header logo image


Page 1,079«..1020..1,0781,0791,0801,081..1,0901,100..»

Repairing the Nervous System with Stem Cells | stemcells …

February 5th, 2017 3:44 am

by David M. Panchision*

Diseases of the nervous system, including congenital disorders, cancers, and degenerative diseases, affect millions of people of all ages. Congenital disorders occur when the brain or spinal cord does not form correctly during development. Cancers of the nervous system result from the uncontrolled spread of aberrant cells. Degenerative diseases occur when the nervous system loses functioning of nerve cells. Most of the advances in stem cell research have been directed at treating degenerative diseases. While many treatments aim to limit the damage of these diseases, in some cases scientists believe that damage can be reversed by replacing lost cells with new ones derived from cells that can mature into nerve cells, called neural stem cells. Research that uses stem cells to treat nervous system disorders remains an area of great promise and challenge to demonstrate that cell-replacement therapy can restore lost function.

The nervous system is a complex organ made up of nerve cells (also called neurons) and glial cells, which surround and support neurons (see Figure 3.1). Neurons send signals that affect numerous functions including thought processes and movement. One type of glial cell, the oligodendrocyte, acts to speed up the signals of neurons that extend over long distances, such as in the spinal cord. The loss of any of these cell types may have catastrophic results on brain function.

Although reports dating back as early as the 1960s pointed towards the possibility that new nerve cells are formed in adult mammalian brains, this knowledge was not applied in the context of curing devastating brain diseases until the 1990s. While earlier medical research focused on limiting damage once it had occurred, in recent years researchers have been working hard to find out if the cells that can give rise to new neurons can be coaxed to restore brain function. New neurons in the adult brain arise from slowly-dividing cells that appear to be the remnants of stem cells that existed during fetal brain development. Since some of these adult cells still retain the ability to generate both neurons and glia, they are referred to as adult neural stem cells.

These findings are exciting because they suggest that the brain may contain a built-in mechanism to repair itself. Unfortunately, these new neurons are only generated in a few sites in the brain and turn into only a few specialized types of nerve cells. Although there are many different neuronal cell types in the brain, we now know that these new neurons can quot;plug inquot; correctly to assist brain function.1 The discovery of these cells has spurred further research into the characteristics of neural stem cells from the fetus and the adult, mostly using rodents and primates as model species. The hope is that these cells may be able to replenish those that are functionally lost in human degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's Disease, Huntington's Disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease), as well as from brain and spinal cord injuries that result from stroke or trauma.

Scientists are applying these new stem cell discoveries in two ways in their experiments. First, they are using current knowledge of normal brain development to modulate stem cells that are harvested and grown in culture. Researchers can then transplant these cultured cells into the brain of an animal model and allow the brain's own signals to differentiate the stem cells into neurons or glia. Alternatively, the stem cells can be induced to differentiate into neurons and glia while in the culture dish, before being transplanted into the brain. Much progress has been made the last several years with human embryonic stem (ES) cells that can differentiate into all cell types in the body. While ES cells can be maintained in culture for relatively long periods of time without differentiating, they usually must be coaxed through many more steps of differentiation to produce the desired cell types. Recent studies, however, suggest that ES cells may differentiate into neurons in a more straightforward manner than may other cell types.

Figure 3.1. The Neuron When sufficient neurotransmitters cross synapses and bind receptors on the neuronal cell body and dendrites, the neuron sends an electrical signal down its axon to synaptic terminals, which in turn release neurotransmitters into the synapse that affects the following neuron. The brain neurons that die in Parkinson's Disease release the transmitter dopamine. Oligodendrocytes supply the axon with an insulating myelin sheath.

2001 Terese Winslow

Second, scientists are identifying growth (trophic) factors that are normally produced and used by the developing and adult brain. They are using these factors to minimize damage to the brain and to activate the patient's own stem cells to repair damage that has occurred. Each of these strategies is being aggressively pursued to identify the most effective treatments for degenerative diseases. Most of these studies have been carried out initially with animal stem cells and recipients to determine their likelihood of success. Still, much more research is necessary to develop stem cell therapies that will be useful for treating brain and spinal cord disease in the same way that hematopoietic stem cell therapies are routinely used for immune system replacement (see Chapter 2).

The majority of stem cell studies of neurological disease have used rats and mice, since these models are convenient to use and are well-characterized biologically. If preliminary studies with rodent stem cells are successful, scientists will attempt to transplant human stem cells into rodents. Studies may then be carried out in primates (e.g., monkeys) to offer insight into how humans might respond to neurological treatment. Human studies are rarely undertaken until these other experiments have shown promising results. While human transplant studies have been carried out for decades in the case of Parkinson's disease, animal research continues to provide improved strategies to generate an abundant supply of transplantable cells.

The intensive research aiming at curing Parkinson's disease with stem cells is a good example for the various strategies, successful results, and remaining challenges of stem cell-based brain repair. Parkinson's disease is a progressive disorder of motor control that affects roughly 2% of persons 65 years and older. Triggered by the death of neurons in a brain region called the substantia nigra, Parkinson's disease begins with minor tremors that progress to limb and bodily rigidity and difficulty initiating movement. These neurons connect via long axons to another region called the striatum, composed of subregions called the caudate nucleus and the putamen. These neurons that reach from the substantia nigra to the striatum release the chemical transmitter dopamine onto their target neurons in the striatum. One of dopamine's major roles is to regulate the nerves that control body movement. As these cells die, less dopamine is produced, leading to the movement difficulties characteristic of Parkinson's disease. Currently, the causes of death of these neurons are not well understood.

For many years, doctors have treated Parkinson's disease patients with the drug levodopa (L-dopa), which the brain converts into dopamine. Although the drug works well initially, levodopa eventually loses its effectiveness, and side-effects increase. Ultimately, many doctors and patients find themselves fighting a losing battle. For this reason, a huge effort is underway to develop new treatments, including growth factors that help the remaining dopamine neurons survive and transplantation procedures to replace those that have died.

The strategy to use new cells to replace lost ones is not new. Surgeons first attempted to transplant dopamine-releasing cells from a patient's own adrenal glands in the 1980s.2,3 Although one of these studies reported a dramatic improvement in the patients' conditions, U.S. surgeons were only able to achieve modest and temporary improvement, insufficient to outweigh the risks of such a procedure. As a result, these human studies were not pursued further.

Another strategy was attempted in the 1970s, in which cells derived from fetal tissue from the mouse substantia nigra was transplanted into the adult rat eye and found to develop into mature dopamine neurons.4 In the 1980s, several groups showed that transplantation of this type of tissue could reverse Parkinson's-like symptoms in rats and monkeys when placed in the damaged areas.The success of the animal studies led to several human trials beginning in the mid-1980s.5,6 In some cases, patients showed a lessening of their symptoms. Also, researchers could measure an increase in dopamine neuron function in the striatum of these patients by using a brain-imaging method called positron emission tomography (PET) (see Figure 3.2).7

The NIH has funded two large and well-controlled clinical trials in the past 15 years in which researchers transplanted tissue from aborted fetuses into the striatum of patients with Parkinson's disease.7,8 These studies, performed in Colorado and New York, included controls where patients received quot;shamquot; surgery (no tissue was implanted), and neither the patients nor the scientists who evaluated their progress knew which patients received the implants. The patients' progress was followed for up to eight years. Unfortunately, both studies showed that the transplants offered little benefit to the patients as a group. While some patients showed improvement, others began to suffer from dyskinesias, jerky involuntary movements that are often side effects of long-term L-dopa treatment. This effect occurred in 15% of the patients in the Colorado study.7 and more than half of the patients in the New York study.8 Additionally, the New York study showed evidence that some patients' immune systems were attacking the grafts.

However, promising findings emerged from these studies as well. Younger and milder Parkinson's patients responded relatively well to the grafts, and PET scans of patients showed that some of the transplanted dopamine neurons survived and matured. Additionally, autopsies on three patients who died of unrelated causes, years after the surgeries, indicated the presence of dopamine neurons from the graft. These cells appeared to have matured in the same way as normal dopamine neurons, which suggested that they were acting normally in the brain.

Figure 3.2. Positron Emission Tomography (PET) images from a Parkinson's patient before and after fetal tissue transplantation. The image taken before surgery (left) shows uptake of a radioactive form of dopamine (red) only in the caudate nucleus, indicating that dopamine neurons have degenerated. Twelve months after surgery, an image from the same patient (right) reveals increased dopamine function, especially in the putamen. (Reprinted with permission from N Eng J Med 2001;344(10) p. 710.)

Researchers in Sweden followed the severity of dyskinesia in patients for eleven years after neural transplantation and found that the severity was typically mild or moderate. These results suggested that dyskinesias were due to effects that were distinct from the beneficial effects of the grafts.9 Dyskinesias may therefore be related to the ways that transplantation disturbs other cells in the brain and so may be minimized by future improvements in therapy. Another study that involved the grafting of cells both into the striatum (the target of dopamine neurons) and the substantia nigra (where dopamine neurons normally reside) of three patients showed no adverse effects and some modest improvement in patient movement.10 To determine the full extent of therapeutic benefits from such a procedure and confirm the reliability of these results, this study will need to be repeated with a larger patient population that includes the appropriate controls.

The limited success of these studies may reflect variations in the fetal tissue used for transplantation, which is of limited quantity and can not be standardized or well-characterized. The full complement of cells in these fetal tissue samples is not known at present. As a result, the tissue remains the greatest source of uncertainty in patient outcome following transplantation.

The major goal for Parkinson's investigators is to generate a source of cells that can be grown in large supply, maintained indefinitely in the laboratory, and differentiated efficiently into dopamine neurons that work when transplanted into the brain of a Parkinson's patient. Scientists have investigated the behavior of stem cells in culture and the mechanisms that govern dopamine neuron production during development in their attempts to identify optimal culture conditions that allow stem cells to turn into dopamine-producing neurons.

Preliminary studies have been carried out using immature stem cell-like precursors from the rodent ventral midbrain, the region that normally gives rise to these dopamine neurons. In one study these precursors were turned into functional dopamine neurons, which were then grafted into rats previously treated with 6-hydroxy-dopamine (6-OHDA) to kill the dopamine neurons in their substantia nigra and induce Parkinson's-like symptoms. Even though the percentage of surviving dopamine neurons was low following transplantation, it was sufficient to relieve the Parkinson's-like symptoms.11 Unfortunately, these fetal cells cannot be maintained in culture for very long before they lose the ability to differentiate into dopamine neurons.

Cells with features of neural stem cells have been derived from ES-cells, fetal brain tissue, brain tissue from neurosurgery, and brain tissue that was obtained after a person's death. There is controversy about whether other organ stem cell populations, such as hematopoietic stem cells, either contain or give rise to neural stem cells

Many researchers believe that the more primitive ES cells may be an excellent source of dopamine neurons because ES-cells can be grown indefinitely in a laboratory dish and can differentiate into any cell type, even after long periods in culture. Mouse ES cells injected directly into 6-OHDA-treated rat brains led to relief of Parkinson-like symptoms. Further investigation showed that these ES cells had differentiated into both dopamine and serotonin neurons.12 This latter type of neuron is generated in an adjacent region of the brain and may complicate the response to transplantation. Since ES cells can generate all cell types in the body, unwanted cell types such as muscle or bone could theoretically also be introduced into the brain. As a result, a great deal of effort is being currently put into finding the right quot;recipequot; for turning ES cells into dopamine neuronsand only this cell typeto treat Parkinson's disease. Researchers strive to learn more about normal brain development to help emulate the natural progression of ES cells toward dopamine neurons in the culture dish.

