Blogbiology: Mostly genetics and other interesting topics

Canadian Federal Elections and Obama

2011-05-03T09:25:00.000-07:00

Wow super amazed that NDP is now the oposition good for them I'm glad to see change for once ...and excited to see how is going to work with the conservatives .....In the other hand I am predicting re-election for Obama and a grumpy face for Donald Trump poor guy.

DNA fingerprinting to identify Osama

2011-05-03T09:19:00.000-07:00

Hello Biology lovers

I think Biology always finds a way to be relevant in current news and here is the proof of this:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/984153--dna-fingerprinting-helped-identify-osama-bin-laden?bn=1

Fragmentation

2011-04-07T23:03:00.000-07:00

check out my video :)

Improperly placed tubines and the endorsment by the government

2011-04-04T11:51:00.000-07:00

On the eleventh lecture of the political biology series, Professor Scott Petrie talked about his research and the issues that wind turbines bring to many aspects of ecology, especially waterfowl. Petrie gave us various lists to consider, one is the top twelve concerns with onshore and offshore improperly placed wind turbines (IWTs), the second list pertains to the top tree recommendations that the Danish believe it is wise to place wind turbines (WTs) and the last list is the guidelines that the Ontario government uses to place WTs (Table 1). In my opinion not a lot of people know about the negative effects of wind turbines, especially IWTs. This creates a problem because the government will make decisions without us knowing the consequences. That is when projects such as Prof. Petrie’s research is very important because, it informs the government, other scientist and the public that more thought should go into placing these WTs. The main point of the lecture is that a waterfowl, which is the focus of Petrie’s research, is being affected by these wind farms. One of the main problems is that these types of birds migrate in the fall and return in the spring, and their migrations paths are comprise due to these wind turbines. The other problem that Petrie mentions was that IWTs causes habitat loss and sound impacts to animals. This causes the waterfowl to displace to other areas or not being able to find resting areas.

One would say that the easiest way out for this problem is removing the IWTs but, this is not the case as removing these turbines costs up to a million dollars which the government is not willing to pay. When Prof. Petrie went to a Denmark conference, he learned that the guidelines that they have don’t even match the guidelines that Ontario uses. He found out that the areas of proposition for wind farms are the places that waterfowls use. A survey reveal that around 60% of the waterfowl hang out around the shoreline concluding that onshore wind turbines are more dangerous than offshore. There is not a lot of research in offshore turbines but, the Danish calculated that birds were able to avoid crashing with WTs that were offshore; this shows that offshore is better than onshore. Either way, if the turbines are offshore or onshore Petri blames the Ontario guidelines for all the problems they have caused.

Prof. Petri asks if this research will help prevent the construction of new IWT or at least make the government think where to place them. He sounds a bit skeptical as politicians want things or results as fast as possible and for researchers or ecologist their investigations take them a long time. In my opinion the government should be patient and wait for the research results, so they may know which areas are wildlife conservation areas and not place wind turbines blindly making our biodiversity to decrease. Even though Prof. Petrie seems skeptical about the government looking at his research, as Premier McGuinty seems to have an obsession with placing more and more WTs and using “a lack of science” to justify this practice. I’m positive that if we as scientist and students spread the word about this ongoing issue people will be willing to listen and perhaps vote for governments that are more concern with the well being of our ecosystem specially animals. Also instead of counting the number of animals killed due to wind turbines let’s calculate the number of animals already living in the area so that we can make better decisions of the placement of WTs.

Table 1. Three lists presented by Professor Scott Petrie

Let's sweep it under the rug

2011-04-03T14:03:00.000-07:00

On the tenth edition of the political biology series, Dr. Charlie Trick professor from the department of biology at UWO, talked about using our oceans for waste disposal. The overall point of the lecture is that we humans use the ocean as a place to put our garbage and chemicals without thinking what this could cause to the oceans’ health. For me this practice seems like an easy way out to get rid of all the garbage that we produce. We humans are lazy by nature and because we don’t know about other methods of cleaning or waste disposal, we use our oceans as a rug, shoving all the waste that we can find under it.

One of the main concepts that Trick talked about is how putting the waste on the ocean is decreasing the biodiversity, also CO₂ in oceans has increased and all these links back to what happens on land as lower biodiversity causes more problems in our overall health, also our water becomes more toxic to consume and the more we are exposed the more we get diseases as well.

