Julie Steenhuysen (Reuters) reported on a recent study published in PLoS Genetics which found that genes that helped early humans adapt to cold climates may be driving metabolism-related diseases such as obesity or diabetes. U.S. researchers at the University of Chicago found a strong correlation between climate and genetic adaptations that influence the risk of metabolic syndrome, a group of related disorders such as obesity, high cholesterol, heart disease and diabetes. “Climate over a long period of time has shaped the distribution of genetic variants that may be associated with the risk of these common metabolic disorders,” said Anna Di Rienzo, a professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago. Anthropologists have long argued that differences in skin pigmentation, for instance, are related to early human migration. “There are all of these traits, body mass or skin pigmentation, that we know are strongly correlated with environmental variables,” Di Rienzo said. Di Rienzo and colleagues wanted to see if genes that were once useful for tolerating cold climates were playing a role in metabolic diseases. “To survive in these climates, they had to adapt,” said Di Rienzo.

To test the hypothesis that climate shaped variation in metabolism genes in humans, the team used a bioinformatics approach to select 82 candidate genes for common metabolic disorders. They then genotyped 873 tag SNPs in the genes in 1,034 people from 54 populations. They saw several clusters of different genetic variations related to metabolic syndrome in colder climates. Interestingly, one haplotype was associated with higher body mass index and altered concentrations of the hunger-satiety hormones ghrelin and leptin, suggesting that it conferred a selective advantage on energy metabolism. Biotech Mashup thinks that we might be able to use some of the SNPs from this study to better understand our hunger pains. Furthermore, the SNP tests offered by companies such as 23andme and Navigenics might be more insightful in light of these studies.

What do you get when you pit two bacteria in a death ring match? Researchers at MIT did this for their amusement, which they claim was research, and found out the winner uses a unique weapon to dominate its opponent.

Professor Anthony Sinskey’s laboratory at MIT was doing a weekly bacteria battle royale fight when they noticed that the soil-dwelling bacteria, Rhodococcus, who always loses these fights, won. Kazuhiko Kurosawa, postdoctoral associate, was intrigued by the winner’s fighting spirit and decided to try and stress the bacteria by placing it in different environments to see if it would produce any new antibiotics, it did not. Finally, Kurosawa decided to pit the bacteria in more death-match fights against a new competitor, Streptomyces. Normally Streptomyces produces an antibiotic which kills other bacteria but this time around Rhodococcus did the killing by making its own antibiotic.

The researchers realized these games had actually produced a new compound which they isolated and called rhodostreptomycin. This new antibiotic proved be very effective against other strains of bacteria such as Helicobacter pylori, the now famous bacteria which is known to cause stomach ulcers. More amazing is that this new antibiotic, an aminoglycoside, is actually a novel new molecule, it has a ring structure which has never been seen before. This new structure could be used as a building block for newer antibiotics, something that the medical community is in dire need of with the recent stories on Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and multidrug-resistant Tuberculosis. This battle royale technique could be used to make more antibiotics that have previously been undiscovered, the only step left is for MIT to stream the fights over the Internet so everyone can enjoy the action.

The Scripps Research Institute is reporting on a new way to fight HIV. According to one of lead authors, Chi-Huey Wong, Scripps Research Chemistry Professor, the approach was developed with two ideas in mind:

“This new approach capitalizes on two recent findings in the field of HIV research. One is the discovery that HIV takes a Trojan horse approach to reach cells it needs to infect deep inside the human body. Scientists have described how, when the virus enters the body through sexual contact, it hitches a ride with the dendritic cells of the immune system that stand guard for invaders at the mucosal lining of tissues. The virus outsmarts these cells, however, and latches onto a particular receptor protein, known as DC-SIGN, on the dendritic cells. By sticking to these immune system fighters, HIV manages to evades immune detection while the dendritic cells travel to the ultimate goal of the virus: immune T-Cells in the lymphoid system, which HIV then invades, setting up a deadly infection that spreads.

