Biotech/Pharmaceuticals

Posted by Christine Buske

The Wake Forest University School of Medicine found a link between an enzyme that regulates fat production and cancer in patients. Basically, cancer patients who take Orlistat, an obesity drug, stop tumor development.

The enzyme responsible is the fatty acid synthase, and by blocking it you can effectively prevent tumor growth and promote cell death.

The real breakthrough here is that people had not really linked the ER (a location in the cell where the enzyme is necessary to maintain cell function) is also responsible for keeping tumor cells alive.

Posted by Christine Buske

Ever wonder what this picture is? Well, here is the video where it came from! These are zebra fish embryos inside the eggs. They were videotaped with a regular video camera (zoomed in) inside a glass beaker.

Video courtesy of the Gerlai Lab and the University of Toronto.

Posted by Christine Buske

erase diabetes and obesity from the map! The molecule is called Boc5, and has shown to stimulate insulin function when a person is exposed to higher levels of glucose. The compound also reduced body weight by 20%!

I have to say, if this turns out to work in clinical trials this compound could change the way this world looks, aside from save lives of course.

Finding a compound like Boc5 that can stimulate the production of the hormone GLP1 (glucagon-like peptide1) which is responsible for glucose metabolism, has proven very difficult so far. Liao's team however managed to increase insulin production in laboratory mice when exposed to Boc5. A potentially welcome side effects for humans is that this compound also reduced apetite and therefore promoted weight loss in the same mice.

We will have to see where this leads, but if the study goes to the phase IV stage, we may be in for some very exciting news in the future!

Posted by Christine Buske

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK, London) has been developing a vaccine in response to the H5N1 bird flu pandemic scare. Finally, there is some good news for those of us fearing a repetition of the devastation caused by the Spanish flu. JP Garnier, GlaxoSmithKline’s CEO stated in a company release that “All being well, we expect to make regulatory filings for the vaccine in the coming months”. This means GSK came across some very good findings: the H5N1 pandemic flu vaccine achieved a high immune response at a very low dose of the antigen, the response met and exceeded the minimum required seroprotective immune response in 80% of the subjects given the dose.

These levels of protection have not been achieved yet by any other vaccine, and GSK will continue to development on it, as well as asses whether the vaccine offers cross protection against other bird flu variants.

Posted by Christine Buske

it “sounds good”. The same holds for genetically modified foods or crops. I suppose there is something about “genetic modification” as a term that sounds scary to people, but what really disappoints me is the lack of curiosity as to what it really means.

What brought on this question, you may wonder? Well, believe it or not, but there are people who think that introducing a “novel gene” into a food we eat, i.e. genetically modifying the food, will cause that gene to be introduced into our DNA. In other words: they take the saying “you are what you eat” to an extreme and believe that the novel gene that keeps tomatoes from freezing will integrate in our own DNA and cause strange defects, or God forbid, cancer!

Considering the media tends to oversimplify things, but never really explain properly, let me take this opportunity to vent and educate! First of all, if DNA would be a ‘problem’ for us, then we would literally take up DNA from everything we eat. I.e. we would be producing cow and tomato proteins. Basically, DNA gets digested, like the rest of the food. The only standing issue with safety of any crop, or genetically modified food, is the question whether or not it contains a protein that can cause an allergic reaction in humans.

Posted by Christine Buske

This is supposed to differentiate this technique from cloning to produce a human being.

As it turns out though, approval ratings went up dramatically when people were asked if they were in favor of deriving stem cells from embryos produced by cloning when the word "cloning" was not mentioned. However, SCNT does not limit itself to therapeutic cloning, but can also be used to create babies. So when researchers asked if people were in favor of creating babies using SCNT approval ratings went up as well.

The question I'd like to ask is whether the researchers explained what SCNT means? What is concerning though is that people seem to approve of something even though they have no clue what they are approving of. So do we say yes to anything we do not understand just because we want to appear "smart"? Perhaps it is society's responsibility to ask more questions before saying "yes"...

Any thoughts on this out there?

Posted by Christine Buske

anti-biotechnology and especially anti- genetic modification of foods. However, what struck me as interesting was the lack of knowledge the average critic has on the topic. Don't get me wrong: criticism is a good thing, it ensures we are careful and make sure products are safe before they go to the market. Nevertheless, instead of making the same arguments over and over again while closing their eyes to new advancements in testing the safety of GM foods, critics should try and stay at least a little more up to date with the efforts the industry is pouring into safety concerns and ethics. Just knowing what "genetically modified foods" really means is one thing, but staying on top of new developments is also necessary if you want to find areas to challenge.

What do you think?

Posted by Christine Buske

Like anything else, the reputation of biotechnology is ruined by inaccurate reporting, and even worse: accurate reporting of “mal practise”.

One incident happened with “StarLink”, a variety of Bt corn patented by Aventis Crop Sciences intended to be used only in animal feed. This variety of GMO corn had a Bt protein version that breaks down more slowly than the variety approved for human consumption, which could lead to some allergic reactions to the Bt protein. The problem was that concentrations of this variety of Bt toxin was found in corn products produced for human consumption. Needless to say, this was a disaster for Aventis and the entire biotechnology industry, particularly with GMOs already being a touchy topic with the public.

Read here what Bt corn really is

Posted by Christine Buske

Welcome to another new and exciting topic on suite101.com: biotechnology and pharmaceuticals! To kick off this topic I posted a short article discussing the basics of genetic modification, soon to be followed with a few more specific examples, such as Bt corn.

Enjoy! And don't hesitate to email me with suggestions or ideas for this topic.