STRESS

I came across an article this week that was titled "Divorce & Other Life Stressors Linked with Dementia." 

The University of Gothenburg followed 800 women for 38 years, documenting the effects of various 'stressors' on the body. Participants were asked about particular psychosocial stressors, addictions, and medical history. The results showed that 153 women (20%) developed dementia and 104 of those women developed Alzheimer's Disease. They did note, however, that the link between these stressors could not be fully correlated with the onset of Dementia, suggesting that "biological factors that change in response to experiencing stressor" might have been a factor. 

The findings of this study were a little shocking to me. Has anyone heard about stress causing dementia? More testings is needed for this study, although certain inflammatory responses have already been linked to psychological stressors. I have heard that stress can affect the body in many ways but this was the first I had heard about dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Studies like these make me stress about how stress can affect me later on in life! 

Here's the article if you want to take a look! 

DNA for DVI

This week I wanted to change gears and talk a little bit about my research with Dr. Hughes-Stamm from the forensic department at SHSU, so let me know what you think!

Disaster victim identification (DVI) scenarios can result from man-made disasters (transportation vehicles, war, biological/chemical warfare) or natural disasters (floods, tsunamis, tornados and earthquakes), resulting in a high number of casualties in short periods of time. Forensic personnel can experience significant challenges when tasked with the identification of bodily remains from these disasters. The number of casualties, degree of impact, accessibility of bodies, lack of resources, electricity, and difficult environmental factors, such as remote terrain and hot climates, can all have a negative effect on the human identification process.

Traditional methods of identification include fingerprint, dental, skeletal and visual identification. However, these methods are often inadequate in mass disaster scenarios because bodies can become highly fragmented and/or decomposed, making it impossible to visually identify a person or take fingerprints. Most often in these situations, the only reliable method of identification is genetic profiling. One possible solution may be to preserve tissues in the field to stop the decomposition and DNA degradation without the need for refrigeration. A liquid preservative has the ability to lyse (break) the DNA and can promote leaching of the DNA into the solution. This technique can ultimately improve DNA typing methods by eliminating the need for digestion and extraction of DNA, which in many cases can be time consuming. 

So this is where my research comes in! I took skin and muscle samples from human cadavers, provided by the Southeast Texas Applied Forensic Science Facility (STAFS), added different preservative solutions (buffers, commercial preservatives, salt solution, ect.), and incubated them at 35C for up to 6 weeks. DNA extractions were performed on tissues samples and the surrounding fluid (preservative), followed by DNA quantitation (using qPCR) and genotyping (DNA profiling). 

So what did the results look like? GREAT!! I found several solutions that were capable of preserving both the tissue and surrounding liquid preservative for up to 6 weeks. September 18th we received a National Institute of Justice grant based on my data/results so that we can continue to refine and enhance this technique. I will be presenting this research at the American Academy of Forensic Science (AAFS) this year and cannot wait!

Using Urine to Grow Teeth

I came across an interesting article today about research being done to regenerate teeth using your own cells. A group at the Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health used urine to grow rudimentary teeth inside the kidney of mice. Cells were extracted from the urine and used to generate pluripotent cells (iPSCs) that would mimic cells within the teeth. iPSCs cells are defined as "adult cells that have been genetically reprogrammed to an embryonic stem cell–like state by being forced to express genes and factors important for maintaining the defining properties of embryonic stem cells." Before the iPSCs cells were implanted, they were mixed with tissues from the mice and grown for 2 days. After 3 weeks inside the kidney, a small 'tooth-like' structures containing dental pulp, dentin, and enamel space were seen. However, it should be noted that the structures were not as hard as normal teeth.

This research has been met with a lot of criticism, many scientists are saying that the source for this regeneration is one of the worse that could be studied. Reasons for this include low cell counts (for use) in the urine and risk of contamination from bacteria. I am all for using stem cells to help regenerate tissues or organs but this seems a little strange and out there to me. Would you use your urine to regenerate your own teeth? I give this group credit for thinking outside the box and trying to use a more convenient source for their experiment, but I can say that this would never be an option for me. Do you think anyone might actually go for this if it was successful? What are your thoughts on this research?

Read the article here.

