue in the near future...
Credit to Max Pemberton and Christopher Hope (Senior Political Correspondent) for their articles in The Daily Telegraph (UK) published on Monday 7th July 2014.
Mr Cameron has stated that 'governments and drug companies [need to] work together to "accelerate" the discovery of a new generation of antibiotics'. However, common knowledge of the drug trial system explains that these new drugs won't be available for prescription tomorrow - in fact some particularly gruelling clinical trials can take up to 15 years according to Cancer Research UK. With the alarming rate of increasing antibiotic resistance, perhaps the development of new solutions may not be able to keep pace with the continuing evolution of bacteria. These bacteria acquire 'antibiotic resistance genes' with new, random mutations to their genetic sequences.
Max Pemberton writes for The Daily Telegraph that discovering new antibiotics would be 'nothing more than a sticking plaster, concealing an underlying wound that we all need to accept exists'. Personally I fear he may be probably right, with increased application of antibiotics, there is an inevitable increase in the probability of antibacterial resistance due to mutation.
Although at present we 'render [antibiotics] useless', it seems that it is our only solution to the evolutionary suberbugs. In evolutionary terms, microorganisms such as bacteria can be considered the most successful organisms ever to have inhabited this earth. Their numbers growing incomprehensibly larger.
It is a frightening prospect to know that our seemingly useless drugs are being made to look an insignificant problem to microbes. It is absolutely imperative that scientific researchers all over the world work together to investigate new approaches to tackling this ever-pressing, escalating problem.
But what escalates antibiotic resistance? Pemberton makes a good point that partly it is due to human activity and more particular - our greed. Mass factory farming for example allows diseases to spread 'like wildfire' - this would require mass doses of antibiotic in turn. There has been evidence to suggest farmers treat even healthy livestock with antibiotics, this will fuel further the rise of antibiotic resistance. Measures like banning factory farming and limiting the use of antibiotics on animals could contribute to a long-term solution. But it would be no easy task I guarentee. I am sure many people would appreciate a rise in price of meat if it means combating the problem we face.
This pressing issue has brought about recent changes in the primary care system of the UK for example. Doctors (GP's) have been told to 'make patients wait five days for antibiotics', according to Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent of The Daily Telegraph. This suggestion has been made in an attempt to 'wean people off a reliance on the drugs'. This step is one in a series of others aiming to reduce the need to give people antibiotics inappropriately.
GP's are often pressurised into prescribing antibiotics, some patients insisting that is what will treat their problem. Sore throats are an example: the measures would cut the need to prescribe antibiotics for sore throats 'from 90% to 40%'.
However prescribing the antibiotics in the first place isn't the only issue - how do we monitor the patients taking the drugs after prescription? As a general rule, it is essential for patients to complete a course of antibiotics. Secondary responses of diseases such as with Tuberculosis are possible.
Andrew Miller MP, chairman of the committee for MP's, said it had heard of 'GP's prescribing antibiotics simply as "dummy" placebos', in the attempt to satisfy patients.
In fact according to the article, since 2000 'only five new classes of antibiotic had been discovered and most were ineffective'. Ineffective against Gram-negative bacteria that is. These are bacteria that do not stain using the Gram staining method.
I am keen to see how the UK government will deal with this issue in the near future...
Credit to Max Pemberton and Christopher Hope (Senior Political Correspondent) for their articles in The Daily Telegraph (UK) published on Monday 7th July 2014.
Sunday, 6 July 2014
Should NHS End-of-life Social Care be Free?
With an increasingly ageing population, there is more need than ever for social care in communities to support older patients. Currently the NHS is spending around £69 million on this social care for cancer patents alone.
Personally I think it would be very appropriate to provide free care to those nearing the end of their lives. The trouble is at the moment is that around half of these patients die in hospital - the costs of maintenance to the NHS total to large sums.
In a MacMillan Cancer Support survey, 8 out of 10 people would prefer to die in their own home. However from statistical data we can see that many people have it "against their wishes".
Caring for these patients in their community would substantially reduce costs to the NHS from around £685 million to around £340 million a year. In my view it would be morally wrong to have a patients will not fulfilled, however it is disheartening to see that not everyone can be accommodated.
A Department of Health representative has said that "We want to make sure that people nearing the end of their lives can choose where to spend their last days and have more of a say on how they are cared for".
Credit to Nick Triggle (BBC News Health Correspondent) for the original article which can be found here.
Personally I think it would be very appropriate to provide free care to those nearing the end of their lives. The trouble is at the moment is that around half of these patients die in hospital - the costs of maintenance to the NHS total to large sums.
In a MacMillan Cancer Support survey, 8 out of 10 people would prefer to die in their own home. However from statistical data we can see that many people have it "against their wishes".