The recent availability of human ES cells has led to further studies to examine their potential for differentiation into dopamine neurons. Recently, dopamine neurons from human embryonic stem cells have been generated.13 One research group used a special type of companion cell, along with specific growth factors, to promote the differentiation of the ES cells through several stages into dopamine neurons. These neurons showed many of the characteristic properties of normal dopamine neurons.13 Furthermore, recent evidence of more direct neuronal differentiation methods from mouse ES cells fuels hope that scientists can refine and streamline the production of transplantable human dopamine neurons.

One method with great therapeutic potential is nuclear transfer. This method fuses the genetic material from one individual donor with a recipient egg cell that has had its nucleus removed. The early embryo that develops from this fusion is a genetic match for the donor. This process is sometimes called quot;therapeutic cloningquot; and is regarded by some to be ethically questionable. However, mouse ES cells have been differentiated successfully in this way into dopamine neurons that corrected Parkinsonian symptoms when transplanted into 6-OHDA-treated rats.14 Similar results have been obtained using parthenogenetic primate stem cells, which are cells that are genetic matches from a female donor with no contribution from a male donor.15 These approaches may offer the possibility of treating patients with genetically-matched cells, thereby eliminating the possibility of graft rejection.

Scientists are also studying the possibility that the brain may be able to repair itself with therapeutic support. This avenue of study is in its early stages but may involve administering drugs that stimulate the birth of new neurons from the brain's own stem cells. The concept is based on research showing that new nerve cells are born in the adult brains of humans. The phenomenon occurs in a brain region called the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus. While it is not yet clear how these new neurons contribute to normal brain function, their presence suggests that stem cells in the adult brain may have the potential to re-wire dysfunctional neuronal circuitry.

The adult brain's capacity for self-repair has been studied by investigating how the adult rat brain responds to transforming growth factor alpha (TGF), a protein important for early brain development that is expressed in limited quantities in adults.16 Injection of TGF into a healthy rat brain causes stem cells to divide for several days before ceasing division. In 6-OHDAtreated (Parkinsonian) rats, however, the cells proliferated and migrated to the damaged areas. Surprisingly, the TGF-treated rats showed few of the behavioral problems associated with untreated Parkinsonian rats.16 Additionally, in 2002 and 2003, two research groups isolated small numbers of dividing cells in the substantia nigra of adult rodents.17,18

These findings suggest that the brain can repair itself, as long as the repair process is triggered sufficiently. It is not clear, though, whether stem cells are responsible for this repair or if the TGF activates a different repair mechanism.

Many other diseases that affect the nervous system hold the potential for being treated with stem cells. Experimental therapies for chronic diseases of the nervous system, such as Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, or Huntington's disease, and for acute injuries, such as spinal cord and brain trauma or stoke, are being currently developed and tested. These diverse disorders must be investigated within the contexts of their unique disease processes and treated accordingly with highly adapted cell-based approaches.

Although severe spinal cord injury is an area of intense research, the therapeutic targets are not as clear-cut as in Parkinson's disease. Spinal cord trauma destroys numerous cell types, including the neurons that carry messages between the brain and the rest of the body. In many spinal injuries, the cord is not actually severed, and at least some of the signal-carrying neuronal axons remain intact. However, the surviving axons no longer carry messages because oligodendrocytes, which make the axons' insulating myelin sheath, are lost. Researchers have recently made progress to replenish these lost myelin-producing cells. In one study, scientists cultured human ES cells through several steps to make mixed cultures that contained oligodendrocytes. When they injected these cells into the spinal cords of chemically-demyelinated rats, the treated rats regained limited use of their hind limbs compared with un-grafted rats.19 Researchers are not certain, however, whether the limited increase in function observed in rats is actually due to the remyelination or to an unidentified trophic effect of the treatment.

Getting neurons to grow new axons through the injury site to reconnect with their targets is even more challenging. While myelin promotes normal neuronal function, it also inhibits the growth of new axons following spinal injury. In a recent study to attempt post-trauma axonal growth, Harper and colleagues treated ES cells with a combination of factors that are known to promote motor neuron differentiation.20 The researchers then transplanted these cells into adult rats that had received spinal cord injuries. While many of these cells survived and differentiated into neurons, they did not send out axons unless the researchers also added drugs that interfered with the inhibitory effects of myelin. The growth effect was modest, and the researchers have not yet seen evidence of functional neuron connections. However, their results raise the possibility that signals can be turned on and off in the correct order to allow neurons to reconnect and function properly. Spinal injury researchers emphasize that additional basic and preclinical research must be completed before attempting human trials using stem cell therapies to repair the trauma-damaged nervous system.

Since myelin loss is at the heart of many other degenerative diseases, oligodendrocytes made from ES cells may be useful to treat these conditions as well. For example, scientists recently cultured human ES cells with a combination of growth factors to generate a highly enriched population of myelinating oligodendrocyte precursors.21,22 The researchers then tested these cells in a genetically-mutated mouse that does not produce myelin properly. When the growth factor-cultured ES cells were transplanted into affected mice, the cells migrated and differentiated into mature oligodendrocytes that made myelin sheaths around neighboring axons. These researchers subsequently showed that these cells matured and improved movement when grafted in rats with spinal cord injury.23 Improved movement only occurred when grafting was completed soon after injury, suggesting that some post-injury responses may interfere with the grafted cells. However, these results are sufficiently encouraging to plan clinical trials to test whether replacement of myelinating glia can treat spinal cord injury.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, is characterized by a progressive destruction of motor neurons in the spinal cord. Patients with ALS develop increasing muscle weakness over time, which ultimately leads to paralysis and death. The cause of ALS is largely unknown, and there are no effective treatments. Researchers recently have used different sources of stem cells to test in rat models of ALS to test for possible nerve cell-restoring properties. In one study, researchers injected cell clusters made from embryonic germ (EG) cells into the spinal cord fluid of the partially-paralyzed rats.24 Three months after the injections, many of the treated rats were able to move their hind limbs and walk with difficulty, while the rats that did not receive cell injections remained paralyzed. Moreover, the transplanted cells had migrated throughout the spinal fluid and developed into cells that displayed molecular characteristics of mature motor neurons. However, too few cells matured in this way to account for the recovery, and there was no evidence that the transplanted cells formed functional connections with muscles. The researchers suggest that the transplanted cells may be promoting recovery in some other way, such as by producing trophic factors.

This possibility was addressed in a second study in which scientists grew human fetal CNS stem cells in culture and genetically modified them to produce a trophic factor that promotes the survival of cells that are lost in ALS. When grafted into the spinal cords of the ALS-like rats, these cells secreted the desired growth factor and promoted the survival of the neurons that are normally lost in the ALS-like rats.25 While promising, these results highlight the need for additional basic research into functional recovery in ALS disease models.

Stroke affects about 750,000 patients per year in the

U.S. and is the most common cause of disability in adults. A stroke occurs when blood flow to the brain is disrupted. As a consequence, cells in affected brain regions die from insufficient amounts of oxygen. The treatment of stroke with anti-clotting drugs has dramatically improved the odds of patient recovery. However, in many patients the damage cannot be prevented, and the patient may permanently lose the functions of affected areas of the brain. For these patients, researchers are now considering stem cells as a way to repair the damaged brain regions. This problem is made more challenging because the damage in stroke may be widespread and may affect many cell types and connections.

However, researchers from Sweden recently observed that strokes in rats cause the brain's own stem cells to divide and give rise to new neurons.26 However, these neurons, which survived only a couple of weeks, are few in number compared to the extent of damage caused. A group from the University of Tokyo added a growth factor, bFGF, into the brains of rats after stroke and showed that the hippocampus was able to generate large numbers of new neurons.27 The researchers found evidence that these new neurons were actually making connections with other neurons. These and other results suggest that future stroke treatments may be able to coax the brain's own stem cells to make replacement neurons.

Taking an alternative approach, another group attempted transplantation as a means to treat the loss of brain mass after a severe stroke. By adding stem cells onto a polymer scaffold that they implanted into the stroke-damaged brains of mice, the researchers demonstrated that the seeded stem cells differentiated into neurons and that the polymer scaffold reduced scarring.28 Two groups transplanted human fetal stem cells in independent studies into the brains of stroke-affected rodents; these stem cells not only survived but migrated to the damaged areas of the brain.29,30 These studies increase our knowledge of how stem cells are attracted to diseased areas of the brain.

There is also increasing evidence from numerous animal disease models that stem cells are actively drawn to brain damage. Once they reach these damaged areas, they have been shown to exert beneficial effects such as reducing brain inflammation or supporting nerve cells. It is hoped that, once these mechanisms are better understood, this stem cell recruitment can potentially be exploited to mobilize a patient's own stem cells.

Similar lines of research are being considered with other disorders such as Huntington's Disease and certain congenital defects. While much attention has been called to the treatment of Alzheimer's Disease, it is still not clear if stem cells hold the key to its treatment. But despite the fact that much basic work remains and many fundamental questions are yet to be answered, researchers are hopeful that repair for once-incurable nervous system disorders may be amenable to stem cell based therapies.

Considerable progress has been made the last few years in our understanding of stem cell biology and devising sources of cells for transplantation. New methods are also being developed for cell delivery and targeting to affected areas of the body. These advances have fueled optimism that new treatments will come for millions of persons who suffer from neurological disorders. But it is the current task of scientists to bring these methods from the laboratory bench to the clinic in a scientifically sound and ethically acceptable fashion.

Notes:

* Chief, Developmental Neurobiology Program, Molecular, Cellular & Genomic Neuroscience Research Branch, Division of Neuroscience and Basic Behavioral Science, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Email: panchisiond@mail.nih.gov

Chapter 2|Table of Contents|Chapter 4

Read this article:
Repairing the Nervous System with Stem Cells | stemcells ...

Read More...

Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Introduction

February 5th, 2017 3:43 am

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is starting to cement itself as a debilitating disease that affects people of all ages.1 In fact, its now the third most common type of arthritis, in terms of incidence, behind osteoarthritis and gout.2

According to the Arthritis Foundation, as many as 1.5 million people in the United States are affected by rheumatoid arthritis, with 41 out of 100,000 people being diagnosed with the disease annually.

Women are three times more likely to have rheumatoid arthritis, commonly occurring between the ages of 30 and 60. Men are also prone to experiencing the disease, but at a later age in their lives.3

Rheumatoid arthritis accounts for 22 percent of deaths from arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the U.S., as noted in a report entitled Science has ARTHRITIS on the Run , written by Dr. Walter G. Barr and published by the Arthritis Foundation.4

Globally, rheumatoid arthritis is said to affect 1 about percent of the population. While this seems like a small number, its not an amount that should be taken lightly, since in other countries, RA is already gaining ground.

In a report published in 2009, The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Agency stated that around 400,000 Australians were diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis.5 That number rose slightly to 445,000 following self-reported estimates in 2011 to 2012.6

Meanwhile, information by Arthritis Research U.K. published in 2014 showed that around 400,000 adults in the U.K. already have rheumatoid arthritis, with 20,000 new patients being diagnosed every year.7

In 2016, Glenn Frey, co-founder and front man of the band The Eagles passed away at age 67 due to complications from rheumatoid arthritis, acute ulcerative colitis, and pneumonia. But what ultimately played a part in his untimely demise was the rheumatoid arthritis medication he was using.

The thing about rheumatoid arthritis is that one can heal from it if the disease is treated immediately, but in Freys case, the medication that was supposed to help him heal didnt work, but instead set him up for devastating effects.

This is why if you use or know someone who uses rheumatoid arthritis medications, it pays to be vigilant as common treatment protocols used for RA patients nowadays can pose health risks and lead to serious consequences.