Synthetic Biology

Defined as the design and construction of biological devices/systems for useful purposes, Synthetic Biology challenges the realm of study for scientists and engineers alike. This new form of genetic engineering has shown to be very advantageous, creating more standardization, modularity and abstraction through a variety of techniques to help maximize the quality of our results and our understanding of those results, while minimizing cost and time. One of the more common (and simple) methods used in this field involves fluorescent indicators in DNA plasmids, known as Biobricks, to express specific sequences in genes, such as antibiotic resistance. The best way to think about these Biobricks is to visualize Legos and how the individual pieces can come together to make something new and exciting, this is what is happening to the Biobricks inside the DNA; restriction enzymes cut specific sequences located at the restriction sites and a new Biobrick is inserted. Biologists are now able to add biobricks to transformed bacterial cell cultures (using selective media) where digestion, ligation and transformation can occur more rapidly and results can be seen more easily, through fluorescence (UV-Vis) and/or a chromatography; this process has also significantly improved the measurement and integrity of DNA in each biobrick. This is just one example of how beneficial this concept can be when applied to science, professionals from different disciplines have the opportunity to collaborate and improve both current and future methodologies and techniques. 

Many students and professionals with diverse backgrounds and degrees have accepted this challenge and are working towards creating ‘living devices’ to help improve the effectiveness and efficiency of biological assays. The International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) Competition was created to help promote students’ ideas and research in Synthetic Biology; since its creation in 2003, the competition has grown exponentially, including students of all ages from across the country. Many of these students have provided new innovative ideas and techniques that can be used around the world. One research project titled E. Chromi engineered and successfully employed a colored ‘indicator’ in feces, through an inducer, which responded to changes in the body (such as concentration). So essentially what they were able to do was color-code diseases by simply inserting Biobricks into e. coli. What do you think about using this method to indicate certain problems within you? It seems a little strange but I think it could help speed up the 'diagnostic stage' for many people.

Although this field is contributing some amazing things to science, there are many concerns about public safety, security and ethics involving some of the research being done. Our society’s increasing use and reliance on technology has improved our way of living tremendously, but it has also created an array of problems that, otherwise, would not exist. As researchers progress and improve their techniques in the field of Synthetic Biology, we must be cautious and aware of the potential dangers it also creates.    

Check out the E. Chromi project here!

Genetically Modified Food: Good or Bad?

Genetically modified (GM) food is becoming increasingly popular in many places such as the U.S., China, Canada, and South Africa due to a rapid growth within the population, but is it a safe and reliable solution? Or are they causing more harm to ourselves and our environment? To answer these questions I did a little research and came up with some interesting findings.

What does genetically modified mean? These foods undergo a (laboratory) technique that is often referred to as a form of genetic engineering, where foreign genes are incorporated into the 'hosts' genome in order to select for more 'advantageous' qualities such as pest and disease resistance, improved nutrition, and certain environmental resistance (cold, humid, salt). For example, some plants have a natural pest tolerance that can aid in growth and survival while other plants do not. Through genetic mapping we can locate and subsequently isolate the gene responsible for the pest tolerance and insert it into the genome of another plant (lacking the gene), so that it too can have the pest tolerance. This technique has been beneficial in many ways, providing new ways to more efficiently and effectively grow foods, but can it be harmful? 

The risks associated with the use of GM foods has been researched and include everything from increased resistance of pesticides to the creation of new allergens, but what is most alarming to me is unknown long-term effects of these foods. A study I came across by Dr. Ewen and Pusztai looked at the "Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine" and found multiple changes and/or complications in the GI tract. Although not all were (directly) contributed to the genetic modification, there was substantial evidence of biological changes which should be further researched. 

Although I have my reservations towards GM foods, I believe the benefits outweigh the risks because they provide an easy, relatively inexpensive solution to combat the exponential growth of our population; the ability to withstand certain environmental pressures such as extreme temperatures, insects, and even drought increases the efficiency and reliability of this solution. We (humans) have a great advantage over many other organisms due to our ability to adapt to a variety of changes, including changes in our food supply, but we must take steps to ensure the safety and effectiveness of this solution by continuing to research and investigate possible complications of the GM foods. 

What do you think? Should we be more concerned with these GM foods? I'd love to hear your input!

Heres some links for addition info:
http://www.who.int/topics/food_genetically_modified/en/
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002432.htm
http://stopogm.net/sites/stopogm.net/files/ewenpusztai.pdf