Low Saturated Fat Diets Don't Curb Heart Disease Risk or Help You Live Longer

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140305191429.htm

 

BMJ-British Medical Journal. "Low Saturated Fat Diets Don't Curb Heart Disease Risk or Help You Live Longer." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 5 Mar. 2014. Web. 15 Mar. 2014.

 

            The article, “Low Saturated Fat Diets Don't Curb Heart Disease Risk or Help You Live Longer,” reports the argument made by Dr. James DiNicolantonio, a leading US cardiovascular research scientist and doctor of pharmacy. Dr. James DiNicolantonio argues that diets containing a low amount of saturated fats fail to reduce the chance of heart disease or to lengthen the lives of people. In addition, he argues that the recommendation to replace saturated fats with carbohydrates or omega 6-rich polyunsaturated fats is built on flawed and incomplete data from the 1950s. He insists that dietary advices need to be reviewed and improved upon to prevent human deaths. The negative evaluation of saturated fats, which said that there was a connection between high dietary saturated fat intake and deaths from heart disease, was in 1952. To support his argument, DiNicolantonio says that the study’s author made his conclusions based on data from six countries and ignored the data taken from the other sixteen countries. Apparently, the author chose not to use the data from the other sixteen countries because it did not support his hypothesis. The public supported the study and continued to believe its conclusion, specifically after Eisenhower had a heart attack. DiNicolantonio believes that Eisenhower’s heart attack also generated the public to immediately support the theory that saturated fats increase overall cholesterol leading to a greater risk of heart disease. Even though a low fat diet lowers LDL, there are two types of LDL: pattern A and pattern B. Pattern A is LDL that are large floating particles that do not have the ability to cause atherosclerosis. Pattern B, however, consists of small particles that have the great potential to cause arterial plaques and increase the risk of heart disease. Switching to carbohydrates can increase pattern B, the LDL that is more dangerous than pattern A. DiNicolantonio also says that analysis of a published trial has shown that substituting saturated fats and trans fatty acids with omega 6 fatty acids, without a parallel rise in omega 3 fatty acids, increases the risk of death from coronary heart and cardiovascular diseases. DiNicolantonio suggests people to have a diet low in refined carbohydrates, sugars, and processed foods.

            The information in the article clearly connects to humanity because countless people care about their diets and suffer from health problems. Having dietary misconceptions does not help humanity’s health. Furthermore, this article relates to the scientific world. The information presented shows that although people believe the conclusions of one study, they can still test results and see whether they get similar results (even if the study was done in the 1950s). Also, it makes the scientific audience realize that although conclusions are made, the experiment must be thoroughly analyzed. They must question whether the author left out data to his or her advantage, whether the groups were set up properly, whether the experiment could have been improved to get better results, etc. Lastly, it reminds scientists to always stick to their results and not be biased.

                The article, overall, was well-written. It could have been improved, though, if the author explained the two different types of LDL cholesterol. Since the author did not, prior to writing this review, I had to research and learn the two types of LDL in order to understand the article more.

Take a Breath and Thank a Sponge

James Donohue

I read the article, “Take a Breath and Thank a Sponge,” by Carl Zimmer. The article is about how the sponge influenced the creation of the animal Kingdom. For years scientist have known about life, however there was little explanation as to where the all the oxygen came from to support such large quantities of life with functioning organs. Oxygen originally being released after cells evolved to absorb sunlight and release oxygen. “But, for reasons that remain unclear, oxygen remained very low for billions of years afterward. With so little oxygen on earth, animals could not evolve, Dr. Nursall argued.” There was an experiment done to see how little oxygen was needed for our original animal ancestors, the sponges, to survive. The team of scientist continued to lower the oxygen rate until it was around 4%, the lowest their machine was able to go. However even at these low levels the sponges were still able to survive just fine. The article explains that due to the sponges the animal kingdom was able to get a footing to become an important part of our world and evolution. The way in which the world oxidized was by photosynthetic bacteria that completely covered the earth’s water surface. As soon as these single celled organisms began to get larger, they began to sink and thus began oxidizing the water. When sponges evolved they, “trapped organic matter, they lowered vital nutrients in the water, among them phosphorus. Without phosphorus, photosynthetic bacteria couldn’t grow.” This enabled the algae to be more populous and create oxygen.

