Mice are useful scientific research tools. In world of basic scientific research, mice are easy to handle cost effective to maintain as a colony, they share many of the same biochemical pathways as humans and are readily manipulated in the lab. Sure, some of the research is difficult to stomach, and mice are not perfect analogs to humans, but for understanding the basic science in human life, mice provide the one of the best, most relevant models of mammalian biology available to basic life sciences researchers.
Most people learned in high school biology class that mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell. Mitochondria the bulk of the energy that our cells use to maintain their normal functions, whether that be repairing themselves, communicating, responding to communications, growing, dying or other essential functions. In order for energy to produced, the mitochondria rely on a small piece of DNA known as the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA.) This DNA encodes genes that make proteins that are parts of the protein complexes that help make energy in the mitochondria.
Just like the any DNA, the mitochondrial DNA is subjected to stress which can impair the intergrity of the information contained by the mtDNA. In many cases, DNA damage can be repaired, but if not repaired, the DNA can be mutated. Mutations can change the information in either a small way or by wholesale deletion of the information. Over the course of a lifetime, mutations in the mtDNA can accumulate and have been associated with aging and disease. Whether mutations in mtDNA cause or are caused by aging has been an open question.
A couple years ago, two groups independently developed transgenic mice strains that had a tendency to accumulate mutations in the mtDNA. These mice showed an extremely accelerated aging phenotype. Over the course of two years, these mice had all the hallmarks of a 3-4 year old mice (normal lifespan.) The theory was that the mutation of the mtDNA caused the mice to age in an accelerated fashion. In subsequent years, research has shown that the aging phenotype was due to the wholesale deletions of the DNA rather than the point mutations.
Today, some new research was brought to my attention. A group took one of these mice strains that mutate their mtDNA and subjected them to repetitive endurance exercise. The mice showed decreased symptoms of age-related phenotypes.
Why is this important? If mutations in mtDNA can cause aging in humans just like it can in mice, which plenty of circumstantial evidence suggests that it may, the importance of lifestyle factors may be more critical than previously considered. Sure, smoking can cause cancer, but the importance of other factors, like diet, exercise, sleep patterns and micronutrient intake may be involved in maintaining proper cellular metabolism, endocrine functions, maintaining a healthy population of mitochondria and limiting the accumulation of mitochondrial DNA mutations. Given the average American lifestyle, largely sedentary at home and at work, high glycemic, nutrient bereft diet and a pharmaceutical industry more interested in treating conditions than preserving health and longevity. If by making some compromises in our lifestyle, we can life longer, healthier lives maybe we should consider those compromises. Moreover, if the FDA, American Heart Association and American Diabetes Association recommended diets are not working, as Americans continue to get fatter and suffer more chronic health issues, maybe we should consider some outside the box compromises.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Root Canal
I neglected going to the dentist for a couple years, I know, I'm bad. The last time I had gone to the dentist, it was to get a cap and crown put on a tooth that had been the subject of a root canal. I had no real problems for the last several years, I brushed and flossed regularly. When I recently went to the dentist, I had no cavities, very little tartar and rather healthy gums. Good for me!
However, I had been experiencing some discomfort in a tooth which brought about my recent visit to the dentist. Some X-rays suggested that I needed a root canal. OK, not that I want to get a root canal, but it's better than walking around in pain or without teeth.
Today I went to see the endodontist. He did some X-rays then things started to go a little weird. He wasn't so sure that the tooth the my dentist suggested needed a root canal actually needed a root canal. In addition, he suspected a significant infection of the tooth next to the suspect tooth, the one that had previously been subjected to a root canal. According to him, it could only be diagnosed by employing a 3D CAT scan, which would not be covered by my dental insurance, but might be covered by my medical insurance. The scan would cost $300. Being one who values my teeth and doesn't want an infected tooth to cause any complications, I agreed.
I think to myself, is this really necessary or is this guy really just trying to pay off a fancy new toy? Well, I was led down the hall into a room with a big shiny machine and decided it was the later. I was positioned in the machine and it whirled around my head for a couple minutes. A couple minutes later, the endodontist comes in and shows me a set of pictures that confirm the infection and further suggest that the old root canal had only covered 2 of the 3 roots in the bad tooth. To my eyes, the pictures were not that much more informative than the standard X-rays. Maybe he could tell more, but he wasn't sharing any of that information.
Was the $300 CAT scan necessary, I'm not sure, hopefully insurance covers the cost, but only time will tell. If it assists with targeting the treatment, OK. Still not sure that it needed to cost $300, other than paying off the cost of the unit.
So I went in for a root canal, got a CAT scan, and came out with no root canal, suggestions for a series treatments and significantly poorer. Not really happy with the events of the day.
However, I had been experiencing some discomfort in a tooth which brought about my recent visit to the dentist. Some X-rays suggested that I needed a root canal. OK, not that I want to get a root canal, but it's better than walking around in pain or without teeth.