Another concept mention was carbon sequestering which is the process of removing CO₂form the atmosphere and placing it to a reservoir. He showed us graphs of how CO₂was increasing exponentially in oceans. Trick told us that the way the CO₂in the oceans is dealt with is by adding phytoplankton into the ocean. Phytoplankton is very much involved with the process of photosynthesis and people think that by adding this diatom or algae it will fix all the oceans problems. But they don’t count that it cannot be any type phytoplankton in the ocean as there are many different types depending on the environment. Dr Trick showed us a study where the phytoplankton didn’t do anything on the ocean and left the ocean with an opaque colour. The addition of this phytoplankton causes the production of a molecule called domoic acid and this molecule causes amnesic shellfish poisoning in our local water causing us to have disease such as diarrhea.

Finally, there is no degree of success in this practice, no benefit is shown, increases the stress on the surface of the water and worst of all you get neurotoxins are produced. In my opinion waste is a big problem in our world and we cannot make it disappear just like that, we need other ways to deal with this problem perhaps burning it or finding a chemical to disintegrate. We need to think about the animals that live in the ocean and us because we consume water and fish and by us dumping this waste we are not going anywhere. And lastly we need to be smart and recycle because it makes it easier for the waste handlers and eventually our biodiversity as it is easier to handle. And everyone will be better as no more toxicity in our environment and our oceans will be decreased.

para ver en tu idioma, pour le voir en francais

2011-03-30T14:37:00.000-07:00

saludos a los que hablan espanol, si desas ver este blog en espanol ve al google de tu pais o google en espanol escribe la palabra blobiology karianaperarg, cuando salgan los resultados en azul dira traducir la pagina haz click y podras ver mi blog en espanol puedes escribir comentarios y seguir me gracias

Salut a tous et toutes

si vous voulez voir cette blog en francais vous pouvez aller au google cherchez pour ma blog et faire click dans traduire cet page

je espere que vous aide

Number 2

2011-03-20T00:43:00.000-07:00

My article: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/954547--ontario-not-backing-down-on-expanding-nuclear-plants

My response:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/956377--accidents-can-happen

Resilience thinking

2011-03-19T23:45:00.000-07:00

Professor Eric Dejardins talked about ways that ecology is being managed through different methods. His main topic was Resilience thinking, which is a new approach to ecological management. He first talked about different models: the equilibrium model, stochastic model and alternative stable model (ASS). The equilibrium model is the inevitable development of a community by physical and biotic factors. One of the main keys of this method is the climax theory where things develops grows matures and reproduces. The next model is the stochastic model, which the composition of the community is at random and that the way it grows and develops is not predictable. The last model he talked about was ASS which is like a combination of the previous two, communities are structure and regulated but have the capacity to develop into other stable states and they are affected by various unpredictable events. For Ass it is important that the assembly of this model has history and external influences. For me the ASS model is more realistic than equilibrium or stochastic models, because it resembles humans we are what we are for our history or past and we are shaping ourselves through our external experiences.

The main topic of the whole lecture was Resilience thinking, and his conclusion and question for us to keep in mind was that resilience thinking was a better approach to sustainability than the maximum sustainable yield system (MSY) which is the largest yield (or catch) that can be taken from a species. While, Resilience thinking is more of a complex theory. Resilience thinking has multiple stable equilibriums, thresholds, adaptive cycles and social ecological systems such as diversity. so the main definition for resilience is that it is quick to go back to its normal state just like a stress ball you squeeze it and it goes back to normal and the other part about resilience is the way the systems maintains its structure and integrity when it faces problems or perturbations. Lastly for me resilience thinking is something I never heard of, and base on Prof Desjardins question f if we should only think about resilience thinking, my answer to that would be no there are other ways nature and ecology works and people should keep researching. and for the last question about a social ecological system such as a forest being degraded I think it would never go back to it is natural state it could be heal but it would have scars or spots that resemble its degradation and would be weaker so more need to be research.

Cheaters in Science

2011-03-19T23:07:00.000-07:00

As citizens we tend to get our knowledge from journalist, politicians and scientist. It is frustrating that now a days it is hard to belief any of these sources as they always play with our trust and credibility. They often side with the region that would give them more money, status and fame. These people don’t measure the consequences that their actions may cause to us the readers and listeners.