Caring for these patients in their community would substantially reduce costs to the NHS from around £685 million to around £340 million a year. In my view it would be morally wrong to have a patients will not fulfilled, however it is disheartening to see that not everyone can be accommodated.
A Department of Health representative has said that "We want to make sure that people nearing the end of their lives can choose where to spend their last days and have more of a say on how they are cared for".
Credit to Nick Triggle (BBC News Health Correspondent) for the original article which can be found here.
Friday, 4 July 2014
The Incredible Human Hand!
I remember watching a couple of months ago, a documentary about the anatomy of the human hand. However I revisited the documentary not too long ago and I thought it would be great to post on here how extraordinary it was.
I must put it simply… it was truly fascinating! Never before on a television broadcast had a dissection been shown to the general public audience. It amazes me how the producers managed to obtain permission to do so. It just shows their passion for showing the world how remarkable the human body really is.
The programme was broadcasted by the BBC, this episode called Dissected: The Incredible Human Hand, presented by George McGavin.
The documentary can be seen here:
At the start of the programme, it was definitely a new experience for me when an arm was brought onto the dissection table. An unnamed person has donated this part of their body to medical science, and I appreciate that enormously as this programme did open my eyes a little more and enrich my learning experience.
Mr Donald Sammut, one of the worlds leading hand surgeons performed this dissection.
An incision was first made at the top of the forearm, and a skin "flap" was created in order to remove the integumentary layer and adipose (fat) tissue. Once this was done, the main muscles of the forearm could be seen. In association with these muscles, tendons are seen to be attached to each end of the muscle - and as I know from my biology classes, tendons transmit the forces of muscles onto bones.
At one point, Mr Sammut used his surgical instrument to tug on the tendon, which in turn caused the 5th digit (little finger) to be pulled upwards - almost if it were about to grip onto an object. I found this absolutely fascinating; a dead, motionless hand becoming animated once more.
How complex and intricate the very details of the internal structure are made me appreciate how we are able to carry out an infinitely diverse array of tasks with our hands.
Obviously you could see each tendon for each digit which also shows the very mechanical nature of our hands.
A tough protective layer was then removed which is located directly below the skin. This allows us to see the vital major structures and fine details such as the major artery and the major nerves.
The many muscles around our thumbs is quite extraordinary as it allows us to carry out a great multitude of tasks using various grips. Many ligaments hold in place a saddle joint made up of the thumb meta-carpel and the trapezium to minimise injury. This joint is in fact according to Mr Sammut one of the most likely to wear over time. What was most impressive to me in this section of the documentary was how the tendons are arranged in the hand. Moving towards the distal part of the hand from the wrist, the tendons are each encased in a sheath which offers protection. Quentin, the dissection assistant notes that this sheath, when removed allows the tendons to be seen in their 'pristine' condition. The deep tendon runs all the way to the most distal joint, and the superficial one splits part-way to attach to the one-but-most-distal joint. This to me is a marvel of biomechanics.
According to Quentin, the nerves are "probably the most difficult part in the hand to dissect, but it also makes them the most exciting". It's truly amazing how every part of the hand, every tissue in fact is supplied with a nervous network. At the fingertips alone, 20,000 nerves terminate at each finger to allow for as much sensory information to be obtained from the environment.
Overall, what was most surprising is that if we were to lose one finger by choice, the index finger would be the one we could 'most do without'. In the words of Mr Donald Sammut:
"Although it is included in everything [you] do, you can exclude it from everything you do."
I highly recommend anyone to watch this documentary, even if it is just for appreciation!
Feel free to leave a comment below, I'd be interested to hear what you thought about that dissection!
I must put it simply… it was truly fascinating! Never before on a television broadcast had a dissection been shown to the general public audience. It amazes me how the producers managed to obtain permission to do so. It just shows their passion for showing the world how remarkable the human body really is.
The programme was broadcasted by the BBC, this episode called Dissected: The Incredible Human Hand, presented by George McGavin.
The documentary can be seen here:
At the start of the programme, it was definitely a new experience for me when an arm was brought onto the dissection table. An unnamed person has donated this part of their body to medical science, and I appreciate that enormously as this programme did open my eyes a little more and enrich my learning experience.
Mr Donald Sammut, one of the worlds leading hand surgeons performed this dissection.
An incision was first made at the top of the forearm, and a skin "flap" was created in order to remove the integumentary layer and adipose (fat) tissue. Once this was done, the main muscles of the forearm could be seen. In association with these muscles, tendons are seen to be attached to each end of the muscle - and as I know from my biology classes, tendons transmit the forces of muscles onto bones.
At one point, Mr Sammut used his surgical instrument to tug on the tendon, which in turn caused the 5th digit (little finger) to be pulled upwards - almost if it were about to grip onto an object. I found this absolutely fascinating; a dead, motionless hand becoming animated once more.
