This is default featured post 1 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured post 2 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured post 3 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured post 4 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured post 5 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

Sunday, July 31, 2011

161 USD for Doctors Without Borders!

I'm giving 161 USD to Doctors Without Borders before the end of August. 161 of you liked the Facebook page since last week, and I am sure many more of you made your own personal donations to this organization which is helping give relief to refugees in East Africa affected by the drought. Doctors Without Borders is involved in many other regions all over the world. Click the link for more details.

Saturday, July 30, 2011

The lac Operon Explained [Updated]

Click to enlarge Photo: NIH 
The lac operon is a favorite of microbiology and biology textbooks, used to explain transcription, regulation, and catabolism. Here's my quick synopsis of the regulation involved, making sure the cell only transcribes genes that encode lactose-eating enzymes only when it is physiologically necessary. But first, a GENETICS crash course in biology:

An operon is a group of genes transcribed as a single unit. It's like buying Orange Box. There's five separate games, but they're all purchased at once in a neat box. The same thing with an operon. If the operon is ON, you get all of the genes activated. If the operon is OFF, none of the genes are activated.

RNA polymerase is a protein that reads DNA molecules in the cell to make RNA. This RNA is then read again by ribosomes to direct the synthesis of specific proteins..

The lac operon is just a string of DNA with two regulatory sites on the DNA and three structural genes (but we'll only talk about two here). The first of the two regulatory sites is the promoter, where the RNA polymerase binds to read the operon to make an RNA copy of it. The second regulatory site is called the operator, where the repressor binds to the operon. The promoter and operator overlap, so if the operator site is occupied by the repressor, RNA polymerase can't access the promoter to start reading the rest of the operon. Imagine the repressor and RNA polymerase as two brothers, and think of the operator and promoter sites as a chair that just big enough for one of two brothers to sit in. One of the brothers, the repressor, is lazy and if he sits in the chair he's going to nap. If the other brother, RNA polymerase, gets to sit in the chair, he's going to be productive and a ton of protein's going to be made. These brothers aren't going to share the chair; either the repressor or RNA polymerase sits in it, but not both. If the repressor binds to operator, the operon is in the OFF position. No genes in the operon are being transcribed, no proteins are being made in that operon. If RNA polymerase binds to the promoter, the operon is in the ON position, and the structural genes are being transcribed. What decides who gets the chair, then?

Turns out the lazy repressor brother is allergic to lactose, so if there's lactose around, he dies and RNA polymerase gets to sit in the chair. In the presence of lactose, the repressor is inactivated, and as a result, the RNA polymerase is free to bind to the promoter of the operon and begin transcription of lacZ and lacY genes, which will be subsequently translated into galactosidase and permease proteins, respectively. These proteins allow the cell to break down lactose and use it as an energy source. First, permease must to allow lactose to enter the cell. Then galactosidase is required to break down lactose, a two ring sugar, into galactose and glucose, both single ringed sugars. Both proteins are required if the cell is to use lactose effectively as a source of energy. The fact that RNA polymerase only gets access to the promoter ("the chair") in the presence of lactose means the cell will only produce proteins required for lactose breakdown when there is actually lactose to break down. Otherwise, the repressor binds to the operator, and neither permease nor B-galactosidase is made.

In addition to negative regulation by the repressor, the lac operon is positively regulated by cAMP, cyclic adenosine monophosphate. E. coli doesn't really like lactose. Positive regulation by cAMP ensures the cell will use lactose as a carbon source only in the absence of glucose, which is the preferred sugar for most cells because it is more efficient metabolically. This is known as catabolite repression. Glucose and cAMP levels are inversely proportional; the higher the concentration of glucose, the lower the concentration of cAMP. Only under low concentrations of glucose and high concentration of cAMP will the lac operon be activated and galactosidase and permease be produced. 

So there you have it. The operon is on only in the presence of lactose, when lactose binds and inactivates the repressor. The operon is on (to a much higher degree) when the cell is "starving" because there's no glucose around, and so the cell uses lactose as a backup carbon source.

Friday, July 29, 2011

Reader's Responses...

For the past week, I've been reading every single comment left on my blog. I've had to delete a few, but most of them were encouraging, funny, and informative. Here's some of the comments you've left me the past few days.