Out of the three sources expose by Dr McNeill (professor from the department of biology at UWO) I would choose Scientist as most trusted source, because they have to do experiments and run statistics to compare theoretical information with experimental information. Plus allegedly their research is for the common good.

It’s frustrating to know that there are scientists out there that only care about publishing their work to gain glory or get grants. Some scientists seem not to care about the impact their research have on society. Just take the examples that Dr McNeil gave us on his lecture. The trends of these examples are that these scientists had great reputations, good education and great jobs. But just one mistake, such as plagiarism, made up or manipulated data caused them to lose their integrity, credibility and reputation, it is going to be hard for them to find a job again. This confirms a saying that Colombians have: “he who does well everything goes well and he who does bad everything goes bad”.

There are two examples that Dr. McNeil mentions which in my opinion caused lot havoc in people’s lives. One, in England where Sir Cyril Burt a scientist did a study that defined the education system in England. He did a study with 50 pairs of identical twins where he studied heritability of intelligence. His study was later question because his data was nowhere to be found. Burt’s study affected a lot of people, because based on his study England created an aptitude test called eleven plus, which decides which type of school the child should go. This for me is wrong because if a child’s dream is to be a doctor or go to university this test would be a dream crusher.

The second one is the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine controversy, where Andrew Wakefield did a study with some his colleagues, where he found a causative connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. His study claim that 75% of the sample size (of 12) showed autisms signs. This situation was disapproved by an investigative reporter, Brian Deer which found that there were financial interests behind Wakefield’s study. The consequences of this situation caused many parents to worry and prevent their children from getting the vaccine, also an almost legal action against the creators of MMR vaccine was to be filed. It also caused someone famous like Jenny McCartney to spread the news that this study was real and her influence made parents consider not to get the MMR vaccine. Wakefield caused the measles cases in the UK to increase. The immunity went from being 92% to 80%. In my opinion, just because Wakefield wanted glory and money, he put endanger many kids lives and almost made us go a step backwards in development plus, made us lose credibility on the journal and scientists involved in the study.

Something new I learned from this lecture is that we as scientist should exempt from making up data, it’s not worth it, because it affects our careers and lives. Another thing is watch out where information comes from. The key is to look at all perspectives.

To stock or not to stock fish?

2011-03-09T09:08:00.000-08:00

In the sixth instalment of Political Biology lecture series, Dr. Amanda Morbey from the department of Biology at UWO talked about a serious issue going in Lake Fisheries of Ontario. Fish farming has cause a lot of problems for some of the other species in lakes, stoking fish such as Chinook salmon causes problems because it drives other species away from their natural habitat. This is not only a problem for other fish species, but also for three kinds of people the aboriginal fishers, the recreational fishers and the commercial fishers. Morbey gave us lots of examples of fish species that have been harvest and a case study. Many trial an error attempts have been done to address this issue in my opinion, because in some of the graphs that Dr. Morbey showed us , they tells us that fishing in big quantities causes problems for the fish species such as the case in Sturgeon fishery 9 of the 25 populations where eliminated because of overharvesting . Another graph that was shown was the stocking of Chinook salmon and how hatcheries were noticing that their production was increasing so they decided to lower their production so this shows that they are controlling the situation.

Hatching or stocking Chinook is a costly practice but it benefits two kinds of people the recreational fishers and the commercial fishers because the big quantities that are produce causes the recreational fishers to have the security that they will always catch fish, plus Chinook fish are larger and live closer to the surface of the lake than white fish. Even though 85 percent of what commercial fisheries fish in Lake Huron is wild fish, the Chinook that they catch is good to consume because it has low levels of mercury and is rich in nutrients plus they don’t have the precautions of extinction because they know they can be farmed. As for Aboriginal fishers they are not too fond of Chinook fish as is not what they are use to. They like lake white fish and lake trout these two species are over thrown by the Chinook salmon and extinct respectively. It is hard for the aboriginal fishers to get accustomed to a new kind of fish, and more when is not part of their culture. There are two moderators in this problem which foresee the biological and economical aspect of this problem. These people are the fishery manager and the hatchery manager; they are in charge of the ecosystem balance and to reach an agreement between the three parties. Based on the facts that Dr Morbey showed and the brainstorming that my classmates and I did in class, I think Chinook salmon should keep being stock because it helps tourism in the area and it provides a safe form of fish for us to eat. A lot of people have died from mercury poisoning and this is because they consumed high mercury content fish, there are many benefits of eating fish and Chinook fish is providing us with that opportunity. What it should be done is just keep controlling the hatchery of Chinook salmon and perhaps find way to stock the white fish and lake trout that aboriginal fishers like. So that everyone is happy. Competition is a great deal in these fish so may be reducing the amount of Chinook stock and an incrementing white fish or some sort of conditioning between the two species so they don’t fight could be a solution. Also the fishery manager should over see that the ecosystem is balance.