This is extremely significant to the scientific community and to those studying evolution. It shows how one of the simplest life forms was able to make such a major contribution to the rest of the oxygen breathing world. Without the sponges large celled organisms would not have been able to evolve due to the lack of oxygen. The early development of sponges, which were created at low levels of oxygen helped raise the oxygen level and an extremely high rate, than seen previously.

I thought the article was a well written article. It provided great background for the original thought behind the process of the experiment. It also went into how the scientists use fossil records that are nearly a billion years old to help them get an estimate of how old the species is. I also appreciated how the article said that some scientists were doing their own experiments to see how important sponges were and how the earth became so oxygen rich. Overall the article was a good read and very informative. It also goes great with the evolution chapters we just read!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/science/take-a-breath-and-thank-a-sponge.html?ref=science

Convergent evolution: New fins evolve repeatedly in teleost fishes

      Convergent evolution: New fins evolve repeatedly in teleost fishes

The adipose fin, a small appendage which is situated between the dorsal fin and tail, was originally believed to be useless and vestigial. However, a new study analyzing its origins finds that these fins, which exist on more than 6,000 types of fish, arose repeatedly and independently in multiple species. Scientists at the University of Chicago conducted research using convergent evolution and a new model for analyzing the evolution of vertebrate limbs and appendages.  They used ancestral-state reconstruction and developed an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between those fish who have an adipose fin and those who do not have one. Their data pool included over 200 ray-finned fish and fossil data from different points in time. By revealing repeatedly that the adipose fin evolved independently, the scientists showed that this structure might be valuable to some fishes. This shows that different routes to building new appendages exist and that they are not always predictable and repeatable. This research questions prior conclusions on how new fins and limbs evolve. 

            I think that this article is important to the real world. On the simplest level, this article is important to the world today because it adds to our understanding of evolution, which is central to the understanding of biology. If we do not understand one, we cannot fully understand the other. As Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." More specifically, it questions past assumptions that the adipose fin is useless. Understanding how limbs evolved over time enables us to analyze their importance and the evolution of their functionality. In addition, the methods that Coates and Stewart used in their experiment could be used by other scientists to study other structures. Lastly, the fact that something that has been so widely accepted was successfully challenged could influence other scientists to challenge other claims that are also currently common knowledge.

            The article does a good job of explaining how Coates and Stewart studied the evolutionary origins of adipose fins in a way that the average person can understand. Also, the article explains the importance and significance of the research and potential conclusions. For example, the author wrote, "these results challenge what was generally thought for how new fins and limbs evolve, and shed new light on ways to explore the full range of vertebrate limb and fin diversity.” Likewise, I like how the author included several quotes from the scientists, Michael Coates, PhD, chair of the Committee on Evolutionary Biology at the University of Chicago, and Thomas Stewart, graduate student in organismal biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago, who performed the study. However, there are some areas that the author of the article could have improved on. For example, the author does make some assertive statements without explaining why. He states that, “It’s exciting because it opens up new questions.” However he does not explain how this new development may assist scientists in the future?  It leaves the reader hanging about how this valuable information could help us in the future. Also, the author includes very little specific quantitative data. How many times did the adipose fins originate in catfish and other groups of ray-finned fish? What was this data compared to?  Likewise, the author wrote that the scientists used a new “technique known as ancestral-state reconstruction” to study the evolutionary origins of this fin. However, the author never completely explains this technique. For the sake of clarity, the author should have given a detailed explanation of this technique. Overall, however, I really enjoyed reading the article and learned so much about this new discovery.