On the debate over stem cell research, Bremsy said, "I trust in the scientific minds of the world and if they say that it can cure all kind of disease I'm taking their word over some activist groups that are predominantly christian and are opposing it not because it's wrong but because it's wrong according to their belief." Bastard From Bellingham remarks on the destruction of embryos (in the process of derivation), "All I'm sayin' is that there are tens of thousands of possible donors out there where the material would be just destroyed. Instead it can go to save millions, but a select few want it held back?"


After I thought why cancer is so hard to treat, Bigshanks Bsc does a quick explanation on what cancer is: "Essentially the body is supposed to be able to regulate cell growth and mitosis (cells dividing) when there is an error in this, the cells rapidly divide, and these cells contain the same error which then starts a cascade. This is why chemo drug patients lose their hair, cause the drugs are killing fast dividing cells." I learned something new today! 


In my quick No Science Sunday Post in which I recommended Two Buck Chuck wine, BigOryx says this about his preference for wine... "i like wine, but just because a wine is expensive doesn't mean it's good, I know a lot of cheap good wines:-)" Too true. Good wines come cheap sometimes! Just stay away from the 99 cents store. 


Do you agree with Sub-Radar-Mike about the medical industry? "The worst thing about the medical industry is just that... they are an industry. It really aggravates me when they work on treating symptoms rather than finding cures for diseases."


HeadAche01 asks, in response to my post on purple bronze and the Wiedemann-Franz Law, "Could you explain in a next post what exactly spin is? I read the article on wikipedia and all I could figure out is that is has something to do with the rotation of the electron."  I'll get to that very soon, HeadAche01!


HomMakesGames was bewildered after reading my post on time dilation for a single photon, saying "That is a crazy thought that from in the photons reference frame it travels 0 distance for 0 time...hard to get my head around!"


Mac and I showed me how to integrate Lightbox into this site. Click on an image in the site, and a box appears! Cool, right?


You guys have raised 29 dollars for Doctors Without Borders! Not bad, but I know we can do better! For every person who "Likes" our new Facebook page, a dollar will be sent to Doctors Without Borders. They are currently involved in the East African drought crisis, which has displaced nearly a million people in refugee camps and left many more millions starving. Every cent counts.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Stem Cell Restrictions Lifted

New court ruling was filed today, issued by Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. allowing the United States government to continue financing stem cell research for cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's over public comments on the destruction of embryonic stem cells. The full court ruling is available here Dr. Shirley vs. Sebelius et al. (.pdf format). It's a major victory for science today but there's a lot of public misconception about what stem cells actually are and how human embryos are involved. Let's do a quick overview before we go into the politics of it, shall we?

Stem cells can lead to the cure to many diseases, including cancer.
Every cell in our body is a descendant from a pool of unspecialized cells in the human embryo. Human embryonic stem cells grow, divide, and transform into to every cell in our body. Thus, they have the potential to act as the raw material for repairing damaged tissue affected by injury or disease. As much as these hESCs hold promise for the future of medicine, they are not identical genetic matches with their recipients, making it very likely that the hESCs  will trigger an immune response against them.


hESCs are one type of three different cells, the other two being adult stem cells and induced stem cells. hESCs are produced via "derivation," a process which yields "lines" that replicate indefinitely for use in scientific research. In contrast to hESCs, which can become any cell in the body, adult stem cells are limited to only producing certain types of special cells. The third type is the induced stem cell, where viruses are used to force adult cells into pluripotency. By taking cells from an intended recipient and inserting 3-4 genes into it, scientists can reprogram the cell so that its development is reversed, and it becomes similar to a hESC.  Not only can induced stem cells become any cell type in the body like hESCs, they do not trigger an immune response because they are a precise genetic match to their recipient. By coaxing adult stem cells to behave more like embryonic cells and thus restoring pluripotency, the limitation on which tissues can be formed from adult cells is circumvented. Despite this breakthrough, one of the genes inserted in the process of induction is associated with cancer, and there are no methods as of now for targeted recombination. The gene is inserted into the genome (the DNA) at random, which presents risks. Some progress has been made, with one paper using transposons from insects to put in and subsequently remove the carcinogenic gene from the genome.


The National Institute of Health has recognized the promise that stem cells hold for medicine, and "believes that it is important to simultaneously pursue all lines of research."