A Remark

2011-03-09T06:37:00.000-08:00

Hello People
I have to say that my favorite website in the entire whole world is YouTube, just because you get to do your own thing. Show your talents, make funny videos or become a celebrity who knows.......out the billion videos that there must be in YouTube only the lucky witty and talented or weird and funny video gets successful but I realize today something else ... there are two kinds of people in you tube world that have tremendous power on the public as a whole.The first kind is the video creators which get followed and viewed a 100 and million times and second is the commentators any comment you make causes an instant reaction on someone else that determines or influences the outcome of the videos popularity and the urge to respond back. I know that remark is too obvious but when you get like fifty emails in your account with people saying something about a comment you made that is impressive to me .... this means to me that people are listening and that they are not fooling themselves just with what they see but they are open to other peoples opinions. I think we are living globalization and we are just taking it for granted.

Equality comes with a price

2011-03-01T22:21:00.000-08:00

The fifth lecture of the Political Biology lecture series at UWO featured Professor Gillian Baker from the department of philosophy. Her topic was evolution, gender and human possibilities.
Baker began with three interesting quotes. These were about human possibilities, what humans can aspire to do and cannot, in gender and the amount of change humans allow accepting in society in order to evolve. The main message of these quotes where that humans by nature are selfish, stubborn, and malleable to a certain point. And that if we want an equal society of generosity, altruism and gender we need to be able to pay a cost and give up some of our happiness.
Baker explained standard sexual selection of males and females. Things like women tend to marry rich men because for stability to their high-cost offspring while males are promiscuous as their offspring is inexpensive. She talked about how there are lots of books on how education, career and love should be organized based on gender.
Some philosophers encourage that equality is not for us, and that being female or male is a type of genetic determination. Beaker criticized metaphors that philosophers have about how the mind works. Metaphors such as “blank slate” and “hardwired brain” are not effective, In the case of blank slate philosophers wanted to show that our minds are blanked when we are born. The things we know are acquired by learning instead of having any innate qualities. Bakers says that the blank stale is wrongly translated, it supposed to be waxed stale and when you write on the stale what changes is the shape of the wax and not the stale.
She said that we need to think in ecological terms, which is the relationship between organism and the environment. If we don’t think like this we’re prone to erroneous metaphors, such as DNA regarded as blueprint and now it’s more thought of as a recipe. But even then is not enough because DNA phases variable conditions while recipes have set conditions.
She proposed a better metaphor of a scaffolding tree; where stability of the tree is based on turning points of the scaffold and not where the tree was planted. She defined niche construction, which means that we are creators of our own development and evolution. This could be regarded as a turning point or a scaffolding for development and learning in our life.
In my opinion, I agree with the three quotes that said that we need to pay a price to obtain equality. If the IQ curves of males and females are similar, I don’t see why we cannot achieve equality. I agree with the concept of niche construction I think we are responsible for the mythologies that we have about gender such as dressing girls in pink or boys don’t cry. Finally, this lecture made me think that the world is so busy caring about women’s rights and equality that we forgot how to equipped men to adapt to the women of today that is why equality has not been fully accepted, because men don’t want to give up some traditions from the past such as feeling inferior or stop being the main provider. I think that everyone no matter race, gender or appearance have the potential to do whatever they set their mind to do, no matter genetics or standards, I believe the mind is very powerful and just like in the movie Gattaca where Vincent the main character was not genetically fit he was able to achieved his dream based on his desire and the power of his mind.