Not all of the drugs in the market used to treat different diseases are as efficient and effective as they claim to be.

The good news is that an autoimmune disease like rheumatoid arthritis, and the pain that arises from it, can be treated naturally. Read this guide and get all the information you need to know about rheumatoid arthritis.

What Is Rheumatoid Arthritis?

Next What Is Rheumatoid Arthritis?

See the original post:
Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Introduction

Read More...

Genetics/Reproduction – beefmagazine.com

January 30th, 2017 2:47 am

A cowherds ability to maintain a high weaning rate with minimal supplementation of harvested feeds is a key contributor to a ranchs...

BEEFs 3rd annual Seedstock 100 listing, which ranks seedstock producers by number of bulls sold, offers you a...

Can you breed cattle to follow the road less traveled and graze hillsides? Research says its possible.

Sign Up for the BEEF Daily newsletter today!

This exclusive gallery features photos and information on the 100+ operations that make up the annual Seedstock 100 listing.

Bull buying season is nigh, and since your bull battery contributes 75% of your genetics, taking a little time to prepare ahead of the sale is time well spent. Those tips and more await you in this weeks Trending Headlines.

With most genetics available to everyone, increasingly, the primary point of differentiation among seedstock suppliers is their understanding of customer needs. That takes a relaetionship.

As the art and science of genomics becomes more accurate, cow-calf producers benefit. While cow-calf producers wont directly participate in genomic evaluation now that single-step evaluation is a reality, theyll be able to buy bulls with more...

Welcome to the 3rd annual edition of BEEF magazine's Seedstock 100, a listing of the biggest seedstock producers in the beef...

There will be plenty of bulls available this year, and while average prices will be lower than last year, the better bulls will...

Mary Lou Bradley-Henderson of Bradley 3 Ltd. at Memphis, Texas, offers her advice for getting the best bulls for your cowherd...

Engage your kids over the holiday break with an essay contest that asks the question, What does it mean to be a beef breeder in the 21st century?

Its not just chickens that have the dilemma of which came first. Every cow-calf producer faces a similar dilemma...

A North Dakota study shows smaller cows can produce more ranch profit, even when feedlot closeouts are applied to their steer calves...

Read the rest here:
Genetics/Reproduction - beefmagazine.com

Read More...

Stem cell laws – Wikipedia

January 29th, 2017 12:44 pm

Stem cell laws are the law rules, and policy governance concerning the sources, research, and uses in treatment of stem cells in humans. These laws have been the source of much controversy and vary significantly by country.[1] In the European Union, stem cell research using the human embryo is permitted in Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Greece, Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands; however, it is illegal in Germany, Austria, Ireland, Italy, and Portugal. The issue has similarly divided the United States, with several states enforcing a complete ban and others giving financial support.[2] Elsewhere, Japan, India, Iran, Israel, South Korea, China, and Australia are supportive. However, New Zealand, most of Africa (except South Africa), and most of South America (except Brazil) are restrictive.

The information presented here covers the legal implications of embryonic stem cells (ES), rather than induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). The laws surrounding the two differ because while both have similar capacities in differentiation, their modes of derivation are not. While embryonic stem cells are taken from embryoblasts, induced pluripotent stem cells are undifferentiated from somatic adult cells.[3]

Stem cells are cells found in most, if not all, multi-cellular organisms. A common example of a stem cell is the Hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) which are multipotent stem cells that give rise to cells of the blood lineage. In contrast to multipotent stem cells, embryonic stem cells are pluripotent and are thought to be able to give rise to all cells of the body. Embryonic stem cells were isolated in mice in 1981, and in humans in 1998.[4]

Stem cell treatments are a type of cell therapy that introduce new cells into adult bodies for possible treatment of cancer, Somatic cell nuclear transfer, diabetes, and other medical conditions. Cloning also might be done with stem cells. Stem cells have been used to repair tissue damaged by disease.[5]

Because Embryonic Stem (ES) cells are cultured from the embryoblast 45 days after fertilization, harvesting them is most often done from donated embryos from in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics. In January 2007, researchers at Wake Forest University reported that "stem cells drawn from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much of the same promise as embryonic stem cells."[4]

In 2000, the NIH, under the administration of President Bill Clinton, issued guidelines that allow federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research.[4]

The European Union has yet to issue consistent regulations with respect to stem cell research in member states. Whereas Germany, Austria, Italy, Finland, Ireland, Portugal and the Netherlands prohibit or severely restrict the use of embryonic stem cells, Greece, Sweden and the United Kingdom have created the legal basis to support this research.[6]Belgium bans reproductive cloning but allows therapeutic cloning of embryos.[1]France prohibits reproductive cloning and embryo creation for research purposes, but enacted laws (with a sunset provision expiring in 2009) to allow scientists to conduct stem cell research on imported a large amount of embryos from in vitro fertilization treatments.[1]Germany has restrictive policies for stem cell research, but a 2008 law authorizes "the use of imported stem cell lines produced before May 1, 2007."[1]Italy has a 2004 law that forbids all sperm or egg donations and the freezing of embryos, but allows, in effect, using existing stem cell lines that have been imported.[1]Sweden forbids reproductive cloning, but allows therapeutic cloning and authorized a stem cell bank.[1][6]

In 2001, the British Parliament amended the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (since amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008) to permit the destruction of embryos for hESC harvests but only if the research satisfies one of the following requirements:

The United Kingdom is one of the leaders in stem cell research, in the opinion of Lord Sainsbury, Science and Innovation Minister for the UK.[7] A new 10 million stem cell research centre has been announced at the University of Cambridge.[8]

The primary legislation in South Africa that deals with embryo research is the Human Tissue Act, which is set to be replaced by Chapter 8 of the National Health Act. The NHA Chapter 8 has been enacted by parliament, but not yet signed into force by the president. The process of finalising these regulations is still underway. The NHA Chapter 8 allows the Minister of Health to give permission for research on embryos not older than 14 days. The legislation on embryo research is complemented by the South African Medical Research Council's Ethics Guidelines. These Guidelines advise against the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of research. In the case of Christian Lawyers Association of South Africa & others v Minister of Health & others[9] the court ruled that the Bill of Rights is not applicable to the unborn. It has therefore been argued based on constitutional grounds (the right to human dignity, and the right to freedom of scientific research) that the above limitations on embryo research are overly inhibitive of the autonomy of scientists, and hence unconstitutional.[10]

China prohibits human reproductive cloning but allows the creation of human embryos for research and therapeutic purposes.[1]India banned in 2004 reproductive cloning, permitted therapeutic cloning.[1] In 2004, Japans Council for Science and Technology Policy voted to allow scientists to conduct stem cell research for therapeutic purposes, though formal guidelines have yet to be released.[1] The South Korean government promotes therapeutic cloning, but forbids cloning.[1] The Philippines prohibits human embryonic and aborted human fetal stem cells and their derivatives for human treatment and research. In 1999, Israel passed legislation banning reproductive, but not therapeutic, cloning.[1][6]Saudi Arabia religious officials issued a decree that sanctions the use of embryos for therapeutic and research purposes.[1] According to the Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, Iran has some of the most liberal laws on stem cell research and cloning.[11][12]

Brazil has passed legislation to permit stem cell research using excess in vitro fertilized embryos that have been frozen for at least three years.[1]

Federal law places restrictions on funding and use of hES cells through amendments to the budget bill.[13] In 2001, George W. Bush implemented a policy limiting the number of stem cell lines that could be used for research.[4] There were some state laws concerning stem cells that were passed in the mid-2000s. New Jersey's 2004 S1909/A2840 specifically permitted human cloning for the purpose of developing and harvesting human stem cells, and Missouri's 2006 Amendment Two legalized certain forms of embryonic stem cell research in the state. On the other hand, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota and South Dakota passed laws to prohibit the creation or destruction of human embryos for medical research.[13]

During Bush's second term, in July 2006, he used his first Presidential veto on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act was the name of two similar bills, and both were vetoed by President George W. Bush and were not enacted into law. New Jersey congressman Chris Smith wrote a Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, which made some narrow exceptions, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush.

In November 2004, California voters approved Proposition 71, creating a US$3 billion state taxpayer-funded institute for stem cell research, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. It hopes to provide $300 million a year.

President Barack Obama removed the restriction of federal funding passed by Bush in 2001, which only allowed funding on the 21 cell lines already created. However, the Dickey Amendment to the budget, The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, still bans federal funding of creating new cell lines. In other words, the federal government will now fund research which uses the hundreds of more lines created by public and private funds.[14]

In March 2002, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research announced the first ever guidelines for human pluripotent stem cell research in Canada. The federal granting agencies, CIHR, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada teamed up and agreed that no research with human IPSCs would be funded without review and approval from the Stem Cell Oversight Committee (SCOC).[15]

In March 2004, Canadian parliament enacted the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (AHRA), modeled on the United Kingdoms Human Fertilization and Embryology Act of 1990. Highlights of the act include prohibitions against the creation of embryos for research purposes and the criminalization of commercial transactions in human reproductive tissues.[16]

In 2005, Canada enacted a law permitting research on discarded embryos from in vitro fertilization procedures. However, it prohibits the creation of human embryos for research.[1]

On June 30, 2010, The Updated Guidelines for Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research outline that:

Canada's National Embryonic Stem Cell Registry:

Australia is partially supportive (exempting reproductive cloning yet allowing research on embryonic stem cells that are derived from the process of IVF). New Zealand, however, restricts stem cell research.[17]

Read more here:
Stem cell laws - Wikipedia

Read More...

Charity Watchlist – Get Involved | American Life League

January 28th, 2017 4:43 pm

The list of charitable research organizations and their corresponding positions on the life issues posted to our website is neither all pro-life nor all anti-life; it is mixed. Unfortunately, most of the organizations on our list are marked with the red minus sign. It is simply just a sad fact that most national medical research/advocacy groups support some form of unethical research. There is no listing, to our knowledge, of only pro-life research organizations.

A green positive/plus sign indicates that ALL considers the organization worthy of support from pro-lifers. ALL considers an organization to be pro-life if it is opposed to abortion, human embryonic stem cell and/or aborted fetal body parts research, all forms of cloning and other attacks against the human person at any stage of development as well as Planned Parenthood Federation and other pro-abortion organizations.

A red negative/minus signs indicates that ALL does not consider the organization worthy of support from pro-lifers. If the organization supports, in any way (theory, advocacy, lobbying, granting and/or research) any offenses to life, it is not considered pro-life. Further, if any organization refuses to answer our inquiries, refuses to be clear about its position and/or attempts to couch its answer in terms of referring to another agency (i.e., federal government branches), it is not considered pro-life.

A plain yellow circle indicates that ALL urges caution when considering support for the organization due to a change in a prior rating. That is, an organization may have previously received a green positive or a red negative because of certain policy positions which are now questionable or cannot be verified.

The rating is based on the organizations response to written correspondence (regular postal or e-mail), a review of the organizations website, verifiable news reports, verifiable correspondence forwarded to us by others and/or a combination of any of these.

Research into other organizations not listed is an on-going process, but may be limited by staff and resources at ALL. If you have information (and documentation) about organizations that you would like to see listed, we would be most happy to receive it. Currently, we are not in a position to print the list (it amounts to more than 100 pages, not including documentation in hyperlinks) however, feel free to pass the link to the website to everyone you know!

Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation 333 E. Lancaster Ave Suite 414 Wynnewood, PA 19096 Phone: 866-333-1213 Fax: 610-649-3038 http://www.alexslemonade.org Liz Scott, Alex's mother and co-executive director of Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation, stated in an e-mail to ALL in May, 2012, that: "Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation has not funded anything even remotely related to embryonic stem cell research."