However, research's progress is hindered by fierce political debate in Washington, with politicians arguing over the fate of these unspecialized, pluripotent cells for the past 60 years. Ever since stem cells were discovered, the debate has been fierce, as there are many issues involved, from the legality of stem cell research, to the tax dollars that it requires, to the ethical issues involved with derivation (which destroys the embryo). Take a look at the Dickey-Wicker amendment, enacted yearly since its introduction in 1996, which states:
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, 
discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death  greater 
than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 
46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 289g(b)).
This amendment defines an "embryo" as “any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.”


NIH subsequently received a memo from a government attorney, Harriet S. Rabb, stating embryonic stem cells  “are not a human embryo” as defined by the Amendment. Ms. Rabb states stem cells “are not even precursors to human organisms,” because stem cells can only develop into different cell types within the human body, while  embryos  can potentially develop into human organisms.


More than 10 years later, President Obama has issued this memorandum (whitehouse.gov), stating that the government will give more power to the scientists in terms of in what direction research is to take. In Obama's Executive Order No. 13,505, it states that the “[NIH] may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law."


"President Obama is committed to supporting responsible stem cell research and today's ruling was another step in the right direction," said his deputy senior adviser Stephanie Cutter.


With all of this in mind, do you support stem cell research? Do you think induced stem cells hold promise, or disagree with that, and believe that they "hold great peril," in the words of President Bush? Make your voice heard and comment below. 

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Origin of Life?

courtesy of dailygalaxy.com
There's a fascinating article in Nature (here's the article, courtesy of the University of Texas) on how life started on Earth, and the evidence in rRNA that suggests it came from deep hydrothermal vents in the ocean. The article here focuses on the similarities between the metabolism of autotrophs and the geochemical reactions that take place in the vents. The reactive gases, dissolved elements, the pH, and thermal gradients at the vents are suitable for the development of life. Given that the same type of environment was very common in early Earth's oceans, it is likely that the microbes that thrive at the vents could be closely related to the first microbes on Earth, despite oxic conditions and carbonate chimneys in modern vents. The vents in early Earth were anoxic, and were FeS-rich in comparison. Anaerobic methane-oxidizing microbes' biological pathways were compared to the geochemical process of serpentinization, where water and bicarbonate reduce Fe2+ in hydrothermially altered mantle rock to produce serpentine and hydrogen gas. Hydrogen gas is an electron source that can, in turn, reduce carbon dioxide to methane in a process similar to the biochemical pathways of local methane-oxidizing microbes. This comparison is important because if life did arise from systems like LCHF, serpentinization could have been an evolutionry precursor to the first biochemical pathways. To support the possibility of life originating at LCHF-like systems, the authors mentioned that the pH and thermal gradients at the LCHFs would allow high concentration of biological precursors to form, and that they could be used to explain the origins of chemiosmotic coupling in modern autotrophs. 


In contrast to the anoxic oceans of the Hadean era, today's oceans have plenty of oxygen. Thus the chemical of composition of the LCHFs and the vents would be different from the oceans of early Earth. The presence of oxygen means very different microbes would exist then, compared to now. How do aerobic microbes in the hydrothermal vents, figure in finding the origins of life? Are they of any special interest, or should further research focus on methanogens only? How did lipid bilayers, a sure prerequisite for life, come about? Most of the compounds discussed in the article are very simple and small.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Why Cancer Is Going To Be Difficult To Beat

As homemakesgames said in the last QOTD, cancer is very complicated. There are so many different types of cancers. There is not going to be a single cure for all cancers. Cancer is not a single mutation in our cells, it's a whole bunch of possible mutations that leave the cell unable to receive feedback from its environment or properly repair damaged DNA. Cancerous cells grow blood vessels to bring nutrients in from surrounding, healthy tissue, disrupting them. Not only do they quickly invade healthy tissue, they have figured out a way to cheat death. Ignoring all kinds of growth inhibitors from the rest of the body, cancerous cells circumvent limitations on how many times its DNA can be copied. They have figured out ways to deactivate programmed limits in its own lifespan. This process can occur in many ways, which makes finding a common cure near impossible. If there is only one thing all cancers have in common, it is that, without treatment, their host cannot sustain them.

Reviewing the Hyundai Accent Tuesday

Stay tuned!

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More