The green revolution : A summarized version

2011-02-21T14:05:00.000-08:00

take a look at what green revolution is : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HucSCNQ01X4

Health or Food for all? That is the question.

2011-02-18T09:44:00.000-08:00

Dr Terry Sicular from the department of economics at the University of Western Ontario was the fourth speaker at the Biology 4243G lecture series. Dr. Sicular’s topic was Green Revolution (GR), which is the plan to change agriculture technology. In order to increase or multiply harvest all around the world with the aim to cure world hunger in low developed countries (LDCs). Dr. Sicular gave us a look at GR history, its creator, some of the outcomes of GR and the lessons learn from the development of GR.

Briefly, she talked about Norman Borlaug an agronomist and the father of The GR. She showed us all the efforts he made to fight world hunger, through the use of science. Borlaug was so effective that his efforts won him a Nobel Peace Prize which was the first one being science related. After going through the GR history, Dr Sicular went through the consequences that GR has brought to the world in the economical and scientific sense. Some of the things that she talk about was the consequence of irrigation dependency causing salination of solid and the farmers having to spend money on new technologies replacing some of its workers for machines. At the end, Dr Sicular said that we shouldn’t analyze GR as a matter of right or wrong but, instead how can we make this better for all.

Something Intriguing from this lecture for me, was that Green Revolution has been around for 71 years and this is the first time I heard of it. Something new or transcending that I learn about GR is high yield varieties in maize, wheat and rice. This is transcending for me, because these products were genetically modified to dwarf versions so that they could grow in more types of soils and absorb more nitrogen. Something that I find controversial is the health related issues that the new technologies and methods might bring to humans when they consume these types of foods, and the risks that farm workers are exposed. The amounts of pesticides are harmful and they have more chances of getting cancer. So the controversy is that in one hand the modification of farming methods to produce more food helps the hungry , but is it worth it if these methods affect our health?. Another controversy is the loss of jobs and debts that some farmers have to face. The new methods to multiple crops require some equipment, which costs money and replaces human workers. So most farmers have to ask for loans in order to buy this equipment and some are on debt. Plus, farm workers are being replaced by machines. So, if people don’t have jobs how are they going to afford to buy the food they need without a proper job.

No everything is negative about GR. In my opinion is a great idea, because it helps the production of crops in a world that is becoming more and more urbanized and the fact that we have methods to multiply the crops give us a peace of mind. Also the multiplication of these crops helps feed a lot of children in many parts of the world that are not getting lots of food. I agree with Dr. Sicular that instead of inventing something new, we should use what we have now and try to improve it. We have a lot of ground to improve on. For example the health and pesticide problems and developing new methods of multiplication like in the deserts. If something new is created it would add more problems to the ones we already have.

Are we joiners or thinkers?

2011-02-15T21:41:00.000-08:00

In the third installment of the Biology 4243g lecture series, Dr. Graham Smith from the department of geography at University of Western Ontario talked about ecomyths, specifically global warming. The key points in his lecture were:

•Smith beliefs Global Warming is a myth created by politicians for power and money.
•Smith claims that climate is very dynamic and complex therefore is poorly understood.
•He claims that governments use media such as emotive pictures to promote alarmism, in order for people to belief on an idea such as global warming and thereby justifying government spending.
•Says that CO2 is not to blame as it is a trace gas in the air.
•He also defined two key terms Climategate which is the misconduct by scientist to manipulate data in favour of global warming and Axiomatic Dogma which are statements that sound too evident to question or provide proof.
•Finally, Smith says that politics and science are not the same, and when they mix, they take advantage of the public’s criteria.

