The Biology Blogger

A lesson to be reminded of is that biology comes hand in hand with behavior.  Biology influences behavior, and behavior also can influence a person’s biology.  This is an important facet in the mental health world.  It is without a doubt that there is a biological perspective on most mental disorders; which is why so many have the impulse to treat such disorders with medication.  At times, breakthroughs in the mental health world have to do with “backwards science;” realizing the biology of a disorder AFTER a drug is administered due to the effects of the drug.  However, there are also breakthroughs in how to treat a mental disorder due to the discovery of a biological nature.  This happened to be the case in which Rainer K. Reinscheid1 and his associates from the University of California Irvine found exciting implementations of Neuropeptide S.

Neuropeptide S (NPS) is a transmitter that has been recently identified in 2002.  Its main function in the brain is to modulate arousal and anxiety.  Therefore, a person’s experience of any sort of stimulus that may cause them to experience a sense of panic or fear is regulated by this neuropeptide.  What the researchers found was the expression of NPS in the amygdala at a high level.  This allowed them to draw the conclusion that NPS plays a role in emotional behavior.

When NPS is given to rats while they are experiencing anxiety-like behavior, it was found that it can have effects that seem to relieve the anxiety.

NPS increases the time mice spend exploring the less protected or brighter areas of their test environments (e.g., open field, light-dark box, elevated plus maze). On the other hand, NPS administration reduces the time mice spend burying unfamiliar objects (i.e., marbles), demonstrating an overall anxiolytic profile for the peptide.

The implications of this research are promising.  Drugs that modulate the function of this neuropeptide can be applicable for a variety of disorders, even insomnia.  Panic attacks and post traumatic stress disorder, in which the brain is actually biologically changed as a result of some stimulus, could be examples of where this treatment can be used.  It is not so much that it is a memory eraser of any fear producing event, but rather a mechanism for regulating your arousal states in those conditions in which you view traumatic.

Sources: PychCentral, Reinscheid et al. (2005)

Barbara is a recent graduate with a BA in Social Work and Psychology.  She runs her own blog called The You Movement.

For so long, it was believed that brain cells and nerves did not ever regenerate.  If you damaged a nerve, that nerve was forever destroyed.  If you had brain damage, whatever cells were damaged were gone for good.  This was definitely a frustrating thing for so long until stem cells came along.  The hope was that by using these stem cells, they could recreate brain cells and thus help cure diseases such as Parkinsons as well as those that had brain damage.

What scientists found was even more exciting recently.  They found a different place where adult stem cells originate in the brain.  What they found was that these dormant cells could, if stimulated and activated, actually begin to make new brain cells.  That’s exciting news because patients who have Parkinsons could get these cells activated and thus get brain cells back that were otherwise lost for good.

The brain is made up of these hollow ventricles.  And, lining these ventricles are cells called ependymal.  Some scientists believe that trying to target these ependymal cells is too difficult, but others believe that each ependymal cell is actually its own stem cell.  These cells lay dormant, but with a little activation, they would start replicating and that is where a person could get new cells.  But, is it really possible?  Scientists are not sure yet, but they are excited.  The only other therapy is implantation.  These are your OWN cells…That could lead to great things.

So…What do you think?  Do you see this working or do you think that scientists are just getting way too excited?

Source.

Epilepsy is a neurological disorder that can be characterized by repeat, unprovoked seizures.  It is a common disorder with over 50,000 people having it at one point or another.  Unfortunately, it can not be cured and therefore, must be treated with a constant use of different medications.  One of those medications is topiramate.  Topiramate is an epilepsy drug that doubles as a migraine medication.  What scientists found, though, disturbed them.

A study was conducted on women who got pregnant while on topiramate both on its own or along with another drug.  What they found was incredibly upsetting.  Out of 178 babies born, 16 of them had severe birth defects.  Three of these babies came from mothers who only took topiramate.  The other thirteen came from mothers who took topiramate and other epilepsy drugs.  Four babies had cleft lips in this study which was eleven times more than what normally would happen.  And four of the boys had genital birth defects.

Researchers, though, understand that they need to do more research to really determine just how horrible the effects of topiramate are on babies.  Furthermore, since topiramate is used for both epilepsy and migraines, the question that pops into their heads is whether there is a difference in birth defects if it is used for migraine purposes rather than for epilepsy purposes.  Regardless, if it is causing these birth defects, researchers need to get more information so it can be taken off the market.

If a drug causes harm such as this, it needs to be removed from the market.  We need to stop letting these pharmaceutical companies put out these harmful drugs just because their bottom lines are important.  If this drug does do harm, it needs to be removed from the market.  But, what do you think?  Looking at the results, do you think that it was some freak accident or do you think that topiramate really is causing this?  Regardless of what you feel, I do think that more research should be done on a larger scale.  Rather than under 200 woman, try one thousand or even more.  If there is a bigger study group, the results will be better.