The second discovery is that an antibody exists that can signal immune destruction of the virus. The antibody, 2G12, protects people who have it against HIV progression, but very few of those who are infected put up such an immune reaction, said the study’s first author, Sheng-Kai Wang, a graduate student in Wong’s laboratory. Scientists at Scripps Research have defined the details of the action of the antibody and found that recognizes a dense cluster if sugars on one region of the virus’s spiky protein coating—which is, strikingly, the same area that HIV uses to bind to the DC-SIGN protein on dendritic cells.”

To achieve the goals of this new approach the group has created glycodendrons. Glycodendrons first set up an immune response because the sugar molecules on the molecule mimic 2G12 prompting the production of destructive antibodies, secondly it binds to the DC-SIGN on dendritic cells preventing HIV from piggybacking deeper into the body.

This new method to tackle HIV is smart and elegant and addresses the other lead authors, Dennis Burton, past commentary. Dennis Burton’s criticized VaxGen’s HIV vaccine trial because he believed you should not just try anything and that no science existed behind the companies vaccine candidate. Besides VaxGen, many other groups have tried to tackle this issue but typically have used little intelligence behind the vaccine development. This new idea, using intelligent design, is very exciting and hopefully will have continued success. Read more about this research in this weeks online Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Nanotechnology, considered morally unacceptable by the public, has benefited a variety of fields and is once again making strides in medicine. The University of Michigan has reported a novel technique using nanoemulsions to vaccinate against infectious diseases. The group uses nanometer diameter oil-based emulsions that are sprayed into the nose to produce a strong immune response. Previously, this technique was successful in vaccinating against influenza and can now add smallpox and HIV to the list.

Nanoemulsion vaccines developed at the Center for Biologic Nanotechnology at the University of Michigan are based on a mixture of soybean oil, alcohol, water and detergents emulsified into ultra-small particles smaller than 400 nanometers wide, or 1/200th the width of a human hair. This new technology uses surface tension from the nanoemulsions to disrupt membranes and destroy microbes without much or any damage to human cells. Laboratory results with mice indicate that treatment of their nares with nanoemulsion prior to exposure to pathogens offers protection against pathogen challenge. The emulsion also acts as a mucosal adjuvant by presenting the pathogen to the immune system, which can induce protective immunity in the absence of an active infection. In contrast, the presentation of other forms of inactivated pathogens does not yield an effective immune response, suggesting that the nanoemulsion-killed organisms are uniquely immunogenic.

Dilute emulsions showed stability when stored at 40°C for over 1 year and at room temperature for over 3 years. They can also withstand several cycles of heating and cooling. The technology has been licensed out to NanoBio Corporation. If successful in commercialization, this could become a disruptive technology, eliminating the current technique of needle vaccinations.

Researchers at Pukyong National University have claimed that they have isolated a new antioxidant from the skin of bullfrogs.

The research team, lead by Kim Se-kwon, claims that the isolated chemical can reduce the effects of oxidation of skin cells by 73 percent. Currently, most skin products contain tocopherol, a powerful antioxidant. Dr. Kim claims that the new material discovered by his team is 10% more efficient than tocopherol.

I am continuously surprised by the discovery of new drugs from species which have been ignored or considered a nuisance for centuries.

The New York Times is reporting that patients are submitting to underground genetic testing, but are not informing their doctors of the results because these patients have legitimate fears of insurance discrimination. With recent advancements in technology, companies such as 23andMe and deCODEme have been able to remove the last barrier, cost, for personalized genetic screening. 

The article addresses issues regarding privacy fears, in addition to the use of genetic results to prescreen policies/increase the cost of premiums by insurance companies.  An admittance by some insurance companies in a recent Georgetown University Health Policy Institute study is frightening; they admit they would raise premiums or deny coverage based on genetic results.

It is disheartening that fears of discrimination by insurance companies are hindering the advent of new genetic tests to help patients make informed medical decisions before undergoing treatment. Hope is on the horizon; the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act would make it illegal for insurers to deny coverage based solely on a genetic predisposition.  We wait for the passage of this act as this bill is before the congress for a seventh time. 