However, when it was pointed out to Mrs. Scott that, according to the Foundation's website, there were grant funds being directed toward researchers and research facilities that support, promote and conduct such research, she responded:

"Although we have not issued a public policy position, I can tell you that ALSF has always followed all federal guidelines for research that involves human-derived cells and tissues. We are very sensitive to the variety of opinions on issues related to stem cells, and are committed to funding research programs that meet all of the stringent ethical standards at the institutional, foundation and government levels, that are designed to find cures for childhood cancer. I can tell you that when we award funds to our grant recipients 100% of the funds are used for their project onlythe institution is not allowed to take any indirect costs or general operating costs from the award funds or to use funds for other projects."

ALL cautions that federal guidelines allow for both human embryonic stem cell research and the use of aborted fetal materials in research.

When contacted by email in July 2014 with an update request, someone by the name of Lisa responded:

We do not have a policy. We have never received an application that includes embryonic stem cells so this isnt an issue for us.

When asked what the organization would do if it did receive a grant application that involved the use of human embryonic stem cells or aborted fetal material, there was no further reply.

Alliance for Aging Research 1700 K Street, NW Suite 740 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202-293-2856 Fax: 202-955-8394 http://www.agingresearch.org The Alliance for Aging Research is a 501(c)(3) group that advocates for medical research and scientific discoveries to improve the health and independence of Americans as they age. As such, the Alliance supports public policies that advance research involving both adult and embryonic stem cells and regenerative medicine in general.

While the Alliance for Aging Research opposes efforts to copy human life through cloning technologies, it is a leader among patient groups and science advocates supporting public funding for broad activities in stem cell research as well as therapeutic cloning of compatible stem cell lines for research and potential therapies. On its own and through membership in the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, the Alliance will support the enactment of legislation to encourage increased federal funding for advances in stem cell research. https://web.archive.org/web/20130907070614/http://www.agingresearch.org/content/topic/detail/?id=1018&template=position

UPDATE: July 2, 2014

In an email to ALL from Noel Lloyd, Communications Manager at AAR:

The Alliance supports public policies that advance medical research with the potential to prevent, postpone or otherwise lessen diseases and disabilities that increase with aging. This includes policy support though not direct funding of a broad scope of regenerative medicine, including research on induced pluripotent and human embryonic stem cells.

Alliance for Regenerative Medicine 525 2nd Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Phone: 202-568-6240 http://www.alliancerm.org "The Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM)s mission is to advance regenerative medicine by representing, supporting and engaging all stakeholders in the field, including companies, academic research institutions, patient advocacy groups, foundations, health insurers, financial institutions and other organizations."

According to the website, regenerative medicine includes cell-based therapies, gene therapy, biologics, tissue engineering, bio-banking, and stem cells for drug discovery, toxicity testing and disease modeling. It is this last branch of regenerative medicine which causes the most concern: "Companies are increasingly learning to leverage the use of stem cells and/or living tissue constructs to create in vitro models to study human mechanisms of disease and the effects of drugs on a variety of cell and tissue types such as human heart, liver and brain cells. These models, built predominantly using embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells, allow for faster and safer drug development." (http://alliancerm.org/industry-snapshot)

Many of ARM's membersare companies, foundations, and associations with public positions of support for human embryonic stem cell research.

ALS Association (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Association) 1275 K Street, NW Suite 250 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-407-8580 http://www.alsa.org In an email to ALL from Carrie Munk at the ALS Association July 2, 2014:

The ALS Association primarily funds adult stem cell research. Currently, The Association is funding one study using embryonic stem cells (ESC), and the stem cell line was established many years ago under ethical guidelines set by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS); this research is funded by one specific donor, who is committed to this area of research. In fact, donors may stipulate that their funds not be invested in this study or any stem cell project. Under very strict guidelines, The Association may fund embryonic stem cell research in the future.

The ALS Association also financially supports NEALS (the Northeast ALS Consortium) which performs human embryonic stem cell research:

The ALS Association Awards $500,000 to the NEALS Consortium for Its TREAT ALS Clinical Trials Network For the sixth consecutive year, The ALS Association is pleased to announce its support of the Northeast ALS Consortium (NEALS), the largest consortium of ALS clinical researchers in the world. This years award totals $500,000 and will fund new initiatives and ongoing programs that will increase the quality and efficiency of clinical trials for ALS. (www.alsa.org/news/archive/neals-consortium-award.html)

The Northeast ALS Consortium (NEALS) is an international, independent, non-profit group of researchers who collaboratively conduct clinical research in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and other motor neuron diseases.

Study utilizing the spinal cord neural stem cells from electively aborted fetus.

Alzheimer's Association 225 N. Michigan Avenue Floor 17 Chicago, IL 60601-7633 Phone: 312-335-8700 Fax: 866-699-1246 http://www.alz.org The Alzheimers Association policy supports and encourages any legitimate scientific avenue that offers the potential to advance this goal, including human embryonic stem cell research; and, we oppose any restriction or limitation on research, provided that appropriate scientific review, and ethical and oversight guidelines and compliance are in place." http://www.alz.org/national/documents/statements_stemcell.pdf

American Cancer Society 250 Williams St., NW Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: 800-227-2345 http://www.cancer.org The American Cancer Society is not considered a pro-life organization for the following reasons:

Support for human embryonic stem cell research

The American Cancer Society (ACS) has, for many years, insisted that the federal government remains the institution best suited to both fund and oversee research using human embryonic stem cells while claiming to fund only explorations into uses of human adult stem cells and stem cells from umbilical cord blood.

However, in August 2001, when then-President Bush signed an executive order restricting federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research to stem cell lines that were already in existence at the time, the ACS issued a statement commending the administration for allowing stem cell research to proceed, and expressed hope for its future.

The Society believes that such research holds extraordinary potential in the fight against a variety of life-threatening diseases currently afflicting an estimated 140 million Americans, the statement said. It continued, The American Cancer Society commends the Administration for allowing this vital scientific research to proceedeven in a limited way.

The American Cancer Society remains hopeful that both the government and commercial sectors will continue to work collaboratively and with an open mind to explore additional solutions that will allow for the continuation of human embryonic stem cell research as necessary and appropriate, the ACS statement concluded.

These statements can no longer be found on the ACS website, but can be viewed here: http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20030626004233/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_President_Supports_Limited_Stem_Cell_Research.asp

Keep in mind that during the eight years that followed Bushs order, Congress passed legislation to expand human embryonic stem cell research and each time it was vetoed. When President Barack Obama took office in 2009, one of his first acts as president was to issue an executive order expanding the research policy. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) began funding grants in the field of human embryonic stem cell research.

No ACS grants which provide for the direct funding of human embryonic stem cell research have been identified; however, grant funding to facilities and labs where such research abounds is indeed prominent.

The American Cancer Society has, in the past, also awarded financial grants to Planned Parenthood, the nations leading provider of abortion. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/american-cancer-society-gives-planned-parenthood-grant-money-for-just-sayin

Despite the outcry over the connection to Planned Parenthood, the ACS maintains the association. Visitors to the ACS website can type Planned Parenthood into the search field and find a number of results:

Referral to Planned Parenthood as source of information and support for testicular cancer: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/testicularcancer/moreinformation/doihavetesticularcancer/do-i-have-testicular-cancer-add-res and http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/cid/documents/webcontent/003172-pdf.pdf

Referral to Planned Parenthood as source of information and support for cervical cancer: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cervicalcancer/overviewguide/cervical-cancer-overview-additional

The ACS refers to Planned Parenthood as a Voluntary Health Organization which should be invited into schools: http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/keycommunityrepresentativespdf.pdf

Planned Parenthood affiliate locations are used as sites for ACS awareness activities: http://www.cancer.org/myacs/eastern/areahighlights/cancernynj-news-blue-albany

The ACS notes that use of IUDs correlate with decreased risk of cervical cancer and that multiple pregnancies correlate to increased risk. The ACS recommends the HPV vaccine (Gardasil or Ceravax). The ACS also lists Planned Parenthood Federation of America as a source of information and support concerning HPV. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/cid/documents/webcontent/003042-pdf.pdf

J. Diane Redd, ACS Director for Major and Planned Gifts for New Jersey is a former fundraiser for Planned Parenthood: https://www.cancer.org/involved/donate/otherwaystogive/plannedgiving/diane_redd

Mady J. Schuman, a member of ACS' executive leadership used to work for Planned Parenthood: https://www.cancer.org/involved/donate/otherwaystogive/plannedgiving/mady_schuman

Kris Kim, ACS' CEO for the Eastern Division was the associate vice president for communications at Planned Parenthood New York City: http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@eastern/documents/document/acspc-028409.pdf

Similarly, the American Cancer Society has links to another pro-hESCR/pro-abortion organizationLance Armstrongs LIVESTRONG. The ACS is listed as an ambassador to the LIVESTRONG Global Cancer Campaign in honor of Lance Armstrongs return to professional cycling (http://www.livestrong.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Strength/LIVESTRONG-Societies/Ambassadors). Ambassadors committed to donating $250,000 or more in 2009.

Lance Armstrong supports human embryonic stem cell research http://livestrongblog.org/2009/03/09/president-obama-lifts-stem-cell-funding-ban/ and the LIVESTRONG Foundation lists abortion providers on its website. http://www.livestrong.com/search/?mode=standard&search=planned+parenthood

Aside from the American Cancer Societys support for human embryonic stem cell research and questionable grant funding, it refuses to acknowledge the abortion/breast cancer link and declines to even support the idea that doctors should mention it to their patients. Source: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/newsletter102202.htm

Lastly, in its document on fertility in women with cancer, the ACS suggests egg freezing, embryo freezing, in vitro fertilization, egg donation, and surrogacy. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/cid/documents/webcontent/acspc-041244-pdf.pdf

And, in its document on fertility in men with cancer, the ACS suggests sperm banking, sperm donation and in vitro fertilization. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/cid/documents/webcontent/acspc-041228-pdf.pdf

American Council on Science and Health 1995 Broadway Suite 202 New York, NY 10023-5860 Phone: 866-905-2694 Fax: 212-362-4919 http://www.acsh.org The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is a consumer education consortium concerned with issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the environment, and health. ACSH was founded in 1978 by a group of scientists who had become concerned that many important public policies related to health and the environment did not have a sound scientific basis. These scientists created the organization to add reason and balance to debates about public health issues and to bring common sense views to the public. http://www.acsh.org/about/

Im pleased with the courts [U.S. appeals court rules in favor of stem cell research, August 2012] decision, says ACSHs Dr. Gilbert Ross, since stem cells have such vast potential to solve currently insoluble medical problems, including illnesses such as ALS and perhaps, eventually, Alzheimers disease. Certainly, to continue scientific advances in this field, research on stem cells must not be discouraged. http://acsh.org/2012/08/u-s-appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-stem-cell-research/

ACSH has been a fervent advocate for supporting research progress in ESCs (embryonic stem cells) for years, despite the controversy involving the objections of some to using human embryonic tissues in research. http://acsh.org/2013/07/small-step-in-stem-cell-research-a-giant-leap-for-mankind/

American Diabetes Association National Office 1701 N. Beauregard St. Alexandria, VA 22311 Phone: 800-342-2383 http://www.diabetes.org We strongly support the protection and expansion of all forms of stem cell research, which offer great hope for a cure and better treatments for diabetes. We support legislation and proposals that enhance funding for stem cell research at the federal and state levels. http://www.diabetes.org/advocacy/advocacy-priorities/funding/stem-cell-research.html#sthash.PUBLIjKV.FhjarP2n.dpuf

The American Diabetes Association applauds President Obama for issuing an Executive Order that will advance stem cell research by lifting existing restrictions on the use of embryonic stem cells, while maintaining strict ethical guidelines.