What I learned from Dr Smith was that we should not conform with one view, just because our government leaders promote an idea or say that something is not good for us, doesn’t mean we have to believe them. We should permit ourselves to hear both sides of the coin and draw our own opinion.
Something I found intriguing was that according to Dr Smith, politicians benefit from Global Warming, to an extent that they have to manipulate scientific data to sound convincing, making everyone reach one consensus and regulate their economy. Something I found controversial was that the sceptics, the ones that don’t believe in Global Warming are gaining as much as the pro-global warming crowd. Because companies pay sceptics to denying global warming, so companies don’t have to start making new changes. Believing this is a myth also causes people to be lay back about the way they are living today. Thus, over spending sources like hydro, oil and water.
I haven’t made up my mind yet, if Global Warming is a myth or not, but I don’t agree with Dr Smith that natural disasters and climate fluctuations happen naturally. I think everything happens for a reason. The fact that things are happening simultaneously in many places is not coincidence. For example the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, the massive snow storms in Europe and North America, and the unstoppable rains and floods in Colombia, Venezuela and Australia.
Even though CO2 is a natural component of our air and it is important for photosynthesis, I think that CO2 is partly to blame, because the lack of threes to clean the air has caused accumulation of CO2 and everything in excess is not healthy. One thing that I do agree on is that politics want power and meetings such as Copenhagen or Cancun are a waste of time and money. Governments never reach to an agreement, they only talk and no actions or improvement are seen. Also the media, which is a way for politicians to induce fear, always keeps saying that the world is coming to an end.
In collusion, just because something sounds right or intelligent doesn’t mean it is true, we cannot just support a cause because someone higher in academic knowledge than us says is right or not. We should investigate and agree on what we consider is moral. Just keep in my mind that if we choose not to belief in Global Warming, doesn’t mean we should stop caring and worrying for the environment and how future generations will handle it.

Earth: Climate wars

2011-02-12T20:09:00.000-08:00

This videos explain the controversial topic of global warning:

Next Lecture

2011-02-09T13:39:00.000-08:00

lecture # 3 in Biology 4243 series is about ecomyths, so if you want to get a heads start, go to this blog: http://ecomythsmith.blogspot.com/

I have reach a 100 views that is awesome :)

The lack of women in science: An unrealized reality

2011-02-06T01:52:00.000-08:00

The second lecture of the biology 4243G lecture series held at the University of Western Ontario was led by associate professor Dr. Amanda J. Moehring. The scheme of the lecture was a summary of statistics and facts of women in science and then a question period with four women panelists: two associate professors, one postdoctoral fellow and a PhD student. Dr. Moehring began by showing us pictures of 16 women scientist that have made important contributions to science and encourage us to visit a website about them. She emphasized that women in science are not as recognized as men scientist; therefore it would be hard for us to identify them. Moehring showed us a bar graph that supported the fact that the number of women working at the UWO biology and chemistry faculties is substantially lower than the number of female undergraduate science students.
Then some linear graphs were comparing the years 1999 and 2007, showing the career path of a professor from undergraduate to full professor as the independent variable and the number of women that have masters, PhDs, etc. as the dependent variable. The results from the graphs showed one full professor in 1999 and 6 in 2007. Moehring said that there is a significant increase over the years but it’s still a very low number. The conclusion of these line graphs was that many women in science for some reason don’t make it all the way to be full professors not only at UWO, but also around the world.
Moehring gave us some examples of how women in science were not given the same opportunities as men for example in the European Union, women are less likely to get fellowships, and had 50% less chance of success than men. Another example was at MIT, a university in the US, which is predominantly male. A study showed that women in science at MIT were paid less, had smaller lab spaces and less grants. The difference was so significant that MIT had to make 95% changes. The issue here is: why are not women perusing higher education, making us wonder, if this trend is a matter of discrimination, aptitude, ability, society expectations or culture.
I was very surprise to learn that there is a lack of women in science, in the 21st century, where supposedly we have surpassed inequalities between women and men. I think that women are not pursuing higher education because of standardized testing and lack of opportunities to those that don’t pass these tests. Not everyone learns the same way and undergraduate degrees are mostly based on these standardized testing such as multiple choice, which don’t show our hard work. In contrast, graduate degrees are more hands on learning such as experiments, posters and publications, which are hard work but with good results. I notice that none of the panelists experienced discrimination from men, but they did have difficulty when they were pregnant because the ten year system to be a full professor looks down on people that take time off. The panelist and I agreed that now days, it’s a matter of choice and believing that you are good enough. This leads me to conclude, that we are not realizing that issues from the past are still true today, because we have kept old systems instead of adapting them to our changing world. Incentives and opportunities to women students and reforms in the 10 year system have to be made in order to accommodate women’s needs. Furthermore, it is essential to constantly review the issue so things like in MIT don’t happen again.

Next phase of my blog

2011-02-05T14:43:00.000-08:00

Hello everyone !

I will be talking about a series of lectures in my class, for now look at this article and my response to it ...any comments are welcome.