Today I went to see the endodontist. He did some X-rays then things started to go a little weird. He wasn't so sure that the tooth the my dentist suggested needed a root canal actually needed a root canal. In addition, he suspected a significant infection of the tooth next to the suspect tooth, the one that had previously been subjected to a root canal. According to him, it could only be diagnosed by employing a 3D CAT scan, which would not be covered by my dental insurance, but might be covered by my medical insurance. The scan would cost $300. Being one who values my teeth and doesn't want an infected tooth to cause any complications, I agreed.
I think to myself, is this really necessary or is this guy really just trying to pay off a fancy new toy? Well, I was led down the hall into a room with a big shiny machine and decided it was the later. I was positioned in the machine and it whirled around my head for a couple minutes. A couple minutes later, the endodontist comes in and shows me a set of pictures that confirm the infection and further suggest that the old root canal had only covered 2 of the 3 roots in the bad tooth. To my eyes, the pictures were not that much more informative than the standard X-rays. Maybe he could tell more, but he wasn't sharing any of that information.
Was the $300 CAT scan necessary, I'm not sure, hopefully insurance covers the cost, but only time will tell. If it assists with targeting the treatment, OK. Still not sure that it needed to cost $300, other than paying off the cost of the unit.
So I went in for a root canal, got a CAT scan, and came out with no root canal, suggestions for a series treatments and significantly poorer. Not really happy with the events of the day.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Why I don't like going to the doctor...
I'm generally a healthy male. Yes, I am overweight and boarder-line hypertensive, but I really don't have any health problems at the moment (aside from a slight head cold.) However, I really don't like going to see physicians, why? Let me explain.
I'm not afraid of physicians, I respect what they do, their years of training and their ability to diagnose and treat some problems.
I am lucky enough to get to interact with physicians in training quite a bit and honestly, they terrify me. Not because they are bad people or anything like that, but because the medical school curriculum is so demanding, I get the sense there is little time to really fully learn anything. If there's one thing that I've learned from watching FOX NEWS, it's that a little bit of information is extremely dangerous. Further, many seem to regard their training as the ultimate accumulation of knowledge regarding human biology. Further, I'm not really how many of these individuals ended up in medical school anyhow, with little knowledge of chemistry, physics and a moderately passable knowledge of biochemistry. Maybe anatomy and physiology is all that was studied as undergrad pre-med major, but this hardly qualifies you to authorize people to take potentially dangerous chemicals into their body. Sure, there's Medical Chemistry and Pharmacology taught in med school, but evidence of a working knowledge of these subjects has eluded those with whom I've interacted.
Now not all physicians are fresh out of school, some are actual practicing physicians who've been seeing patients for years. These guys scare me the most! Sure they can be amicable and have excellent bed-side manorisms, but I always find myself wondering whether they've kept up with the advances of modern medicine. A major part of what I do is to read the most current literature, synthesize new ideas and put those ideas to the test. If a physician was trained 30 years ago, I wonder how current their knowledge really is. Are they going to seminars every weekend? Are they just listening to pharmaceutical reps pushing drugs? Do they even have a concept of molecular medicine?
I'm amazed every time I speak with a physician how little the average physician knows about modern scientific research. If medicine is to be practiced effectively, it should be the pinnacle of knowledge the base of which was laid in high school and college. The human body consists of systems, systems consist of organs, organs consist of tissues, tissues consist of cells, cells consist of biochemical molecules, biochemical molecules are fundamentally chemicals with biological properties that ultimately follow the rules of physics. Without knowing physics, chemistry, biochemistry and cellular biology,how can one hope to understand tissue, organ and system biology? Further how can one possibly contemplate how a drug designed to stimulate or repress a biochemical pathway without adequate, current knowledge of how cells, tissues, organs and systems act, communicate and counteract that drug?
This is what goes through my mind in the waiting room...
I'm not afraid of physicians, I respect what they do, their years of training and their ability to diagnose and treat some problems.
I am lucky enough to get to interact with physicians in training quite a bit and honestly, they terrify me. Not because they are bad people or anything like that, but because the medical school curriculum is so demanding, I get the sense there is little time to really fully learn anything. If there's one thing that I've learned from watching FOX NEWS, it's that a little bit of information is extremely dangerous. Further, many seem to regard their training as the ultimate accumulation of knowledge regarding human biology. Further, I'm not really how many of these individuals ended up in medical school anyhow, with little knowledge of chemistry, physics and a moderately passable knowledge of biochemistry. Maybe anatomy and physiology is all that was studied as undergrad pre-med major, but this hardly qualifies you to authorize people to take potentially dangerous chemicals into their body. Sure, there's Medical Chemistry and Pharmacology taught in med school, but evidence of a working knowledge of these subjects has eluded those with whom I've interacted.
Now not all physicians are fresh out of school, some are actual practicing physicians who've been seeing patients for years. These guys scare me the most! Sure they can be amicable and have excellent bed-side manorisms, but I always find myself wondering whether they've kept up with the advances of modern medicine. A major part of what I do is to read the most current literature, synthesize new ideas and put those ideas to the test. If a physician was trained 30 years ago, I wonder how current their knowledge really is. Are they going to seminars every weekend? Are they just listening to pharmaceutical reps pushing drugs? Do they even have a concept of molecular medicine?