Source.

When we get a cold, we are sick for a few days and then, over time, we get better.  The virus runs its course and the body finally beats it.  Even if we get the flu, the same thing happens.  For so long, there was this back and forth struggle between humans and viruses to see who was the dominant.  The virus would evolve thus forcing the human to evolve thus forcing the virus to evolve and it was a continuous struggle back and forth for thousands of years.  Now, though, scientists seem to have found a protein that originated millenia ago.

Called APOBEC3G, this protein is effective in changing the DNA around on a virus thus making it inactive.  But, before they knew about the APOBEC3G, the researchers used a virus called HERV-K to see just what it could do to modern day cells.  See, it’s a retrovirus that had not been around for a long time.  What the scientists found was that numerous different immune response molecules were released to try and destroy the virus.  What they found, though, was the release of APOBEC3G had its lasting effect, even today, on the old virus.

What does this mean, though?  It means that we have held on to some of the things that evolved with us even after so many thousands of years.  It can be assumed then that because of our war with viruses thousands of years ago, we are now stronger and more capable of going against them these days.  Although that is not always the case, it is interesting to see these molecules pop up that were not always there and then appeared and now are there permanately.

This is exciting because it is a first hand experience of, as the researcher put it, the battle between host and virus.  Who will win, though?  The battle continues to wage…One day the virus is stronger and then suddenly, the human evolves a bit and changes and adapts, thus making him/her immune to the virus.  And back and forth.  It is interesting to see the very definite appearance of a molecule that was used so long ago still being used today.  I wonder what else they may find when testing viruses vs. human cells.

Source.

I seem to be doing a lot of environmental posts recently, but it is definitely something I am passionate about so I guess it makes sense for me to write about it.  A recent study conducted by scientists suggests there is a way for us to cut back on CO2 in the atmosphere by adding lime to sea water.  Before you get excited, I don’t mean lime as in the fruit you may cut up and put in a Corona.  I mean lime as in calcium oxide (CaO).  Scientists have found that when you add CaO to water, it increases the alkalinity which allows the water to increase its CO2 in take. But not only can the water take in more CO2, it also releases a lot less because of the increased alkalinity.

The downfall, though, for some time was how to get the CaO in high levels.  It was argued for some time that it was too expensive to get that much limestone (where CaO comes from) and that the amount of CO2 that is released into the air from the process was too much to bother trying.  However, scientists now have the hope that if they do use this technique, it could help get rid of double the amount of CO2 that it takes to make the CaO; therefore, it’s a negative CO2 release.

In essence, if 1G of CO2 is released because of the extraction of limestone, then that lime that is used in the water will remove 2G of CO2 from the atmosphere, thus removing a total of 1G from the atmosphere after the release of the limestone.  In other words…It’s good!  Already the ocean absorbs 2bn tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere.  Just imagine if a lot of lime was added and just a few percent was increased in the amount of absorbtion in the ocean.  Imagine how much CO2 could be removed from the atmosphere.

This idea really is a fantastic one and one that I support completely.  If scientists can remove the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it can definitely decrease global warming which is incredibly important.  Using nature to try and clean up the world is a great technique, but it can be very costly.  I see this as being a very good way of cleaning up the atmosphere.  Add in Gore’s plan to decrease our carbon-foot print and we can definitely have a very clean environment.  What do you think?  A good idea.

Source.

Scientists from Canada and Europe have recently come across some findings that are incredibly interesting and, more importantly, very important to women.  What scientists found was one of the genes responsible for the regulation of ovulation.  In essence, this gene is required for the woman to ovulate.  Without it, the woman won’t ovulate and the rest is history.  Called the Lrh1 gene, this gene has become a very interesting source of information for the scientists.

What they did was took a mouse and genetically modified it so that the Lrh1 gene was turned off.  What they found was that this mouse, when her gene was turned off, did not ovulate.  In essence, no matter what reproduction happened, there would be no egg there to fertilize.  The reason this finding is so interesting is because of the pharmaceutical reasons.  There is a lot of money to be made in the ability to turn off the Lrh1 gene.

But more importantly and my reason for finding it so interesting is its contraceptive methods.  Current contraceptive plays around with the hormones, making the body believe its pregnant.  However, it’s not full proof.  If you are able to turn off the gene that causes ovulation, you won’t release an egg.  Without an egg, there’s no fertilization.  Without fertilization, there’s no baby.