How complex and intricate the very details of the internal structure are made me appreciate how we are able to carry out an infinitely diverse array of tasks with our hands.
Obviously you could see each tendon for each digit which also shows the very mechanical nature of our hands.
A tough protective layer was then removed which is located directly below the skin. This allows us to see the vital major structures and fine details such as the major artery and the major nerves.
The many muscles around our thumbs is quite extraordinary as it allows us to carry out a great multitude of tasks using various grips. Many ligaments hold in place a saddle joint made up of the thumb meta-carpel and the trapezium to minimise injury. This joint is in fact according to Mr Sammut one of the most likely to wear over time. What was most impressive to me in this section of the documentary was how the tendons are arranged in the hand. Moving towards the distal part of the hand from the wrist, the tendons are each encased in a sheath which offers protection. Quentin, the dissection assistant notes that this sheath, when removed allows the tendons to be seen in their 'pristine' condition. The deep tendon runs all the way to the most distal joint, and the superficial one splits part-way to attach to the one-but-most-distal joint. This to me is a marvel of biomechanics.
According to Quentin, the nerves are "probably the most difficult part in the hand to dissect, but it also makes them the most exciting". It's truly amazing how every part of the hand, every tissue in fact is supplied with a nervous network. At the fingertips alone, 20,000 nerves terminate at each finger to allow for as much sensory information to be obtained from the environment.
Overall, what was most surprising is that if we were to lose one finger by choice, the index finger would be the one we could 'most do without'. In the words of Mr Donald Sammut:
"Although it is included in everything [you] do, you can exclude it from everything you do."
I highly recommend anyone to watch this documentary, even if it is just for appreciation!
Feel free to leave a comment below, I'd be interested to hear what you thought about that dissection!
Wednesday, 2 July 2014
The Potential of Recombinant Proteins to Treat Disease
An article in the Biological Sciences Review (Volume 23, Number 4) grabbed my attention today, although it was published in April 2014. Nonetheless I feel it is very relevant. It was about how recombinant proteins can be used to treat certain chronic diseases, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis are just a named couple.
I don't feel I should need to go into all the theory about protein synthesis, but in case you weren't sure, below is a very useful visual intuition:
Recombinant proteins are synthesised by manipulating the cell and almost 'tricking' the cell to making the desired proteins we require. Usually this is achieved by introducing some (foreign) DNA into the cell which codes for the functional protein, then the normal 'protein expression' is able to follow using ribosomes. One example of this would be insulin protein being synthesised by bacteria by using it's plasmid as a vector. One thing to note is that if mammalian cells and bacterial cells were to be used, the protein product many not necessarily be identical as the protein folding procedure may slightly differ for eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells.
Examples of recombinant proteins include insulin as mentioned and therapeutic antibodies.
What I find very exciting is that these antibodies are able to target specific cells - you may have heard of monoclonal antibodies under the same context. This could mean the targeting of cancer cells, as cancer cells have a unique antigen on their plasmalemma. Therefore therapeutic antibodies can be engineered to target these cells. The formation of an antigen-antibody complex can result in a number of consequences: inhibition of growth, immobilisation (pathogenic cells) and detoxification.
One interesting idea from the article explains how using therapeutic antibodies may help to lessen the pain for individuals with chronic diseases such as arthritis, by inhibiting the activity of certain ion channels in nerve cells.
Ion channels are transmembrane (intergal) proteins that allow passage of ions from one cell to another - pain signals are achieved in this way. Some rare individuals have equally the rare inability to feel pain. This condition was explained by scientists who saw that there was a rare mutation in the gene SCN9A (this gene codes for the synthesis of these ion channels). Therefore using this fascinating occurrence there is the potential of using specific therapeutic antibodies to target these particular ion channels. The result of this will inevitably be a reduction in the number of functioning ion channels.
I appreciate that this technique may not cure the disease for good, but this would be a major breakthrough in pain management for chronic diseases. These conditions have dramatic effects on an individuals quality of life, so lessening the pain can improve their mental health.
It would be a major achievement to get this treatment underway. However like with any drug rigorous testing over many stages must be carried out first.
I look forward to seeing the progress of this idea in the future…
Credit to Katharine Cain, postdoctoral scientist at UCB pharmaceutical company, for the original article.
I don't feel I should need to go into all the theory about protein synthesis, but in case you weren't sure, below is a very useful visual intuition:
Recombinant proteins are synthesised by manipulating the cell and almost 'tricking' the cell to making the desired proteins we require. Usually this is achieved by introducing some (foreign) DNA into the cell which codes for the functional protein, then the normal 'protein expression' is able to follow using ribosomes. One example of this would be insulin protein being synthesised by bacteria by using it's plasmid as a vector. One thing to note is that if mammalian cells and bacterial cells were to be used, the protein product many not necessarily be identical as the protein folding procedure may slightly differ for eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells.
