Urticaria

Going about your day as a normal student, you start to notice a spot on your arm that constantly keeps itching. Getting back to your room you take a look at it and noticed there's a large skin toned welt. You decide to take a shower and as you're putting on lotion, another appears on your stomach, and another on your neck. You get it checked out and you are told you have hives, medically known was Urticaria.
Urticaria are skin welts that itch. They appear on smoothly elevated areas of the skin and come in various shapes and sizes. Urticaria has the tendency to change sizes and move around rapidly and disappear from one part of the body and reappear on another. They typically last  no longer than 24 hours. Urticaria can be caused by exposure to certain foods, medication, and substances. According to MedicineNet.com, about 20% of all people will develop urticaria at one point in their  life. Urticaria  appears more frequently on women than men.

A further stage of hives is  Angioedema. Angrioedema is something that accompanies hives, and causes deeper swelling in the skin. It causes swelling of the lips, eyelids, hands, etc. This can actually be life threatening when the tongue is swelled due to the fact that it can block airways.

Figure 1. Image of Urticaria

About a year ago, I developed the symptoms of hives. It seemed like every evening i would start itching and within an hour my whole upper body would be  covered with hives. The first place i would always notice it was on my stomach and forearms. Some days it got really bad and stopped me from going out on weekends. My neck would be covered with elevated spots with blanched centers, that were very visible. I got checked out by several hospitals and no one could really tell me what was causing these hives. I already knew what I was allergic to and stayed away from them so i knew it couldn't be allergens. The doctor prescribed four different medications to take daily in order to stop the hives. At first it seemed like they weren't helping but then after about two weeks the hives cleared out.

At times, the causes of Urticaria are not known. Doctors may run several blood tests and still not pin point exactly the cause of this epidemic. Some people are prescribed antihistamines , but turns out it does not always work. Although a particular welt may last no longer than 24 hours, people can live with Urticaria for up to two years or more.

 A new study showed that the asthma drug Xolair maybe a safe and effective treatment for people with long term Urticaria.. Thomas Casale took on this study and said "In the high-dose group, for example, patients had a clear drop in their symptoms in a week. And that was apparent at two weeks for the [second-highest dose]. So it not only worked, but it worked fairly rapidly,"   By  the end of treatment, 53% of patients receiving the high dose were hives free.Although they don't always know the cause for Urticaria, scientists are working towards cures so patients don't have to wait for it to clear up.

Posted by Barbara Afogho (Group A)

Half Plant Half Animal

For as long as we can think back to, plants have been utilizing photosynthesis to convert sunlight into energy  by producing chlorophyll which can be converted by chloroplasts into energy. This method of energy conversion allows plants to live without food. If this method of conversion could be harnessed by animals, especially animals with low food availability, theres no telling the evolutionary advances that could ensue. The search for a way for an animal to harness this ability has made a huge advancement in that scientists have found an animal that has adapted to be able to utilize sunlight to produce energy.

Scientist Sidney Pierce has been studying Elysia chlorotica, a type of sea slug, for about 20 years now and this past january he presented his findings. These findings were first reported by science news and Live Science has a nice article on Pierce's findings. These slugs, unlike any other multicellular animal, can produce chlorophyll which is essential to photosynthesis. The slugs obtain the chlorophyll producing gene along with chloroplasts (the cellular machinery that converts chlorophyll into energy) from the algae common to their diet. Pierce found that this chlorophyll producing gene, once obtained, is passed down from generation to generation producing sea slug offspring capable of producing chlorophyll. The only problem with this is that the slugs dont produce their own chloroplasts. These must be obtained by the young from eating the same algae that first allowed their ancestors to produce chlorophyll.

Although the method by which the new genes are incorporated into the genome of the new organism is not fully understood, just knowing that this phenomenon is not only possible but occurs naturally, opens many doors to future areas of research surrounding possible plant-animal hybridizations or even just development of new techniques for incorporating any gene into the genome of another organism.