Fortunately, there’s more than just the contraceptive behind it.  While scientists can synthesize a drug that can be used to prevent pregnancy, they can go the other way as well and create a therapy that will make the gene work again.  By doing that, women that were, at one time, infertile because they could not ovulate can suddenly ovulate all over again.  This will make women couldn’t have babies suddenly get that miracle of life.

I love science, but sometimes, something comes along that is just really nice to know.  There are few side effects, scientists hope, from turning off the hormone so the contraceptive side of things is great.  And, add the fact that they might be able to create a therapy to increase the chances of a woman getting pregnant and you really find that these findings are really quite interesting.  What do you think, though?  Is it a good idea or a bad idea to play around with this gene?

Source.

On Thursday, Al Gore stepped before a group of people and made the argument that we, as a nation, need to be carbon-free in ten years.  He said that this was possible and that if we wanted it enough, we could have it.  We put a man on the moon less than a decade after John F. Kennedy said he wanted to see that happen.  Yet, this is causing an uproar amongst different political groups and it interests me.  But, aside from politics, what’s the biology behind it and can it really work?

To really understand if it can or cannot work, we need to step in and observe the details of what Al Gore was talking about.  He mentioned three things to try and eliminate our carbon usage.  The first was solar power, the second was geothermal energy, and the third was wind power.  All three are great, but which one is the greatest?  Well…Let’s first glance at what they do.

Solar:

By using the power of the sun, we can take the energy and convert it into electricity.  It’s great because it is free energy without any output.  The sun hits the Earth anyways so we might as well use it.  The downfall I see is that if it’s a cloudy or rainy day, you don’t get any energy.  Sure, you get a little bit, but not nearly as much as you would with a sunny day.  This requires batteries to be charged in case of this.

Geothermal

This is using the heat from the Earth.  Simply put, the heat deep in the Earth is collected and then it is used to turn a turbine which therefore generates electricity.  The downfall is you have to dig to get to the heat.  It can expensive digging quite so much and more importantly, where do you put it?  How much land would be required to have a very efficient plant?

Wind Power

If it’s a windy day, it’s perfect to use.  The wind turns the turbines and this provides electricity.  It’s great; however, scientists have found that it can disrupt bird navigation patterns.  So, while we get our electricity, we’re also being forced to disrupt nature which can have catastrophic responses.

So…Which one is the best one to use?  Personally, I feel that we should use solar.  Solar is a great thing and it doesn’t require huge fields like wind power.  People can get rebates, buy the solar panels, put them on their roof or in their back yard and only use the electricity that they need.  And, if they have more, they can sell it back to the electric companies.

Unfortunately, this is not happening as much as it should.  I am a firm believer in trying to eliminate our carbon footprint.  I would love if we could get electricity without having to use coal or anything like that.  But, who is going to pay it?  T. Boone Pickens is working on a huge wind farm, but is it going to work?

If we try and actually work on effectively getting off carbon, I think we can.  But it’s not going to be pure government funded.  Sure, the government needs to help and I agree with Al Gore.  Private markets need to get involved as well like Pickens is doing.  The more that the private sector gets involved, the faster it’ll happen.  I’d put solar panels on my house if I owned a house.

What do you think?  Leave a comment telling which of the three you think is the best for us to use.  Solar, Wind, Geothermal; which is the best?  And…Do you think Al Gore is right?  Can we get off of carbon for good?

When we hear a story about a gene variation that makes a person immune to malaria, people get excited. But, how excited would people be if that same gene that makes people immune to one disease left them more susceptible to another disease? I don’t know how excited we’d be. Unfortunately, that’s happened. According to an article I read at the New York Times, those in Africa that developed a gene that allowed for an immunity against an ancestor to the modern day malaria are more prone to get HIV.  Alone, this gene could be the cause of 11% of the cases of HIV.

The question people are asking is: why is it when one disease is protected against, the other becomes more likely to infect the person?  The answer to that lays on the receptors of the red blood cells and the white blood cells.  Malaria attaches to a receptor that is found on red blood cells.  This receptor is meant to attach to a hormone called CCL5.  About 10,000 years ago, humans in Africa stopped having those receptors and they suddenly stopped getting malaria.

Now that HIV is around, though, one scientist suddenly had a realization.  Robin Weiss is a biologist at University College of London.  He found that HIV was using red blood cells to get around the body in particular patients.  Instead of the malaria attaching to the receptor, the HIV attaches to the receptor.  And what you get is a case of increased HIV infections.  It sounds confusing?  It is.  Scientists realized that if there is a lack of this one receptor on the red blood cells, HIV increases.  If there is a lack of the receptor on the white blood cells, HIV goes away.  It’s confusing.