Article:
http://m.lfpress.com/17064061.1?fullscreen#news
Response:
http://www.lfpress.com/comment/letters/home.html?p=42130&x=letters&l_publish_date=&s_publish_date=&s_keywords=&s_topic=&s_letter_type=Letter%20to%20Editor&s_topic=&s_letter_status=Active&s=letters

if you have an ipod touch or iphone join text plus and then join the community debates hope to see you there.

Found! Genes responsible for hair loss!

2010-10-27T16:50:00.000-07:00

by : Karen Peralta

In the article: “Professor has discovered the genetic basis for hair loss” by John H. Tucker, Tucker talks about Angela Christiano a professor from the University of Columbia in New York city working at the dermatology and genetics development department. In 1996 Christiano was diagnosed with a disease called Alopecia Areata (AA). AA is a condition where hair falls out in patches. This condition affects 2% of the population about 5.3 million people in the U.S and the second most popular form of hair loss after male-pattern baldness. Chistiano decided to study hair loss due to her experience and minimal information there was about the genes that cause hair loss. Earlier this year she conducted a research study, where her team discovered that immune genes in AA are similar to some common diseases like celiac disease, diabetes type 1 and rheumatoid arthritis. This finding has given hope that drugs used to cure these diseases could be used for AA; in particular rheumatoid arthritis’ drugs.

AA works differently than male-pattern baldness because it has an unknown onset; patients loose hair not only from the head but other parts like their legs, eyebrows or eyelashes. AA is an autoimmune response disorder; this means that the immune system of the body has turned against the body, attacking organs in good condition. In this case the organ that is being attacked is hair throughout the body. Christiano’s team of researchers found a gene called ULBP3 through a genome wide association study (GWAS); a method that studies many SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) to locate genes that causes a disease. The gene ULBP3 is turned off in normal hair follicles, but in AA ULBP3 is turned on. This is a bad sign because ULBP3 acts as a signaling light to immune killer cells. Immune killer cells carry a receptor called NKG2D which triggers an autoimmune response causing hair follicles to fall off. Even though Christiano’s team has started to find solutions, some of these are: blocking the NKG2D receptor using antibody drugs or using soluble receptors to block ULBP3 from being turned on. Besides AA, Christiano studies hypertrichosis (abnormal hair growth). According to Christiano, hair loss is one of many emotionally devastating diseases according to its quality of life index score. Recently she spoke at the AA foundation conference in Indianapolis; where she shared her experience and research. She also declared that these findings will open doors to find a solution for AA. More details can be found in her research paper published in Nature’s July 1^st /10 issue.

This is a great article; it gives information about a disease that is not widely known and in need of funding. Christiano’s team not just informed us about AA, but showed us what they are doing to target it; by presenting the location, mechanism and solutions which many articles sometimes lack. This is a breakthrough in science; because this novel gene (ULBP3) not only opens doors to combat hair loss, but also to develop drugs or creams that induce hair loss for beauty purposes or people with hypertrichosis (excess hair). The fact that AA not only occurs in the head but other parts of the body would make women be first in line willing to pay for these types of treatments. Maybe knowing about both AA and hypertrichosis can complement each other in treatment by analyzing these diseases and tinkering with them until a solution is found. This article was interesting as it made me aware of something new. Plus, I like how it combines genetics with immunology which are two subjects I am currently studying.

Figure 1. Alopecia Areata (AA) patient. Source: Hair Center 2010.

Figure 2. Many women struggle with hair removal products AA genes could help develop products to remove hair permanently. Source: The Fashionable house wife 2010.

Figure 3 Hypertrichosis or Werewolf syndrome is the abnormal excess of hair growth disease, Studying AA could help people that suffer Hypertrichosis by perhaps activating genes responsible fo AA and vice versa. Source: www.xenophilius.wordpress.com 2010.

The news article:

http://news.columbia.edu/record/2191

Primary Research Paper:

Petukhova L, Duvicm M, Hordinsky M, Norris D, Price V, Shimomura Y, Kim H, Singh P, Lee A, Chen WV, Meyer KC, Paus R, Jajoda CAB, Amos CI, Gregersen PK , Christiano AM. 2010. Genome-wide association study in alopecia areata implicates both innate and adaptive immunity. Nature 466:113-118.