Cullan Bartel (Group A)

Progress in Future Treatment Options for Depression

Depression is thought to be caused by many factors, whether it is from trauma during development or later on in life, over exposure to negative stress, less positive reinforcement during adolescence, or brain chemistry due to drug use etc. Is it preventable or curable? Obviously not yet, but maybe the advancement of science can provide insight into the future treatment of depression. It is obvious that some people are more susceptible to depression than others. Some people just handle stressful situations better than most and are more resistant to depression. But why? Well, if you Google search "Causes of Depression" one of the first links will be from PubMed explaining the biology of depression. It states that studies have found that people with depression have significantly less serotonin receptors in their brains due to decreased hippocampus size. Interestingly, this shows that a lot of the causes of depression are probably due to genetics or the biology of our bodies rather than drugs or stressful lives.

Significant scientific and technological advances now allow us to study and try to understand the biology behind depression and why most people are more resistant to it. Recent studies found in PubMed Central show that differences in the function, balance, and interaction of different biological factors responding to stress cause the inter-individual variability in stress resistance. This article shows different reasons behind depression and suggests factors that might help promote resilience to stress and depression in different biological systems, such as the HPA axis, norandrenergic system, serotonergic and dopaminergic systems, and many more. The study also suggests that individuals can be trained to modulate their own brain activity by the use of forms of psychotherapy, as well as many other non-drug-related possible treatments for depression.

But how do all of these studies on depression and stress resilience apply to modern medicine? Well, in a study done on mice found in Science Magazine, useful information for the development of naturally acting antidepressants is given. It reveals more information on the complex inner workings of DA (dopamine) neurons, the main ingredient of many antidepressant drugs. (This video explains the dopaminergic system and how it is set up and spread out in the brain as well as some of its functions). The study focuses on the neurophysiological mechanisms of the brain’s response to chronic social stress in susceptible (depressed) mice compared to (normal) resilient mice. The study expected to find that the hyperpolarization-activated cation channel–mediated current (I_h) of these neurons would normalize after a stress response in the resilient mice. However, they actually found that it showed an increase of this current as well as increased K+ channel currents in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) dopamine (DA) neurons of the brain in the resilient mice. This new information helps better understand the complexities of the dopaminergic system, to then help develop more efficient forms of antidepressants in the future that can be more natural and potentially less dangerous than pharmaceutical treatments for depression. Currently, doctors most often prescribe selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs to keep more serotonin in the brain of depression patients, and hopefully lightening their moods. However, these drugs do have adverse enough side effects to have the FDA issue multiple warnings about many of these kinds of drugs. 

Obviously science is showing promise of new treatment alternatives to depression in many different ways. I believe that this news alone shows hope for people suffering with depression and hopefully science can do more for these people in the near future based on ongoing studies, and make treatment safer as well.

Posted by Ashley Condon (Group A)

Discovery in RNA Structure May Lead to New Drugs

Viruses have been evolving side by side with the human race.  In the last century antiviral drugs allowed humans to tip the scales in their favor for the first time.  Unfortunately, drugs are only effective as long as their targets remain the same.  Drug resistant strains are a problem because each new drug is only effective for so long. A new, more permanent, approach is needed to fight these evolved virus strains

Science Daily featured an article originally published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers from the University of Leeds detailing the finding in RNA function in viruses.  The RNA sequence identified is vital to virus assembly of strains such as; the rhinovirus, tick-borne encephalitis, and polio.





Figure 1.  Image from University of Leeds researchers.




Researchers began their experiment after observing how the RNA encases itself in a "protective viral protein coat" in a matter of milliseconds.  Mathematicians for the University of York then worked on an algorithm to create a computer model of the RNA coding system.  In their last step, the University of Leeds researchers used single molecule fluorescence spectroscopy to observe the RNA strand in action.

Identifying the segments of code responsible is the first step in creating drugs that can disrupt the functionality of the code.  If a drug can be developed to break down a virus at the RNA level, it would be a major development.  Current antivirals target proteins on the virus' surface; however, as with most treatments, there is acquired resistance to treatment as the pathogen experiences selection towards different strands comprised of different proteins.  An antiviral designed to target the RNA responsible for protecting the entirety of the RNA strand has the potential to limit the virus' ability to acquire resistance.