What does this all mean, though?  It explains why HIV is so dangerous in Africa.  More importantly, though, it gives more information into understanding about the biology behind HIV.  We don’t know much about HIV.  It’s relatively new so we can’t do genetic research.  That’s irritating for scientists because if we knew about the genome, we might be able to target it better.  This research, although very upsetting, could lead to more information on potentially finding a vaccine.  On an aside, a trial for a vaccine against HIV was just cancelled.

Hopefully we can find a cure for this virus.  But, right now, we just have more knowledge.  We are starting to understand more and more on how this virus works.  It’s not a lot, but it’s something.  Now all we need is to get a vaccine out, huh?

Alright, this is a topic that is a bit of a passion for me because I used to have ferrets as a kid.  I can remember when I was around the age of eight, I saved up my twenty five dollars and I adopted one of the few ferrets that were left.  The Black-Footed Ferret is quickly moving towards extinction.  Scientists say that a colony that currently has half of America’s population of Black-Footed Ferrets was recently hit back the Plague (the same as the Black plague) and a third of these 300 ferrets have died already from it.  This is scary, especially because of this…

In the 1970s, there were only 18 left in this area.  However, with the careful work of scientists and the contributions from different people, they were able to increase that population.  Three hundred might not seem like a lot, but when you only have eighteen to create that population, it’s a really great number.

The problem comes in, though, when the Plague hits again.  We can fight the Plague off like its no big deal.  A little antibiotics and we’re done.  For ferrets, if they get the Plague, they’re dead.  Simple as that, bada bing, bada boom, they’re gone.  No sickness, just death.  Because of this, if an outbreak happens in a ferret colony, a lot of them can die.

So, why should we care?  The ferrets are another species on this planet.  Although we have little interaction with them, they are an important part of the ecosystem.  If the ferret population was high, ranchers in the area would not need to worry about prairie dogs eating all the grass that their herds need for grazing.  A single ferret can eat 150 prairie dogs in one year.  Sure, that’s not an overly abundant amount.  But, 300 ferrets eating 150 prairie dogs is a bit more.

Scientists are finding ways to try and help the ferrets.  They have developed a vaccine to really fight against it, but the truth is, it’s a very time costly job.  Travis Livieri is doing everything in his power to try and save them.  He wants the colony to grow again because they’ve been using the offspring from this colony to start other colonies.  There aren’t many ferrets left.  It’s unfortunate and there’s little people can do.  But…There is something you can.  Stop by the Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Program.  Learn about it and if you can, donate.  The population is dying because of this Plague and if we can help, I say we do it.

When one species dies, it can have catastrophic consequences for the overall ecosystem.  Prairie dogs need their predator.  The Black-Footed Ferret can be saved; however, it does take some work.  This is just another example of how species are dying out and an example of the need for human intervention.

When I heard (or read) that there was suggestion of farms in Manhattan, I had to question it.  Is there room?  Of course not.  Unless you want to use Central Park, there’s no place to put farms and even then, being a New York myself, I love Central Park the way it is.  So, I naturally had to dwell deeper.  How the heck could we put farms in Manhattan?  Or any other city for that?  Then I saw it…Vertical Farms.  Now, this has been discussed for quite some time, but I had to write about it.

In theory, what they are hoping is that they can do the one thing that is expected in Manhattan: build up.  Skyscrapers can be built and people feel that some of these could be used for farms.  It’s a nice idea in theory, but there are issues to it.  Before I talk about the issues, though, let’s look at some of the really great things that could come from this.  First, take a look at this picture that I have provided and tell me what you think about.

As you can see, the building would be used with many floors to grow food.  According to an article in the New York Times, one thirty story skyscraper with pure farms on it could make enough food to feed 50,000 people.  That’s a lot of people and that could definitely do some good in lowering the cost of food if there were numerous of them.  But, then we need to look at some issues that come along with it.

It will cost hundreds of millions to make one of these towers.  How much money can the food that is made here make a year?  If it can make a lot, then perhaps the investment would be a good move.  But, the issue that I think a lot of people have (including me) is this: is this the most effective way to increase food production?  And more so than that…Why would someone with a skyscraper want to do this over renting it out to someone?  Which will pay more?

I propose something to those that want to do this.  I am all for the skyscrapers, but why does an entire building need to be a farm?  What if only a certain number of floors on numerous skyscrapers were converted into farms?  It’s not uncommon to see the roof of a building housing a garden.  What if you used this technique, but on a smaller scale?  Why does it need to be 30 stories and a new building?  Can’t it just be an addition to an already built skyscraper and fewer floors?

Until we know just how successful this is going to be, we need to keep in perspective that this is very expensive.  If this is the best way to increase our production for food, then great.  But, there are other ways.  I like the idea, but I wonder if it will work.  What about all you?  Think it’ll work?