The American Diabetes Association has long been a strong advocate for ending the current restrictions on stem cell research. http://www.diabetes.org/newsroom/press-releases/2009/statement-from-the-american-2009.html

American Heart Association National Service Center 7272 Greenville Ave Dallas, TX 75231 Phone: 800-242-8721 http://www.heart.org The American Heart Association website states the following regarding stem cell research:

Stem Cell Research The American Heart Association funds meritorious research involving human adult stem cells because it helps us fight heart disease and stroke. We dont fund research involving stem cells derived from human embryos or fetal tissue.

However, it continues:

Inducing adult stem cells into a pluripotent state may lead to patient-specific cell therapies that could reduce many of the underlying complications in therapies with embryonic stem cells.

Its important for research to continue in both cell types. To know how induced adult stem cells need to perform, we must know more about the innate function of embryonic stem cells. http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Research-Topics_UCM_438796_Article.jsp

American Lung Association 55 Wacker Dr., Suite 1150 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-801-7630 http://www.lung.org The American Lung Association recognizes that research with human stem cells offer significant potential to further our understanding of fundamental lung biology and to develop cell-based therapies to treat lung disease. The American Lung Association supports the responsible pursuit of research involving the use of human stem cells. http://www.lung.org/get-involved/advocate/advocacy-documents/research.pdf

American Medical Association AMA Plaza 330 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 39300 Chicago, IL 60611-5885 Phone: 80-262-3211 http://www.ama-assn.org "The principles of medical ethics of the AMA do not prohibit a physician from performing an abortion in accordance with good medical practice and under circumstances that do not violate the law." http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion201.page?

The AMA supports the legal availability of mifepristone (RU-486) for appropriate research and, if indicated, clinical practice. (Res. 100, A-90; Amended: Res. 507, A-99) http://www.ama-assn.org/ad-com/polfind/Hlth-Ethics.pdf

The AMA reaffirms its position in support of the use of fetal tissue obtained from induced abortion for scientific research. (Res. 540, A-92; Reaffirmed: CSA Rep. 8, A-03) http://www.ama-assn.org/ad-com/polfind/Hlth-Ethics.pdf

Our AMA (1) supports continued research employing fetal tissue obtained from induced abortion, including investigation of therapeutic transplantation; and (2) demands that adequate safeguards be taken to isolate decisions regarding abortion from subsequent use of fetal tissue, including the anonymity of the donor, free and non-coerced donation of tissue, and the absence of financial inducement. (Res. 170, I-89; Reaffirmed by Res. 91, A-90; Modified: Sunset Report, I-00) http://www.ama-assn.org/ad-com/polfind/Hlth-Ethics.pdf

American Parkinson's Disease Association National Office 135 Parkinson Avenue Staten Island, NY 10305 Phone: 800-223-2732 Fax: 718-981-4399 http://www.apdaparkinson.org "We were very pleased on September 28, 2010 that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of the preliminary injunction pending its review of the appeal of the judicial challenge to federal funding for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research. Without getting mired down in all the various terms and courts, what this means is that federal funding for hESC research will continue at least for the time period that it takes for the Court of Appeals to review Judge Lamberth's August 23rd decision to enjoin funding. You should also know that yesterday the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR), of which PAN is a founding member, filed an amicus brief in the District Court. This brief supports and compliments the Department of Justice (DoJ) brief that was filed on behalf of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on Monday."

[Department of Veteran Affairs and APDA Winter 2011 Parkinson Press Newsletter] http://bit.ly/1nsENqi

American Red Cross 2025 E. Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202-303-4498 http://www.redcross.org A report issued from the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in December of 2011 caused concerns that the organization may start advocating for abortion rights.

In a section of the report on human rights, IFRC quotes a widely criticized document issued by Anand Grover, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, which said,

"States must take measures to ensure that legal and safe abortion services are available, accessible, and of good quality." The IFRC report goes on to editorialize, "But the real challenge is to find out how many states will indeed change their policies accordingly.

This may lead some to believe IFRC could eventually declare abortion a human right as Amnesty International did in 2007. Amid much controversy, Amnesty International simply announced that endorsing abortion as a right was a "natural" outgrowth of its 2-year campaign countering violence against women. http://www.c-fam.org/fridayfax/volume-14/analysis-is-the-red-cross-about-to-declare-abortion-a-human-right.html.

There have been no further developments in this area.

The American Red Cross has no formal public policy statements that we could find on life issues. It should be noted, however, that the American Red Cross has been under intense scrutiny and has been sued repeatedly by federal regulators to force improvements in blood safety. http://www.forbes.com/sites/gerganakoleva/2012/01/17/american-red-cross-fined-9-6-million-for-unsafe-blood-collection/

The American Red Cross also has a Diversity Program which officially recognizes and encourages participation in Gay and Lesbian Pride Month. American Red Cross Fires Employee for Refusal to Celebrate 'Gay and Lesbian Pride Month,' LifeSiteNews, August 5, 2005

American Spinal Injury Association 2020 Peachtree Road, NW Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-355-9772 Fax: 404-355-1826 ASIA_Office@shepherd.org http://asia-spinalinjury.org/ ASIA is a multidisciplinary organization whose membership is composed of physicians and allied health professionals specifically involved in spinal cord injury management. Current membership numbers 452 of which 85% are physicians. The remaining 15% are nurses, therapists, psychologists and other allied health professionals.

ASIA positions on the life topics are not clear; ALL is awaiting a response to our inquiry.

American Thoracic Society 25 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-315-6498 http://www.thoracic.org The American Thoracic Society (ATS) is an organization dedicated to serving patients with lung disease through research, advocacy, training, and patient care. As such, it supports making federal funding available for research using human embryonic stem cells with appropriate guidelines and federal and institutional oversight.

. . . [adult stem cell research] approaches should neither distract from nor preempt research for which the goal is to assess the use of pluripotent embryonic stem cells for the treatment of lung diseases. http://www.thoracic.org/statements/resources/research/stemcell.pdf

Amnesty International US 5 Penn Plaza New York, NY 10001 Phone: 212-807-8400 http://www.amnestyusa.org Amnesty International defends access to abortion for women at risk In April 2007, Amnesty International changed its neutral stance on abortion to supporting access to abortion in cases of rape and incest, and when the life or the health of the mother might be threatened. Amnesty's official policy is that they "do not promote abortion as a universal right" but "support the decriminalisation of abortion". http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/POL30/012/2007/en/c917eede-d386-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/pol300122007en.pdf

Amnesty International Continues Pushing Abortion Worldwide (2013) Amnesty International, a human rights organization that used to be abortion neutral, is now using the problem of maternal mortality to advocate for abortion. In a new report, ostensibly on medical care for maternal health, Amnesty calls on governments to repeal abortion laws and conscience protection for medical workers who may object. They also call for public health systems to train and equip health care providers to perform abortions.

Amnestys Maternal Health is a Human Right campaign focuses attention on four countries: Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso, Peru, and the United States. Amnesty argues that maternal mortality will decrease if it is treated as a human rights issue, if costs to health care are covered by governments, and if a right for women to control their reproductive and sex lives is established. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/09/amnesty-international-continues-pushing-abortion-worldwide/ http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/campaigns/demand-dignity/maternal-health-is-a-human-right

Amnesty International Launches New Campaign to Push Abortion Worldwide (2014) Amnesty International has been under fire for years for its pro-abortion positions and now the venerable human rights group is launching a new global effort to push abortion on a worldwide scale. The My Body My Rights campaign encourages young people around the world to know and demand their right to make decisions about their health, body, sexuality and reproduction without state control, fear, coercion or discrimination. It also seeks to remind world leaders of their obligations to take positive action, including through access to health services, the group says. http://www.lifenews.com/2014/03/10/amnesty-international-launches-new-campaign-to-push-abortion-worldwide/

"Amnesty International believes that everyone should be free to make decisions about if, when and with whom they have sex, whether or when they marry or have children and how to best protect themselves from sexual ill-health and HIV." http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/sexual-and-reproductive-rights-under-threat-worldwide-2014-03-06

Avon Foundation for Women 777 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: 866-505-2866 http://www.avonfoundation.org The Avon Foundation for Women is a 501(c)(3) public charity founded in 1955 with the mission to promote or aid charitable, scientific, educational, and humanitarian activities, with a special emphasis on those activities that improve the lives of women and their families. In its work to realize those aspirations, the Foundations current mission focus is to lead efforts to eradicate breast cancer and end domestic and gender violence.

The Avon Breast Cancer Crusade was established in 1992. Since then, more than $815 million has been raised for breast cancer awareness and education, screening and diagnosis, access to care, support services and scientific research. Beneficiaries range from leading cancer research centers to local, nonprofit breast health programs, creating a powerful international network of research, medical, social service, and community-based breast cancer organizations.

The Avon Foundation is one of many breast cancer research fundraising groups that has yet to acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer.

While the Avon Foundation does not direct grant funding to Planned Parenthood, the more detailed answer on its website seems to indicate that it mightif it received a grant request that met its criteria.

Q: Does the Avon Foundation for Women support Planned Parenthood?

Our records indicate that in the last five years the Avon Foundation has received only one Planned Parenthood affiliate grant application from among more than an estimated 3,000 grant applications received during that time period, and it was not among our funded applicants. Our grant programs are highly competitive and unfortunately we receive many more quality applicants than available funds can support. Our Safety Net Program, Avon Breast Health Outreach Program and eight Avon Breast Health Centers of Excellence provide more than $15 million annually to address the needs for education, screening and treatment programs for underserved and uninsured women. http://www.avonfoundation.org/press-room/avon-foundation-for-women-response-to-recent-inquiries-about-breast-cancer-funding-support.html

The Speak Out Against Domestic Violence program was launched in the U.S. in 2004 and global expansion began shortly thereafter, with programs now in Central and South America and Europe. The Speak Out mission focuses on raising funds and awareness for domestic violence awareness, education and prevention programs while developing new community outreach and support for victims, and there is a special focus on supporting programs that assist children affected by domestic violence. Already more than $38 million has been awarded to over 250 organizations in the U.S.

In 2008, Avon Products, Inc. and the Avon Foundation introduced the company's first-ever global fundraising product, the Women's Empowerment Bracelet, designed to save and improve women's lives worldwide. The bracelet was unveiled by Avon Foundation Honorary Chair Reese Witherspoon at the second annual Global Summit for a Better Tomorrow, presented by the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) in partnership with Avon, at the United Nations in celebration of International Women's Day. Since then an entire catalog of fundraising products has been created.

UNIFEM is the United Nations Development Fund for Women. Established in 1976, it is self-described as fostering womens empowerment and gender equality and helping to make the voices of women heard at the United Nations. Two international agreements form the framework for UNIFEMs mission and goals: The Beijing Platform for Action and the Convention on the Elimination for All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

In 1995, the Beijing Platform for Action (Beijing Platform) expressly called upon governments to reexamine restrictive abortion laws that punish women. By linking womens health to abortion law reform, the Beijing Platform affirmed what [pro-abortion] advocates [believe] worldwide: removing legal barriers to abortion saves womens lives, promotes their health, and empowers women to make decisions crucial to their well-being.

The Beijing mandate also reflects a global trend toward abortion law liberalizationa trend that first gained momentum in the late 1960s and continues to this day. http://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/pub_bp_abortionlaws10.pdf

CEDAW, created in 1979, is actually a global Equal Rights Amendment. CEDAW mandates gender re-education, access to abortion services, homosexual and lesbian rights, and the legalization of voluntary prostitution as a valid form of professional employment. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/02/how-un-conventions-on-womens http://frcblog.com/2010/03/abortion-the-united-nations-and-cedaw/

See also http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2043.

