The Bewilderness

A success story (and quite a good one)

Cancer is understood as never before. This is one of the earliest outcomes of the research programme undertaken though the sequencing of the human genome. Despite the media attention earlier this century, there were no real breakthroughs that could provide a definitive milestone of success.

Imrpovements in cancer resarch are incremental and, perhaps, approximate some of the paradignatic shifts that Thomas Kuhn charted. It may not be a scientific revolution as socially defined but we now recognise the fundament of cancer: a set of cells reproducing out of control, the consequences of which are the eventual death of the host. The causes of cancer are manifold and, even worse, the groth of the tumour becomes a Darwinian competition between parasite and host. A moveable feast or target for the oncologist?

There are plenty of new and expensive treatments that could counteract cancers. More are being developed and as commonalities emerge within this disease complex, it may prove easier to combat. Just as there are no wonders out of the Human Genome Project, so there is no magic bullet that can cure cancer. The success remains illusive for public consumption: but we understand more, we manufacture better treatments and people survive for longer or are cured entirely. 

This is a success story (of sorts)

Still No to GMO

The primary reasons for Europe's relative economic decline sometimes come to the fore through events. The General Court of the European Union annulled the decision to allow the planting of a genetically modified potato developed by BASF on the grounds that procedural regulation was not observed by the Commission. Even the Commission was so exasperated by its own convoluted rules that it followed common sense. 

This was decided without considering that the Greens and their allies, having won a victory, cannot countenance any reversal. Hence the court case. Originally, GMOs were banned on the grounds of safety but the level of planting and entry into the food industry have demolished these arguments. Now it is about consumer protection. 

This is an inflection point. Lobbies wish to maintain central control at Commission level so that there can be no backtracking on this Luddite position. Especially as GMO adoption is just the type of decision that should be undertaken at national, even regional level. For these activists, democracy is a value that should only be defended if people vote their way. If not, then their choices must be decided by wiser (Greenpeace) heads. 

Spontaneous regeneration

One of the common problems with following trends is that they change their names frequently, often to raise resources or avoid the negative connotations of the previous label. Sometimes, the new label can be meaningless, vague and irrational like climate change (as opposed to the accurate if clumsy anthropogenic global warming).

So when did stem cells become regenerative medicine? The switchover appears to date to about 2005 onwards. It was not caused by a bad press or the culture wars vigorously pursued by bioconservatives. Yet, when a National Centre was designated in the United States, regenerative medicine was preferred to stem cell research. 

The original term stems from a 1992 article and acquired power in the middle of the last decade. Medical practitioners prefer the term to stem cells and the cachet now brands reseach centres, academic journals, firms and associations. In the space of eight years, medical potential has uplifted a disciplinary cadre. I hope the research programme bears hopeful fruit.

Quadruple helices

DNA still has secrets to give up. The double helix can tie itself up in knots. An excess of guanine leads to a quadruple helix and problems during cell division. This gives us a new insight into forms of cell replication, especially amongst the collective disorders called cancer.

The evidence piles up that the reproduction of cells is robust and fragile at the same time. And this particular nasty surprise comes with a quadruple twist.

Some good news for once

The Cleveland Clinic usually announces its top ten developments for innovation in the next year. This announcement gives a good indication of the way that healthcare is innovating and advancing in leaps and bounds. This year is no exception.

The ten innovations do include a public health innovation and surgical interventions for chronic diseases; however, the greater emphasis is upon improvement through devices and technology. To give a flavour: better scanning techniques for bacteria and skin cancer; incremental improvements in the treatment of donor lungs and cataracts. And all of these developments use technology for better outcomes with less damage.

This has to be a plus for cheromania: relentless good news is here, despite the downturn.

Coding for protein

Biology was messy and resistant to precision or engineering. You don't hear about finely honed dog breeding, for example. But part of the biotech revolution: Sterling's designer organisms spreading their germline goodness is coming online.

When you see software that can synthesize biotech results and increase productivity, then we know that our tools are beginning to race away and that the real revolution could be commencing.

The software program, called a DNA compiler, designs DNA sequences to control protein production inside simple organisms. The biofuels industry, for example, is interested in maximizing the amount of proteins produced to optimize metabolism.