Post by Daniel Bonkowski (Group A)

Deep-sea Microorganisms Are Found Relatively Unchanged Over More Than 2 Billion Years

Figure 1: Comparison among three microscopic samples 

According to a UCLA’s report today (Feb, 3rd, 2015), scientists have recently discovered a type of deep-sea microorganisms that are believed not to have any evolutionary changes in the past 2 billion years. This is considered the “greatest absence of evolution ever reported”. Researchers also claimed that the discovery of this microorganism’s lack of evolution significantly contributes to the interpretation of Darwinism. 

In this research, a 1.8 billion-year-old microscopic sulfur bacterial fossil found in rocks from West Australia’s coast was examined and compared with two other samples, including a fossil found in the same region of Australia from 2.3 billions years ago and a currently living sulfur bacteria found in the Chile’s sea mud, South America. After several examinations using cutting-edge technology, scientists has announced that the ancient bacteria in the two fossils found in Western Australia are identical. More interestingly, they are also “indistinguishable” from the modern microbes found in Chile. These results suggest that these microorganisms have remained unchanged in the past 2.3 billion years.

             Figure 2: Regions where the living sample was collected in South America

 Figure 3: Regions where two fossilized samples were collected in Australia

 In order to establish the explanation for the lack of evolution in these organisms, UCLA scientists performed several techniques including Raman spectroscopy and confocal laser scanning microscopy to three-dimensionally analyze the chemistry and composition of the fossils. Results have dated these fossils back to 2.2 billion and 2.4 billion years ago, exactly when the Great Oxidation Event occurred. During this event, oxygen was largely produced by the ocean and stored in the atmosphere, resulting in a major increase in sulfate and nitrate in the ocean. Fortunately, sulfate and nitrate are essential nutrients needed for the survival of these microorganisms that allow them to survive and reproduce. Scientists also believe that these bacteria are capable of performing photosynthesis, a process of converting CO2 and water to oxygen that also permit them to live in the oxygen poor environment. UCLA’s geographic records also show that the extreme environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially stable or even unchanged for the past 3 billion years.

Professor Schopf, a UCLA professor, said: “The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin”. At this point, it is important to recall the theory of Darwinian evolution, which states that all species of organisms adapt to the surrounding environment through natural selection of small, inherited variations that induce their abilities to compete, survive and reproduce. Since there has been no change in the physical environment, the organism’s biology should also remain unchanged consequently. “If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed”, said professor Schopf. In conclusion, although collected evidences have proved the lack of evolution in these microorganism, further examinations of other ancient fossils from similar environments are required to consider if the organisms have remained absolutely unchanged. 

-Posted by Phi Duong (Group A)

GMO Fear Mongers Are Just as Wrong and Deadly as Non-Immunizing Hippies, Perhaps Worse

GMO fear mongers don't understand the concept of genetic modification and, due to the fact that they're lesser minds, want to destroy what they don't understand.  In their thirst for organics, they not only skew the facts about GMOs, but outright lie about them in order to push their agenda of technologically-backwards straw-hut village utopias.  In this post, I'm not going to prove that genetically modified organisms are the second coming of Christ, but I'm going to give examples of anti-GMO sites and meticulously demolish their arguments to reveal them as the evil they really are.

When I searched for "GMO" in Google, the first three websites to come up were anti-GMO websites. Fair, there is a lot of controversy in GMOs so it isn't uncommon for causes to have websites to spread their views.  The problem with each of these websites are that they all use the same type of pseudo-science and fear mongering that causes events like the Measels outbreak to occur.  When voices of fear and misinformation drown out the voices of science and reason, there are consequences.  Let's delve into each of the websites in order to properly see how they convey their message.

LabelGMOs.org is a lobbying website that wishes to have GMOs labeled in California.  The labeling of food products is an important aspect of the FDA and keeps many of us safe from undesired toxins in our foods, so this seems like a reasonable request.  However, when we look deeper into the websites ideals we can see the lobbyists' spin on their message. Looking at their FAQs page, they touch on many subjects in a disturbing manner.  Rather than explain why the foods are dangerous, they simply state that other countries label their GMOs and pose the question, "What do they know that we don't?" This air of malignancy and danger does nothing to answer questions, but only stirs up our primal fears of the unknown.  This paper released by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) has an approach that looks at other countries that have mandatory labeling of GMOs and offers questions of whether the cost of labeling would be worth it, since they have yet to be proven dangerous.  The website of course goes on to suggest that work with Genetically Engineered (GE) foods aren't changing the world as we know it for the better.  However, a few credible sources tend to disagree with that outlook.