I'm amazed every time I speak with a physician how little the average physician knows about modern scientific research. If medicine is to be practiced effectively, it should be the pinnacle of knowledge the base of which was laid in high school and college. The human body consists of systems, systems consist of organs, organs consist of tissues, tissues consist of cells, cells consist of biochemical molecules, biochemical molecules are fundamentally chemicals with biological properties that ultimately follow the rules of physics. Without knowing physics, chemistry, biochemistry and cellular biology,how can one hope to understand tissue, organ and system biology? Further how can one possibly contemplate how a drug designed to stimulate or repress a biochemical pathway without adequate, current knowledge of how cells, tissues, organs and systems act, communicate and counteract that drug?
This is what goes through my mind in the waiting room...
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Relearning Old Lessons
I like to think that I'm living during the peak of human civilization. We have ready access to plenty of good food, high quality water, literature, communication, technology, health care and face little threat of acute disease, predation, starvation and isolation. We've controlled our environment and our collective living conditions to create communities which preserve our continued well-being.
However, from time to time, it becomes necessary to look back on the lessons we've learned either individually or collectively, and consider how we achieved this state of being.
Recently I've had to revisit some work that I had done several years ago. This is an opportunity for me to augment and improve the conclusions derived from this work, but I've been stymied at the start of this re-visitation because I trusted someone else. Years ago, I learned an important lesson about how best to do what needed to be done, but in this effort, I deferred to someone with more experience than myself to assist me. For the last several days I've invested a ton of effort for no return because of this trust. I knew that my system worked, but the recommended changes to my protocol would conserve precious and costly reagents. So by embracing the recommendation of a more experienced individual, I figured I could be more efficient in my work. Unfortunately, the recommendations caused my efforts to be in vain resulting in depression, frustration, stress and ultimately more incurred cost. I knew what I needed to do but listened to someone else who, even though my best interest was in her heart, made a recommendation that resulted in failure.
A similar lesson can be learned when considering my experiences trying to find a diet and exercise regiment. When I was a child growing up in a Catholic household, we had fish on Friday throughout the year and attempted to fast on Fridays during Lent. From a dietary point of view, both fish intake and intermittent fasting are things I've come to embrace as part of my primal/ paleo lifestyle. Similar to Jewish Kosher Laws which were developed to prevent food-born disease, these Catholic traditions, if embraced fully, can improve health and longevity, but have fallen from consciousness as society has secularized. As we've embraced the land of plenty, society has grown obese and suffers from many more health problems than we did historically. Could this be because we've forgotten the lessons we've learned on how to live a healthy and productive life? Could we be better off if we embraced to lifestyles of our grandparents who were generally lean and healthy until late in life? Some lessons are only learned by listening to our bodies, paying attention and experimenting with what makes us ultimately happy. This makes me wonder, are there other lessons which should be embraced despite the prevailing opinions of society or experts?
I like to think that I'm living during the peak of human civilization. We have ready access to plenty of good food, high quality water, literature, communication, technology, health care and face little threat of acute disease, predation, starvation and isolation. We've controlled our environment and our collective living conditions to create communities which preserve our continued well-being.
However, from time to time, it becomes necessary to look back on the lessons we've learned either individually or collectively, and consider how we achieved this state of being.
Recently I've had to revisit some work that I had done several years ago. This is an opportunity for me to augment and improve the conclusions derived from this work, but I've been stymied at the start of this re-visitation because I trusted someone else. Years ago, I learned an important lesson about how best to do what needed to be done, but in this effort, I deferred to someone with more experience than myself to assist me. For the last several days I've invested a ton of effort for no return because of this trust. I knew that my system worked, but the recommended changes to my protocol would conserve precious and costly reagents. So by embracing the recommendation of a more experienced individual, I figured I could be more efficient in my work. Unfortunately, the recommendations caused my efforts to be in vain resulting in depression, frustration, stress and ultimately more incurred cost. I knew what I needed to do but listened to someone else who, even though my best interest was in her heart, made a recommendation that resulted in failure.
A similar lesson can be learned when considering my experiences trying to find a diet and exercise regiment. When I was a child growing up in a Catholic household, we had fish on Friday throughout the year and attempted to fast on Fridays during Lent. From a dietary point of view, both fish intake and intermittent fasting are things I've come to embrace as part of my primal/ paleo lifestyle. Similar to Jewish Kosher Laws which were developed to prevent food-born disease, these Catholic traditions, if embraced fully, can improve health and longevity, but have fallen from consciousness as society has secularized. As we've embraced the land of plenty, society has grown obese and suffers from many more health problems than we did historically. Could this be because we've forgotten the lessons we've learned on how to live a healthy and productive life? Could we be better off if we embraced to lifestyles of our grandparents who were generally lean and healthy until late in life? Some lessons are only learned by listening to our bodies, paying attention and experimenting with what makes us ultimately happy. This makes me wonder, are there other lessons which should be embraced despite the prevailing opinions of society or experts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)