Citation: University of Chicago Medical Center. "Convergent evolution: New fins evolve repeatedly in teleost fishes." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 5 March 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140305084406.htm>.

Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140305084406.htm

Protein That Culls Damaged Eggs Identified, Infertility Reversed

Ramanujan, Krishna. "Protein That Culls Damaged Eggs Identified, Infertility Reversed."Cornell Chronicle. Cornell University, 11 Mar. 2014. Web. 11 Mar. 2014. <http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/01/protein-discovery-may-lead-infertility-treatment>.

            The article “Protein that culls damaged eggs identified, infertility reversed” by Krishna Ramanujan, is about how a new protein was discovered by Cornell University researchers that can help post-chemotherapy patients be fertile again. The protein, kinase 2, tags damaged eggs in the ovaries with damaged DNA and destroys them during meiosis. By taking away the protein in radioactively infertile mice, the body is given more time to try and fix these damaged eggs. The paper’s senior author, John Schimenti, says “There are genes responsible for killing defective oocytes, but we didn’t know what they were. We wanted to identify this genetic quality-control mechanism.”

            The identification of this protein helps to allow chemotherapy patients to have children again. Researchers are now attempting to find ways to inhibit this protein by using known drugs. Although is has not been tested in humans, the inhibition of this protein stops cancer from preventing basic parts of life in its survivors. The identification of this protein can also possibly begin research on how the body identifies damaged cells and how it destroys them. This has the possibility to be used in cancer treatment in the future.

            Although the article is interesting and informative, the writer could have included more about the research process and how exactly researchers identified the protein. It would have been interesting to see how the researchers were able to look for this exact protein and what procedures they used. Despite this drawback, the article is still a very good read.  

"Study Gives Hope of Altering Genes to Repel H.I.V."

Grady, Denise. "Study Gives Hope of Altering Genes to Repel H.I.V." The New York Times. The New York Times, 05 Mar. 2014. Web. 05 Mar. 2014.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/health/study-gives-hope-of-altering-genes-to-repel-hiv.html?ref=science

       I read the article, “Study Gives Hope of Altering Genes to Repel H.I.V.” written by Denise Grady. In the article, she discusses how the possibility of altering genes to resists the virus that cause AIDS which was previously though to be impossible, is now possible as shown by recent studies. The research was done by taking 12 people infected with H.I.V. and scientists used the technique of  “gene editing” to get rid of a protein on the patients’ immune cells that the virus must latch onto to invade the cells. The “cells were removed from the patients, treated and then dripped back into their bloodstreams through an intravenous line.” Scientists believe that if enough cells are engineered to resists the AIDS virus then this disease could be cured. Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said that “It’s exciting, interesting, elegant science. But a lot of ‘ifs’ need to be addressed before you can say ‘Wow, this could really work.” Dr. Fauci also discusses if this is the most effective form of treatment because the “gene editing” is a very complex treatment, whereas the anti-viral pills are fairly simple. The study obtained it basis from a discovery in 1990. The discovery found that a small percentage of people are resistant to H.I.V. thanks to a lucky mutation that causes their immune cells to lack CCR5, a protein that gives the virus a foothold. In people with one copy of the mutated gene, the infection progresses more slowly than in those who have normal CCR5. People who have inherited two copies of the mutated gene, one from each parent, are highly resistant to H.I.V. and may never become infected despite repeated exposure.

            For the people that are affected by H.I.V. this research could be the different between life and death. About 1.6 million people die a year from H.I.V./ AIDS. This option may be an improvement from the anti-viral medications because they have bad side effects. The research on gene editing, while it is still in the primary stages, is something that should be considered as a long-term solution for this virus.

            This article was very well written and I enjoyed reading it. The author used specific information about the studies and how scientists are trying to find a cure for H.I.V. She also included specific quotes, which enriched the article. I am interested to see what the results of this research will be. Overall, the article taught me that the process of “gene cutting” can be used to change the genes in cells and then put them back in the body. Maybe this can be used to cure other disease in the future if it is successful.