At the 2008 International Stroke Conference, an abstract was presented which claimed that strokes are more prevalent in the United States than Europe because of higher rates of stroke risk factors and barriers to care in the United States compared to Europe. *Pause* In case you missed that last part the authors claim it is because of barriers to care in the United States a rather general claim which hopefully would be supported by solid data. However if we read further into this study we can find major flaws.

The authors use interviews among people 50 and older from 11 European countries and the United States. While interview data is considered valid to use it is typically considered incomplete due to inherent flaws in the interview process and the fact that it is self reporting of medical conditions and not the actual diagnostic data itself. It should be noted the authors freely admit this is a flaw with the data they are presenting.

Further complicating the issue was the authors comment that, “However, for stroke, the picture is more complicated.  For instance, although Italy has relatively low stroke prevalence, former studies indicate that Italians have a similar or higher stroke incidence rate than people in other European countries or the United States.  Thus, the results on prevalence may also reflect poor stroke survival in Italy, which will result in a lower prevalence of stroke.” This fact is in direct conflict with the author’s contention that barriers to care in the United States cause higher incidence of stroke by the fact that the United States seems to have a higher survival rate than the survival rate in a comparable European country which could explain the higher report of strokes in the United States. What this shows is a more detailed and thorough study should be carried out before claiming that United States has higher stroke rates let alone that this is due to barriers of care.

This abstract brings to light how complicated science and data analysis truly are, I see far too many studies which make generalized claims without significant data to back up conclusions. In my opinion I believe part of these flaws in many experiments and papers is due to the lack of proper science education. Far too little emphasis is placed upon statistical analysis and what conclusions can be made from such analysis resulting in many published peer reviewed papers which make claims that can not be supported by the data they present.   

Google announced an initiative with the Clevland Clinic to put patients in charge of their own health care information. The purpose of this program is to give patients the ability to interact with multiple physicians, healthcare service providers, and pharmacies. The current system places a great burden on the patient to obtain and distribute his/her own medical records. The new program is not yet publicly available, but is offered to current Cleveland Clinic patients on an invitation-only basis for between 1,500 and 10,000 patients. The test program will not currently permit patients to take their information outside of the Cleveland Clinic, but will rather test the system’s integration with Google’s platform.

“Patients are more proactively managing their own healthcare information,” said C. Martin Harris, M.D., Chief Information Officer, Cleveland Clinic. “At Cleveland Clinic, we strive to participate in and help to advance the national dialogue around a more efficient and effective national healthcare system.

While I fully believe in empowering patients to be in charge of their own health care records and trust them with the information, the question is whether Google is trustworthy enough and what Google’s motives are. Although Google clearly has the computing and software development capacity to handle and search the information, one must wonder whether Google has proved its ability to maintain patients’ privacy. Furthermore, how will Google seek to profit from the service? Serving ads alongside patient records seems like a conflict of interest and may not generate many eyeballs since the information is not meant to be widely shared. Sitting around on a Friday night perusing my medical records is usually not my favorite pastime. And I don’t particularly want to see ads targeting drugs towards any medical condition Google determines that I may have.

This is not a new idea, and there are already competitors in the field, such as http://www.ihealthrecord.org/ where you can create a medical profile and store your health records online. 

A collaborative team of researchers from the University of Georgia, the Consortium for Conservation Medicine, and Columbia University have shown for the first time that infectious disease from zoonotic sources, diseases passed to humans from animals, is on the rise.

The research team looked at incidents of disease from 1940 to 2004 and found a sharp increase, particularly during the 1980’s. Surprisingly the research claims that the current greatest threat of new diseases is from animal sources and not antibiotic drug resistance. Immediately

following this study Roche and Gucci announced a new partnership in designer clothing. In the press release the companies claim, Gucci will provide style and Roche the necessary protection.