I must admit, the credibility of websites only decrease after the lobbying website.  The Institute for Responsible Technology was deceivingly named, as it had even more fear mongering than the previous website.  You can further investigate if you like, but the main argument I saw against GMOs was its page, "Ten Reasons to Avoid GMOs".  It begins by saying GMOs are unhealthy, which may seem like a reasonable way to start an argument against them.  This is also the only section of this web page that any sort of source for its argument, citing the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) for its reasoning.  However, upon further review we can see that the AAEM is listed by Quackwatch (an association with over 150 scientific advisers and a close association with the National Council Against Health Fraud) as dubious, and a further investigation of its webpage shows that is regularly writes letters to schools about the dangers of WiFi.  The anti-GMO page goes on to list "dangerous side effects", "contaminate forever", and GMOs "harming the environment" without offering any sorts of reasoning or studies to prove their worth.  However, there is still no consensus on the effects of GMOs on the body.  Since there are no studies to back up their claims, we can clearly see that these websites are only using spooky words instead of science to convince people to avoid the foods of their choice.

The third website is no better.  It makes claims that range from GMOs ruining the average farmers (economically incorrect) and that countries are banning them (true, but ruled illegal due to lack of evidence).  That's right, a country ruled GMOs illegal, but it was overturned due to the lack of evidence.  The population of the world is being thrown into a witch hunt over the dangers of GMOs, and due the current lack of scientific evidence of safety, the uninformed deem them unsafe and try to illegalize or regulate them.

Overall, the websites that are against GMOs use propaganda to scare people to their side of the story instead of scientific facts.  They seem to forget that GMOs are saving lives in India and would rather whip the country into a fervor using scare tactics.  Think before you make a decision, and feel free to ask a person why they don't trust GMOs.  If they say they're just "generally scary", remember their face. Those are the people who hate the Indian population and want our country to suffer from measels due to their uninformed and terrible choices.

Written by Ethan Doiron-LaRue (1)

Trusting Your Nose

Humans carry more secretion and sweat glands in their skin than any other primate, yet 70% of people lack a vomeronasal organ. Vomeronasal is a crescent-shaped bundle of neurons at the base of each nostril that allows a variety of species—from reptiles to nonprimate mammals—to pick up on pheromones. Still, scientists have continued to search for examples of pheromones that humans might sense.

Two strong pheromones are androstadienone (andro) and estratetraenol (estra). Men secrete andro in their sweat and semen, while estra is primarily found in female urine. Researchers have found hints that both trigger arousal in the opposite sex. Yet to be true pheromones, it is said that these chemicals must shape how people view different genders.

A study in the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing split men and women into groups of 24 and then had them watch virtual simulations of a human figure walking. The head, pelvis, and major joints in each figure were replaced with moving dots. Patrons in prior studies had previously ranked the videos as being feminine or masculine.

In this study, three videos were shown. On the leftmost frame, a video was shown that included a female gauged as having a quintessential female strut. Patrons noticed a distinctive swagger in the “hip” dots and how they compared with the flat pace of the “male” prototype in a video shown in the right frame. An unbiased walk was featured in the middle frame of the video, but when the subjects inhaled andro or estra, they judged the walk as either more masculine or more feminine.

The results depended on the viewer’s sexuality. Heterosexual women and gay men perceived the gender- neutral stride as more masculine after smelling andro, whereas estra had no effect on them. In contrast, study leader and behavioral psychologist Wen Zhou, pointed out that smelling estra influenced heterosexual males, but not females, toward perceiving the walkers as more feminine. Gender judgments of the simulated figures shifted on average by 8% for heterosexual men and women as well as gay men. 

It's very interesting to see how influential smells can be, especially when it comes to sexual arousal. I feel as though i'm going to pay attention to smells more after reading about this study.

Posted by Samuel Ustayev (Group C)