See the original post:
Charity Watchlist - Get Involved | American Life League

Read More...

Genetic Engineering – News – Science – The New York Times

January 28th, 2017 4:42 pm

Latest Articles

University of Florida scientists say they have found a recipe that would return flavor that has been lost through breeding of modern hybrids.

By KENNETH CHANG

Daniel Kronauers transgenic ants offer scientists the chance to explore the evolution of animal societies and, perhaps, our own.

By NATALIE ANGIER

Gene editing, which does not add genes from other organisms into plants, is done with new tools that snip and tweak DNA at precise locations.

By KENNETH CHANG

The genetic engineering start-ups round includes the participation of Jennifer A. Doudna, who helped pioneer a technique that made altering DNA easier.

By MICHAEL J. de la MERCED

A California start-up that genetically engineers yeast to produce an acid for fragrances is at the forefront of efforts to reignite a market that fell short of earlier expectations.

By QUENTIN HARDY

The technique, discovered by a team at the Salk Institute and tested in mice, cannot be applied directly to people, but it points toward better understanding of human aging.

By NICHOLAS WADE

Why scientists and startups are tinkering with our most popular legume.

By ROXANNE KHAMSI

With inaugurations on everyones mind, heres another one: our new, weekly sampling of readers views.

By LIZ SPAYD with EVAN GERSHKOVICH

Monsanto writes that these crops are a very important and productive tool for modern and sustainable agriculture.

A cotton farmer in India says they have greatly increased his yield. The Union of Concerned Scientists urges better crop management methods instead.

Higher yields with less pesticides was the sales pitch for genetically modified seeds. But that has not proved to be the outcome in the United States.

By DANNY HAKIM

A Chinese firms $43 billion effort to buy Syngenta could upend the industry, but it faces widespread fears at home over modified food.

By AMIE TSANG and CAO LI

A bioethicist says research on a controversial procedure should be permitted with proper monitoring.

Officials want to test genetically modified mosquitoes built to blunt the spread of dengue and Zika, but many Key Haven residents fear the experiment more than the viruses.

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

A new survey shows distrust of scientists, a suspicion about claims of progress and discomfort with the idea of meddling with human abilities.

By GINA KOLATA

The bill would require companies to indicate that foods have genetically engineered ingredients, but disagreement remains over how that would be done.

By STEPHANIE STROM

The study was testing the use of genetically engineered cells as a treatment for cancer, which had shown promising earlier results.

The bill would set a national standard for labeling G.M.O. foods, though critics say the system would not be tough enough.

By STEPHANIE STROM

A proposed law would make it unnecessarily difficult to check a label, by requiring the scanning of electronic codes in the store.

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

As of Friday, nearly all food labels in the state must disclose when products include genetically engineered ingredients.

By STEPHANIE STROM

University of Florida scientists say they have found a recipe that would return flavor that has been lost through breeding of modern hybrids.

By KENNETH CHANG

Daniel Kronauers transgenic ants offer scientists the chance to explore the evolution of animal societies and, perhaps, our own.

By NATALIE ANGIER

Gene editing, which does not add genes from other organisms into plants, is done with new tools that snip and tweak DNA at precise locations.

By KENNETH CHANG

The genetic engineering start-ups round includes the participation of Jennifer A. Doudna, who helped pioneer a technique that made altering DNA easier.

By MICHAEL J. de la MERCED

A California start-up that genetically engineers yeast to produce an acid for fragrances is at the forefront of efforts to reignite a market that fell short of earlier expectations.

By QUENTIN HARDY

The technique, discovered by a team at the Salk Institute and tested in mice, cannot be applied directly to people, but it points toward better understanding of human aging.

By NICHOLAS WADE

Why scientists and startups are tinkering with our most popular legume.

By ROXANNE KHAMSI

With inaugurations on everyones mind, heres another one: our new, weekly sampling of readers views.

By LIZ SPAYD with EVAN GERSHKOVICH

Monsanto writes that these crops are a very important and productive tool for modern and sustainable agriculture.

A cotton farmer in India says they have greatly increased his yield. The Union of Concerned Scientists urges better crop management methods instead.

Higher yields with less pesticides was the sales pitch for genetically modified seeds. But that has not proved to be the outcome in the United States.

By DANNY HAKIM

A Chinese firms $43 billion effort to buy Syngenta could upend the industry, but it faces widespread fears at home over modified food.

By AMIE TSANG and CAO LI

A bioethicist says research on a controversial procedure should be permitted with proper monitoring.

Officials want to test genetically modified mosquitoes built to blunt the spread of dengue and Zika, but many Key Haven residents fear the experiment more than the viruses.

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

A new survey shows distrust of scientists, a suspicion about claims of progress and discomfort with the idea of meddling with human abilities.

By GINA KOLATA

The bill would require companies to indicate that foods have genetically engineered ingredients, but disagreement remains over how that would be done.

By STEPHANIE STROM

The study was testing the use of genetically engineered cells as a treatment for cancer, which had shown promising earlier results.

The bill would set a national standard for labeling G.M.O. foods, though critics say the system would not be tough enough.

By STEPHANIE STROM

A proposed law would make it unnecessarily difficult to check a label, by requiring the scanning of electronic codes in the store.

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

As of Friday, nearly all food labels in the state must disclose when products include genetically engineered ingredients.

By STEPHANIE STROM

Go here to read the rest:
Genetic Engineering - News - Science - The New York Times

Read More...

Cancer Genetics Overview (PDQ)Health Professional Version …

January 26th, 2017 11:52 am

Introduction

[Note: Many of the medical and scientific terms used in this summary are found in the NCI Dictionary of Genetics Terms. When a linked term is clicked, the definition will appear in a separate window.]

[Note: A concerted effort is being made within the genetics community to shift terminology used to describe genetic variation. The shift is to use the term variant rather than the term mutation to describe a difference that exists between the person or group being studied and the reference sequence. Variants can then be further classified as benign (harmless), likely benign, of uncertain significance, likely pathogenic, or pathogenic (disease causing). Throughout this summary, we will use the term pathogenic variant to describe a disease-causing mutation. Refer to Table 1, Variant Classification for Pathogenicity for more information.]

The etiology of cancer is multifactorial, with genetic, environmental, medical, and lifestyle factors interacting to produce a given malignancy. Knowledge of cancer genetics is rapidly improving our understanding of cancer biology, helping to identify at-risk individuals, furthering the ability to characterize malignancies, establishing treatment tailored to the molecular fingerprint of the disease, and leading to the development of new therapeutic modalities. As a consequence, this expanding knowledge base has implications for all aspects of cancer management, including prevention, screening, and treatment.

Genetic information provides a means of identifying people who have an increased risk of cancer. Sources of genetic information include biologic samples of DNA, information derived from a persons family history of disease, findings from physical examinations, and medical records. DNA-based information can be gathered, stored, and analyzed at any time during an individuals life span, from before conception to after death. Family history may identify people with a modest to moderately increased risk of cancer or may serve as the first step in the identification of an inherited cancer predisposition that confers a very high lifetime risk of cancer. For an increasing number of diseases, DNA-based testing can be used to identify a specific pathogenic variant as the cause of inherited risk and to determine whether family members have inherited the disease-related variant.

The proportion of individuals carrying a pathogenic variant who will manifest the disease is referred to as penetrance. In general, common genetic variants that are associated with cancer susceptibility have a lower penetrance than rare genetic variants. This is depicted in Figure 1. For adult-onset diseases, penetrance is usually described by the individual carrier's age and sex. For example, the penetrance for breast cancer in female carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants is often quoted by age 50 years and by age 70 years. Of the numerous methods for estimating penetrance, none are without potential biases, and determining an individual carrier's risk of cancer involves some level of imprecision. Enlarge

Figure 1. Genetic architecture of cancer risk. This graph depicts the general finding of a low relative risk associated with common, low-penetrance genetic variants, such as single-nucleotide polymorphisms identified in genome-wide association studies, and a higher relative risk associated with rare, high-penetrance genetic variants, such as pathogenic variants in the BRCA1/BRCA2 genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and the mismatch repair genes associated with Lynch syndrome.

Genetic variants, or changes in the usual DNA sequence of a particular gene, can have harmful, beneficial, neutral, or uncertain effects on health and may be inherited as autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive, or X-linked traits. Pathogenic variants that cause serious disability early in life are usually rare because of their adverse effect on life expectancy and reproduction. However, if the pathogenic variant is autosomal recessivethat is, if the health effect of the variant is caused only when two copies (one from each parent) of the altered gene are inherited carriers of the pathogenic variant (healthy people carrying one copy of the altered gene) may be relatively common in the general population. Common in this context refers, by convention, to a prevalence of 1% or more. Pathogenic variants that cause health effects in middle and older age, including several pathogenic variants known to cause a predisposition to cancer, may also be relatively common. Many cancer-predisposing traits are inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion, that is, the cancer susceptibility occurs when only one copy of the altered gene is inherited. For autosomal dominant conditions, the term carrier is often used in a less formal manner to denote people who have inherited the genetic predisposition conferred by the pathogenic variant. (Refer to individual PDQ summaries focused on the genetics of specific cancers for detailed information on known cancer-susceptibility syndromes.)

Increasingly, the public is turning to the Internet for information related both to familial and genetic susceptibility to cancer and to genetic risk assessment and testing. Direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic testing for hereditary breast and colon cancer is also taking place in some communities. This wider availability of information related to inherited cancer risk may raise concerns among persons previously unaware of the implications inherent in their family histories and may lead some of these individuals to consult their primary care physicians for management advice and recommendations. In many instances, the evaluation and advice will be relatively straightforward for physicians with a basic knowledge of familial cancer. In a subset of patients, the evaluation may be more complex, calling for referral to genetics professionals for further evaluation and counseling.

Correctly recognizing and identifying individuals and families at increased risk of developing cancer is one of countless important roles for primary care and other health care providers. Once identified, these individuals can then be appropriately referred for genetic counseling, risk assessment, consideration of genetic testing, and development of a management plan. When medical and family histories reveal cardinal clues to the presence of an underlying familial or genetic cancer susceptibility disorder (see list below),[1] further evaluation may be warranted. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Cancer Genetics Risk Assessment and Counseling for more information about the components of a genetics cancer risk assessment.)

Features of hereditary cancer include the following:

Concluding that an individual is at increased risk of developing cancer may have important, potentially life-saving management implications and may lead to specific interventions aimed at reducing risk (e.g., tamoxifen for breast cancer, colonoscopy for colon cancer, or risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for ovarian cancer). Information about familial cancer risk may also inform a persons ability to plan for the future (lifestyle and health care decisions, family planning, or other decisions). Genetic information may also provide a direct health benefit by demonstrating the lack of an inherited cancer susceptibility. For example, if a family is known to carry a cancer-predisposing variant in a particular gene, a family member may experience reduced worry and lower health care costs if his or her genetic test indicates that he or she does not carry the familys disease-related variant. Conversely, information about familial cancer risk may have psychological effects or social costs (e.g., worry, guilt, or increased health care costs). Family dynamics also may be affected. For instance, the involvement of one or more family members may be required for genetic testing to be informative, and parents may feel guilt about passing inherited risk on to their children.