I read the New York Times article “A Revolutionary Surgery, Now as Typical as a Sinker,” written by Mike Tierney. In this article, the author talks about how widespread “Tommy John” surgery has become. He says that it, “…now extends to pitchers at multiple levels of the game, as well as tennis players and javelin throwers, from athletes as young as 14 to those nearing retirement.” The surgery grafts a tendon from the forearm into the elbow to act as a ligament. More and more people are getting this surgery, including young athletes. While it has most definitely been beneficial for athletes, there are questions about whether or not people should get it if their ligament hasn’t been torn. Athletes seem to think that it makes their elbows stronger, but that could also be attributed to that fact that they are doing more exercises and getting physical therapy. In recent years the surgery has been advanced to involve a different way of grafting and a less invasive procedure.

            There is no doubt that the operation is effective, but should this many people be getting it? The author said, “…baseball patients were amazed to learn that the condition was not caused by an improper pitching style. ‘Really, really good technique increases it the most,’ he said, adding that as players got bigger and stronger, the need for surgery would only increase.” What does this say about our society? We are driving people, even kids, to compete in sports that are rapidly breaking down their bodies and destroying their elbows. It is only through the discoveries of modern medicine that these people can move their elbows without severe pain. There is so much pressure on athletes to be successful that they are ruining their bodies. The question should not be “What can we do to cut down the recovery time of the procedure?” but “What can we do to stop the harm done on our bodies in sports?”

            I thought that the author did a good job writing a readable article, but I think that he touched on too many topics and didn’t go in depth enough on any of them. I would like to know more details about what the surgery involves, and what it is about the sports these athletes play that causes the injuries. It would have been a better article if the author had talked more about the controversy of the operation, because I believe that there is more to it than what he mentioned.

Tierney, Mike. "A Revolutionary Surgery, Now as Typical as a Sinker." The New York       Times. The New York Times, 07 Mar. 2014. Web. 09 Mar. 2014.     <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/sports/baseball/how-tommy-john-surgery-   has-evolved-since-frank-jobe.html?ref=science&_r=0>.

   I read Early Treatment is Found to Treat HIV in a 2^nd Baby, by Donald G. McNeil Jr. This article was about how the second baby was successfully treated for HIV by injecting antiviral medication for the first 48 hours of life. This was similar to the first “Mississippi Baby” who was said to go from positive to negative testing. The long Island baby, the second HIV cured child, is allowing for a larger clinical study of 60 babies. If successful, this could mean that all 250,000 babies born with HIV could be cured right away. However, it is an integral part of the trial that these babies are still HIV free by the age of two, and eventually through childhood, before scientists can even consider spreading this treatment throughout the world. A University of California, San Francisco scientist agrees that this second baby seems to have been cured, which can potentially lead to a changed future.

            This article is really important because it gives us a sense that we are nearing the day HIV becomes a curable disease. Although this article states that this is only the second baby to have been cured, we have a sense of hope that research will allow for first more babies to be born cured of HIV and eventually adults can be cured. Scientific research has come far since HIV/AIDS were discovered. Now there are preventable measures one can take, as long as medication to prevent the spread of HIV into the AIDS virus. This is a very important article for the fascinating world of science.

            I thought the author wrote this article very well. It was difficult at first to understand this cure, however, I think I did grasp a majority. For a person who is not in the field to understand that much, it is because of a well-spoken author. I thought the author could have improved his use of scientific terminology. Although he did explain some, there was clearly a lack of explanation elsewhere. I found that there were a few things I had to Google in order to me to fully understand what he was saying.

Mcneil, Donald G. "Early Treatment Is Found to Clear H.I.V. in a 2nd Baby." The New York Times. The New York Times, 05 Mar. 2014. Web. 06 Mar. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/health/second-success-raises-hope-for-a-way-to-rid-babies-of-hiv.html?ref=science&_r=0>.