To produce proteins, which are integral for creating and maintaining cells, an organism's DNA sequence controls the proteins that it makes and how much of each protein is produced.

"You tell the computer what is the amount of protein that the organism should make and the computer tells you the DNA sequence that will give you that amount of protein," Salis said.

Countdown to a $1,000 DNA

How close are we to the cost of $1,000 for sequencing a genome; ever closer, like the European Union? This is another good example of innovation and costs bearing down on a designated goal, and charting extrapolative curves for the optimists amongst us. Yet, the questions raised form a small part of that broad criticism directed against Kurzweil. We meet this cost: so what? 

"Getting it is one thing, but adequately interpreting the information it provides is another big part of this," Gregersen said. "It's a fun thing to do, and there are ways to do it now in which you can contribute to basic science, such as by taking part in a larger registry." But, he added, "In isolation, this information is not helpful yet."

We are not there yet.

Cell circuits

An exciting development fostering a cross-over between living cells and computing:

Using yeast cells, the team there devised synthetic circuits via a gene-regulated communication method employed naturally by the cells. The cells are programmed genetically to collect information about their environment based on a set of criteria established by the researchers. The yeast cells then communicate that information to each other by secreting molecules.

Good stem cells require innovative tools

Stem cells are one hypefest that peaked before the curve. Years after they were trumpeted as a cure-all, and encouraged surgical butchery in unscrupulous countries, research programmes are beginning to bear some fruit. Even with the recent setback in the United States over embryonic stem cells, results have begun to be published.

A recent paper on the introduction of adult stem cells to damaged heart tissue has begun to answer some of the deep problems:

• How do you inject stem cells into damaged tissues?
• How do you ensure that the stem cells survive and begin to replace the damaged tissue?
• Can any clinical programme resulting from this research satisfy the FDA or other medical regulators?

The answer lies in technique and tools, rather then the content, with some nifty engineering and biomechanical materials:

But now, WPI researchers have developed a biopolymer microthread technology that could deliver these hMSCs directly to damaged heart tissue. The microthreads are made of fibrin, which is a protein that assists in blood clotting, and can be engineered to acquire different tensile strengths and to dissolve at various rates once implanted. This makes it easier to adjust the threads for several different uses. 

[Glenn] Gaudette and [George] Pins used small bundles of the fibrin microthreads to seed hMSCs, where the stem cells would attach to the threads. Once attached, the hMSCs were cultured for five days. According to the study, the stem cells started multiplying and eventually covered the two-centimeter-long threads completely. There were approximately 10,000 hMSCs on each one. 

Once the seeding and growing process was complete, the microthreads were attached to a surgical needle and drawn through a collagen gel. This gel stimulated the human tissue, keeping the stem cells both alive and attached to the threads. This result suggests that the cells could be sutured into human tissue.

These researchers at Worcester Polytechnic Institute illustrate the lesson over stem cells: that they are only as good as the tools that propel them to the damaged tissues. Innovation in medical tools may prove even more important than stem cells themselves if medical researchers wish to explore their full potential.

From Bilbao to Santander: our spiritual Ice-Age homeland

The Conway Institute has run the genome of an Irish man for the first time and found a number of unique features, in terms of the single nucleotide polymorphisms and other variants. Not even a sample population, just the one. The report of this study has been written up for genome biology and then announced to the press as evidence of an Irish genome.

Discounting the claims of nationalism that accompany the announcement, where it becomes one genome for all of the Irish, this achievement serves to signpost the interaction of nation and genome. Is it that the smaller the nation, the more important this achievement becomes?

The work that has been done already confirms that there is a distinctive and shared genetic heritage across the islands:

Major genetic surveys of Ireland and Britain have established that the gene pool of both islands is amongst the least diluted in Europe. The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of the ancestors of the Irish and British people were the pioneering settlers who arrived at the end of the last ice age between 17,000 and 8,000 years ago. The inescapable upshot of this is that the Irish are not Celts, any more than the English are Anglo-Saxons.

In fact, both the Irish and the British are Basques, with the Irish significantly more Basque than our neighbours across the pond, who've absorbed more migrations from Europe over the centuries.

An advancement, but not the distinction that publicity would have us believe.