Knowledge about a cancer-predisposing variant can be informative not only for the individual tested but also for other family members. Family members who previously had not considered the implications of their family history for their own health may be led to do so, and some will undergo genetic testing, resulting in more definitive information on whether they are at increased genetic risk. Some relatives may learn their carrier status without being directly tested, for example, when a biological parent of a child who is a known carrier of a pathogenic variant is identified as an obligate carrier. Founder effects may result in the recognition that specific ethnic groups have a higher prevalence of certain pathogenic variants, knowledge that can be either clinically useful (permitting more rational genetic testing strategies) or potentially stigmatizing. Testing may reveal the presence of nonpaternity in a family. There is the theoretical possibility that genetic information may be misused, and concerns about the potential for insurance and/or employment discrimination may arise. Genetic information may also affect medical and lifestyle decisions.

Refer to individual PDQ summaries for available evidence addressing all ancillary issues.

Genetic counseling is a process of communication between genetics professionals and patients with the goal of providing individuals and families with information on the relevant aspects of their genetic health, available testing and management options, and support as they move toward understanding and incorporating this information into their daily lives. Genetic counseling generally involves the following six steps:

Genetic evaluation involves an interaction with a medical geneticist or other genetics professional and may include a physical examination and diagnostic testing, in addition to genetic counseling. The principles of voluntary and informed decision making, nondirective and noncoercive counseling, and protection of client confidentiality and privacy are central to the philosophy of genetic counseling.[1-5] (Refer to the PDQ summary on Cancer Genetics Risk Assessment and Counseling for more information on the nature and history of genetic counseling.)

From the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, genetic counseling expanded to include discussion of genetic testing for cancer risk, as more genes associated with inherited cancer risk were discovered. Cancer genetic counseling often involves a multidisciplinary team of health professionals that may include a genetic counselor, an advanced practice genetics nurse, or a medical geneticist; a mental health professional; and various medical experts such as an oncologist, surgeon, or internist. The process of counseling may require a number of visits to address medical, genetic testing, and psychosocial issues. Even when cancer risk counseling is initiated by an individual, inherited cancer risk has implications for the entire family. Because genetic risk affects an unknown number of biological relatives, contact with these relatives is often essential to collect accurate family and medical histories. Cancer genetic counseling may involve several family members, some of whom will have had cancer and others who have not.

The impact of risk assessment and predisposition genetic testing is improved health outcomes. The information derived from risk assessment and/or genetic testing allows the health care provider to tailor an individual approach to health promotion and optimize long-term health outcomes through the identification of at-risk individuals before cancer develops. The health care provider can thus intervene earlier either to reduce the risk or diagnose a cancer at an earlier stage, when the chances for effective treatment are greatest. The information may be used to modify the management approach to an initial cancer, clarify the risks of other cancers, or predict the response of an existing cancer to specific forms of treatment, all of which may alter treatment recommendations and long-term follow-up.

Individual PDQ summaries focused on the genetics of specific cancers contain detailed information about many known cancer susceptibility syndromes. Although this is not a complete list, the following cancer susceptibility syndromes are discussed in the PDQ cancer genetics summaries (listed in parentheses after the syndromes):

The methods described in this section are intended to provide a brief background about the genetic analysis and discovery approaches that have been used during the past 10 to 15 years for identifying disease susceptibility genes. These methods led to important cancer gene discoveries such as BRCA1 and breast cancer risk. Since then, genetic analysis techniques have transitioned to next-generation sequencing methods as described in the Clinical Sequencing section of this summary.

The recognition that cancer clusters within families has led many investigators to collect data on multiple-case families with the goal of localizing cancer susceptibility genes through linkage studies.

Linkage studies are typically performed on high-risk kindreds, in whom multiple cases of a particular disease have occurred, in an effort to identify disease susceptibility genes. Linkage analysis statistically compares the genotypes between affected and unaffected individuals and looks for evidence that known genetic markers are inherited along with the disease trait. If such evidence is found (linkage), it provides statistical data that the chromosomal region near the marker also harbors a disease susceptibility gene. Once a genomic region of interest has been identified through linkage analysis, additional studies are required to prove that there truly is a susceptibility gene at that position. Linkage analysis is affected by the following:

An additional issue in linkage studies is the background rate of sporadic cancer in the context of family studies. For example, because a mans lifetime risk of prostate cancer is one in eight,[1] it is possible that families under study have both inherited and sporadic prostate cancer cases. Thus, men who do not inherit the prostate cancer susceptibility gene that is segregating in their family may still develop prostate cancer.

One way to address inconsistencies between linkage studies is to require inclusion criteria that defines clinically significant disease.[2-6] This approach attempts to define a homogeneous set of cases/families to increase the likelihood of identifying a linkage signal. It also prevents the inclusion of cases that may be considered clinically insignificant that were identified by screening in families.

GWAS are identifying common, low-penetrance susceptibility alleles for many complex diseases,[7] including cancer. This approach can be contrasted with linkage analysis, which searches for genetic-risk variants cosegregating within families that have a high prevalence of disease. While linkage analyses are designed to uncover rare, highly penetrant variants that segregate in predictable heritance patterns (e.g., autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive, X-linked, and mitochondrial), GWAS are best suited to identify multiple, common, low-penetrance genetic polymorphisms. GWAS are conducted under the assumption that the genetic underpinnings of complex phenotypes, such as prostate cancer, are governed by many alleles, each conferring modest risk. Most genetic polymorphisms genotyped in GWAS are common, with minor allele frequencies greater than 1% to 5% within a given population (e.g., men of European ancestry). GWAS capture a large portion of common variation across the genome.[8,9] The strong correlation between many alleles located close to one another on a given chromosome (called linkage disequilibrium) allows one to scan the genome without having to test all 10 million known single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). With GWAS, researchers can test approximately 1 million to 5 million SNPs per study and ascertain almost all common inherited variants in the genome.

In a GWAS, allele frequency for each SNP is compared between cases and controls. Promising signalsin which allele frequencies deviate significantly in case compared to control populationsare validated in replication cohorts. To have adequate statistical power to identify variants associated with a phenotype, large numbers of cases and controls, typically thousands of each, are studied. Because up to 1 million SNPs are evaluated in a GWAS, false-positive findings are expected to occur frequently when using standard statistical thresholds. Therefore, stringent statistical rules are used to declare a positive finding, usually using a threshold of P < 1 10-7.[10-12]

To date, hundreds of cancer-risk variants have been identified by well-powered GWAS and validated in independent cohorts.[13] These studies have revealed consistent associations between specific inherited variants and cancer risk. However, the findings should be qualified with a few important considerations:

The implications of these points are discussed in greater detail in the PDQ summaries on Genetics of Breast and Gynecologic Cancers; Genetics of Colorectal Cancer; and Genetics of Prostate Cancer. Additional details can be found elsewhere.[18]

Broad-scale genome sequencing approaches, including multigene (panel) testing, whole-exome sequencing (WES), and whole-genome sequencing (WGS), are rapidly being developed and incorporated into a spectrum of clinical oncologic settings, including cancer therapeutics and cancer risk assessment. Several institutions and companies offer tumor sequencing, and some are developing precision medicine programs that sequence tumor genomes to identify driver genetic alterations that are targetable for therapeutic benefit to patients.[1-3] Many of these tumor-based approaches use germline DNA sequences as a reference to discriminate between DNA changes only within the tumor and those that are potentially inherited. In the genetic counseling and cancer risk assessment setting, the use of multigene testing to evaluate inherited cancer risk is becoming more common and may become routine in the near future, with institutions and companies offering multigene testing to detect alterations in a host of cancer riskassociated genes.

These advances in gene sequencing technologies also identify variants in genes related to the primary indication for ordering genetic sequence testing, along with findings not related to the disorder being tested. The latter genetic findings, termed incidental or secondary findings, are currently a source of clinical, ethical, legal, and counseling debate. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues have published literature that address some of these issues and provide guidance and recommendations for their use.[4-7] However, controversy continues about when and what results to provide to patients and their health care providers. This section was created to provide information about genomic sequencing technologies in the context of clinical sequencing and highlights additional areas of clinical uncertainty for which further research and approaches are needed.

DNA sequencing technologies have undergone rapid evolution, particularly since 2005 when massively parallel sequencing, or next-generation sequencing (NGS), was introduced.[8]

Automated Sanger sequencing is considered the first generation of sequencing technology.[9] Sanger cancer gene sequencing uses polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of genetic regions of interest followed by sequencing of PCR products using fluorescently labeled terminators, capillary electrophoresis separation of products, and laser signal detection of nucleotide sequence.[10,11] While this is an accurate sequencing technology, the main limitations of Sanger sequencing include low throughput, a limited ability to sequence more than a few genes at a time, and the inability to detect structural rearrangements.[10]

NGS refers to high throughput DNA sequencing technologies that are capable of processing multiple DNA sequences in parallel.[11] Although platforms differ in template generation and sequence interrogation, the overall approach to NGS technologies involves shearing and immobilizing DNA template molecules onto a solid surface, which allows separation of molecules for simultaneous sequencing reactions (millions to billions) to be performed in a parallel fashion.[10,12] Thus, the major advantages of NGS technologies include the ability to sequence thousands of genes at one time, a lower cost, and the ability to detect multiple types of genomic alterations, such as insertions, deletions, copy number alterations, and rearrangements.[10] Limitations include the possibility that specific gene regions may be missed, turnaround time can be lengthy (although it is decreasing), and informatics support to handle massive amounts of genetic data has lagged behind the sequencing capability. A well-recognized bottleneck to utilizing NGS data is the lack of advanced computational infrastructure to preserve, process, and analyze the vast amount of genetic data. The magnitude of the variants obtained from NGS is exponential; bioinformatics approaches need to evaluate genetic variants for predicted functional consequence in disease biology. There is also a need for user-friendly bioinformatics pipelines to analyze and integrate genetic data to influence the scientific and medical community.[11,13]

The following terms are defined to better understand the clinical application of NGS testing and implications of results reported.

NGS has multiple potential clinical applications. In oncology, the two dominant applications are: 1) the assessment of somatic alterations in tumors to inform prognosis and/or targeted therapeutics; and 2) the assessment of the germline to identify cancer risk alleles.

There are multiple approaches to tumor testing for somatic alterations. With targeted multigene testing, a number of different genes can be assessed simultaneously. These targeted multigene tests can differ substantially in the genes that are included, and they can be tailored to individual tumor types. Targeted multigene testing limits the data to be analyzed and includes only known genes, which makes the interpretation more straightforward than in whole exome or whole genome techniques. In addition, greater depth of coverage is possible with targeted multigene testing than with WES or WGS. Depth of coverage refers to the number of times a nucleotide has been sequenced; a greater depth of coverage has fewer sequencing errors. Deep coverage also aids in differentiating sequencing errors from single nucleotide polymorphisms.

WES and WGS are far more extensive techniques and aim to uncover variants in known genes and in genes not suspected a priori. The discovery of a variant that is unexpected for a particular tumor type can lead to the use of a directed therapeutic, which could improve patient outcome. WES generates sequence data of the coding regions of the genome (representing approximately 1% of the human genome), rather than the entire genome (WGS). Consequently, WES is less expensive than WGS.

Noncoding variants can be identified using WGS but cannot be identified using WES. The use of WGS is limited by cost and the vast bioinformatics needed for interpretation. Although the costs of sequencing have dropped precipitously, the analysis remains formidable.[14]

Although the goal of WES and WGS is to improve patient care by detecting actionable genetic variants (mutations that can be targeted therapeutically), a number of issues warrant consideration. This testing may detect pathogenic variants, variants of uncertain significance (VUS), or no detectable abnormalities. In addition, pathogenic variants can be found in genes that are thought to be clearly related to tumorigenesis but can also be detected in genes with unclear relevance (particularly with WES and WGS approaches). VUS have unclear implications as they may, or may not, disrupt the function of the protein. The definition of actionable can vary, but often this term is used when an aberration, if found, would lead to recommendations against certain treatments (such as variants in ras) for which a clinical trial is available, or for which there is a known targeted drug. Although there are case reports of success with this approach, it is unlikely to be straightforward. Studies are ongoing.