Examples of recombinant proteins include insulin as mentioned and therapeutic antibodies.
What I find very exciting is that these antibodies are able to target specific cells - you may have heard of monoclonal antibodies under the same context. This could mean the targeting of cancer cells, as cancer cells have a unique antigen on their plasmalemma. Therefore therapeutic antibodies can be engineered to target these cells. The formation of an antigen-antibody complex can result in a number of consequences: inhibition of growth, immobilisation (pathogenic cells) and detoxification.
One interesting idea from the article explains how using therapeutic antibodies may help to lessen the pain for individuals with chronic diseases such as arthritis, by inhibiting the activity of certain ion channels in nerve cells.
Ion channels are transmembrane (intergal) proteins that allow passage of ions from one cell to another - pain signals are achieved in this way. Some rare individuals have equally the rare inability to feel pain. This condition was explained by scientists who saw that there was a rare mutation in the gene SCN9A (this gene codes for the synthesis of these ion channels). Therefore using this fascinating occurrence there is the potential of using specific therapeutic antibodies to target these particular ion channels. The result of this will inevitably be a reduction in the number of functioning ion channels.
I appreciate that this technique may not cure the disease for good, but this would be a major breakthrough in pain management for chronic diseases. These conditions have dramatic effects on an individuals quality of life, so lessening the pain can improve their mental health.
It would be a major achievement to get this treatment underway. However like with any drug rigorous testing over many stages must be carried out first.
I look forward to seeing the progress of this idea in the future…
Credit to Katharine Cain, postdoctoral scientist at UCB pharmaceutical company, for the original article.
Tuesday, 1 July 2014
New 'Non-invasive' Technique for Identifying Oesophageal Cancer
Scientists from the University of Southampton being part of a larger international effort, have recently trialed a new technique which would allow oesophageal cancer to be diagnosed sooner for those who are likely to develop it.
A condition known as Barrett's oesophagus (or complications with 'heartburn') is a problem where people have frequent acid reflux. This is where stomach acid enters the oesophageal tube via the cardiac sphincter when lumen is not closed sufficiently. This condition if serious can ultimately be the cause of subsequent oesophageal cancer.
The main discovery was the identification of two genes that can mutate which could lead onto oesophageal cancer.
However to identify these genes in the first place, DNA inevitably needed to be sequenced. Scientists used modern techniques to sequence the DNA of patients with Barrett's oesophagus and of those with oesophagul cancer. The findings were published in the journal Nature Genetics. This way of identification is coupled with a relatively new method of obtaining the mutated cells from the oesophageal lining. A "sponge-on-a-string" test is used to obtain the cell samples says Rebecca Fitzgerald, professor at the University of Cambridge (MRC Cancer Unit).
A non-invasive technique such as this is a major advantage in my view. It could mean a lower probability of the potential subsequent complications of surgery for example. I am sure for many patients, a non-invasive technique is very desirable.
Oesophageal cancer is one of the hardest cancers to diagnose early and has a low survival rate according to the American Cancer Society. If this technique is widely successful then this will ultimately lead to treatment being available to those who are enduring the early stages of this cancer.
I encourage further reading on the article which can be found here. (Credit to Catharine Paddock PhD for original article)
A condition known as Barrett's oesophagus (or complications with 'heartburn') is a problem where people have frequent acid reflux. This is where stomach acid enters the oesophageal tube via the cardiac sphincter when lumen is not closed sufficiently. This condition if serious can ultimately be the cause of subsequent oesophageal cancer.
The main discovery was the identification of two genes that can mutate which could lead onto oesophageal cancer.
However to identify these genes in the first place, DNA inevitably needed to be sequenced. Scientists used modern techniques to sequence the DNA of patients with Barrett's oesophagus and of those with oesophagul cancer. The findings were published in the journal Nature Genetics. This way of identification is coupled with a relatively new method of obtaining the mutated cells from the oesophageal lining. A "sponge-on-a-string" test is used to obtain the cell samples says Rebecca Fitzgerald, professor at the University of Cambridge (MRC Cancer Unit).
A non-invasive technique such as this is a major advantage in my view. It could mean a lower probability of the potential subsequent complications of surgery for example. I am sure for many patients, a non-invasive technique is very desirable.
Oesophageal cancer is one of the hardest cancers to diagnose early and has a low survival rate according to the American Cancer Society. If this technique is widely successful then this will ultimately lead to treatment being available to those who are enduring the early stages of this cancer.
I encourage further reading on the article which can be found here. (Credit to Catharine Paddock PhD for original article)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)