Some commercial and single-institution assays test only the tumor. Clearly pathogenic variants found in important genes in the tumor can be somatic but could also be from the germline. In situations in which somatic analysis is paired with a germline analysis, it can be determined whether an identified alteration is inherited. A study that estimated the prevalence of germline variants from patients undergoing tumor sequencing with matched, normal DNA sequencing reported that cancer susceptibility genes were identified in 198 of 1,566 individuals (12.6%). Only 81 of these 198 individuals (40.9%) had pathogenic variants in cancer susceptibility genes concordant with their tumor type. When expanding to include known noncancer-related Mendelian disease genes, 246 of 1,566 individuals (15.7%) had pathogenic or presumed pathogenic germline variants identified.[15]

Sequencing tumors may lead to the identification of hereditary (germline) pathogenic variants.[16] Founder pathogenic variants in well-characterized cancer susceptibility genes are highly suggestive of a germline pathogenic variant. Hypermutated tumor phenotype may suggest an underlying constitutional defect in DNA repair. Clinical characteristics that fit with a particular genetic predisposition, such as family history, young age at diagnosis, or specific tumor type, may also raise the suspicion of a germline variant correlating with a tumor variant. A high variant allele fraction may also indicate a germline variant. All of these factors signify a potential need for patients to undergo genetic counseling and to consider confirmatory germline genetic testing.

The absence of a variant in a gene assessed as part of somatic testing does not rule out the presence of an inherited susceptibility. All patients whose personal and family histories are suggestive of hereditary cancer should consider germline testing regardless of their somatic results.

Ongoing clinical trials, such as the NCI Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) Trial, are examining the value of somatic sequencing to find actionable targets. Germline sequencing is occurring as a component of this study.

The goal of germline testing is to identify pathogenic variants associated with an inherited risk of cancer and to guide cancer riskmanagement decisions. Also, germline testing can aid in some management decisions at the time of diagnosis (e.g., decisions about colectomy in Lynch syndromerelated colon cancer and contralateral mastectomy in carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants). In addition, there are emerging data that germline status may help determine systemic therapy (e.g., the use of cisplatin or PARP inhibitors in BRCA1/2-related cancer).

To date, most germline genetic testing has been performed in a targeted manner, looking for variants in the gene(s) associated with a clinical picture (e.g., BRCA1 and BRCA2 in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer; or the mismatch repair [MMR] genes in Lynch syndrome). However, targeted multigene tests now available commercially or within an institution contain different sets of genes. Some are targeted to all cancers, others to specific cancers (e.g., breast, colon, or prostate cancers). The genes on the multigene tests include high-penetrance genes related to the specific tumor (such as BRCA1/2 on a breast cancer panel); high penetrance genes related to a different type of cancer but with a more moderate risk for the tumor of reference (such as CDH1 or MSH6 on a breast cancer panel); and moderate penetrance genes for which clinical utility is uncertain (such as NBN on a breast cancer panel). Because multiple genes are included on these panels, it is anticipated that many, and perhaps most, individuals undergoing testing using these panels will be found to have at least one VUS. As it is not possible to do standard pretest counseling models for a panel of 20 genes, new counseling models are needed. Ethical issues of whether patients can opt out of specific results (such as TP53 or CDH1 in breast cancer) and how this would be done in clinical practice are unresolved.

Refer to the Multigene (panel) testing section in the PDQ summary on Cancer Genetics Risk Assessment and Counseling for more information about the use of targeted multigene tests.

WES for inherited cancer susceptibility is also commercially available. Secondary findings are likely and management of such findings is evolving.

The ACCE model uses four main components to evaluate new genetic tests: analytic validity; clinical validity; clinical utility; and ethical, legal, and social issues.[17]

The ACCE model's framework has been adopted worldwide for the evaluation of genetic tests.

Several layers of complexity exist in managing NGS in the clinical setting. At the purely technical level, improvements in the sequencing technique have allowed for sequencing across the entire genome, not merely the exome. As the costs decrease, exomic and genomic sequencing of tumor and normal tissue can be expected to become more routine.

With routine use of WGS, major challenges in interpretation emerge. Foremost is the matter of determining which sequence variations in known cancer predisposition genes are pathologic, which are harmless, and which variations require further evaluation as to their significance. This is not a new challenge. Various groups are developing processes for the interpretation and curation of a growing database of variants and their significance. For example, the International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumors has developed such a process for the MMR genes in concert with the Human Variome Project and International Mismatch Repair Consortium.

These processes may serve as a framework for the emerging challenge of interpreting the significance of sequence variations in genes of uncertain or unknown function in regulation of neoplastic progression or other diseases. Larger cancer predisposition multigene tests have been developed by commercial laboratories, with their own process for interpretation. To the extent that increasingly larger multigene tests include genes of unknown significance, governance of the interpretation process requires that academic institutions offering their own multigene tests or using external proprietary panels develop a deliberative process for managing the quality assurance for test performance (including Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments [CLIA], where appropriate) and interpretation.

ACMG has issued the following updated guidelines for achieving accountability in interpreting and reporting secondary findings:[4,18]

Concerns remain that the routine reporting of germline variants in the context of tumor sequencing would require laboratories to conduct results review with germline and tumor genome expertise, which would be expected to increase costs, laboratory efforts, and turnaround time for results reporting. The nature of discussions between oncologists and patients would be altered to include the multiple facets involved with germline testing and potential results. Pre- and post-test discussions would also potentially require involvement of genetic counselors and geneticists, who are a limited resource in oncology practices. Recent expert comment stated that more data are needed about the benefits of return of secondary germline findings to cancer patients undergoing tumor sequencing, citing a need for recommendations by experts in the oncology and genetics communities.[19]

It is still very early in the development processes for oversight at the institutional level. As an example, at one high-volume cancer center, the following process has been used:

Informed consent for the sequencing of highly penetrant disease genes has been conducted since the mid-1990s in the contexts of known or suspected inherited diseases within selected families. However, the best methods and approaches for educating and counseling individuals about the potential benefits, limitations, and harms of genetic testing to facilitate informed decisions have not been fully elucidated or adequately tested. New informed consent challenges arise as NGS technologies are applied in clinical and research settings. Challenges to facilitating informed consent include the following:

The increased availability and decreased cost of NGS technology are expanding the use of genome-wide testing of tumors, with the goal of identifying somatic variants as potential targets for cancer treatment. While identifying germline pathogenic variants may be considered secondary to the main purpose of testing tumors, the possibility of identifying actionable secondary findings of pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes supports the need for genetic counseling in this context. Approaches for genetic counseling and informed consent in the context of tumor sequencing have been proposed.[20,21]

Advances in genetic sequencing technologies have dramatically reduced the cost of sequencing an individual's full genome or exome. WGS and WES are increasingly being employed in the clinical setting in testing for both somatic and germline variants. In addition, multigene tests are now available commercially or within an institution. Considerable debate surrounds the clinical, ethical, legal, and counseling aspects associated with NGS and gene panels. Future research is warranted to address these issues.

PDQ cancer genetics summaries focus on the genetics of specific cancers, inherited cancer syndromes, and the ethical, social, and psychological implications of cancer genetics knowledge. Sections on the genetics of specific cancers include syndrome-specific information on the risk implications of a family history of cancer, the prevalence and characteristics of cancer-predisposing variants, known modifiers of genetic risk, opportunities for genetic testing, outcomes of genetic counseling and testing, and interventions available for people with increased cancer risk resulting from an inherited predisposition.

The source of medical literature cited in PDQ cancer genetics summaries is peer-reviewed scientific publications, the quality and reliability of which is evaluated in terms of levels of evidence. Where relevant, the level of evidence is cited, or particular strengths of a study or limitations of the evidence are described.

Refer to the Levels of Evidence for Cancer Genetics Studies summary for more information on the levels of evidence utilized in the PDQ cancer genetics summaries.

Health care providers who deliver genetic services, including genetic counseling, can be located through local, regional, and national professional genetics organizations and through NCI's Cancer Genetics Services Directory website. Providers of cancer genetic services are not limited to one specialty and include medical geneticists, genetic counselors, advanced practice genetics nurses, oncologists (medical, radiation, or surgical), other surgeons, internists, pediatricians, family practitioners, and mental health professionals. A cancer genetics health care provider will assist in constructing and evaluating a pedigree, eliciting and evaluating personal and family medical histories, and calculating and providing information about cancer risk and/or probability of a pathogenic variant being associated with cancer in the family. In addition, if a genetic test is available, these providers can assist in pretest counseling, laboratory selection, informed consent, test interpretation, posttest counseling, and follow-up.

This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about cancer genetics. It is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians who care for cancer patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.

This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the PDQ Cancer Genetics Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Board members review recently published articles each month to determine whether an article should:

Changes to the summaries are made through a consensus process in which Board members evaluate the strength of the evidence in the published articles and determine how the article should be included in the summary.

Any comments or questions about the summary content should be submitted to Cancer.gov through the NCI website's Email Us. Do not contact the individual Board Members with questions or comments about the summaries. Board members will not respond to individual inquiries.

Some of the reference citations in this summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Cancer Genetics Editorial Board uses a formal evidence ranking system in developing its level-of-evidence designations.

PDQ is a registered trademark. Although the content of PDQ documents can be used freely as text, it cannot be identified as an NCI PDQ cancer information summary unless it is presented in its entirety and is regularly updated. However, an author would be permitted to write a sentence such as NCIs PDQ cancer information summary about breast cancer prevention states the risks succinctly: [include excerpt from the summary].

The preferred citation for this PDQ summary is:

PDQ Cancer Genetics Editorial Board. PDQ Cancer Genetics Overview. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Updated . Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/genetics/overview-pdq. Accessed . [PMID: 26389204]

Images in this summary are used with permission of the author(s), artist, and/or publisher for use within the PDQ summaries only. Permission to use images outside the context of PDQ information must be obtained from the owner(s) and cannot be granted by the National Cancer Institute. Information about using the illustrations in this summary, along with many other cancer-related images, is available in Visuals Online, a collection of over 2,000 scientific images.

The information in these summaries should not be used as a basis for insurance reimbursement determinations. More information on insurance coverage is available on Cancer.gov on the Managing Cancer Care page.

More information about contacting us or receiving help with the Cancer.gov website can be found on our Contact Us for Help page. Questions can also be submitted to Cancer.gov through the websites Email Us.

Excerpt from:
Cancer Genetics Overview (PDQ)Health Professional Version ...

Read More...

Toxicology Conferences 2017 | Pharmacology Conferences …

January 24th, 2017 4:45 am

Sessions/Tracks

On behalf of Conference Series LLC we are pleased to welcome you all to Chicago, Illinois, USA to attend the 10th Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology during July 20-22, 2017

Toxicology 2017 is one of the most significant conferences in the world where it contains many disciplines related to the research work and which are prominent in the field it is a leading platform to debate and acquire about the present and developing research works of Toxicology and Pharmacology. Toxicology 2017 which is scheduled at Chicago, USA influences main and important advances in the field. The conference may lead to long-lasting scientific collaborations.

Track 1: Toxicology and Pharmacology

The connected discipline of toxicology includes the study of the nature and mechanisms of deleterious effects of chemicals on living beings. The study of toxicology as a distinct, yet related, discipline to pharmacology highlights the emphasis of toxicologists in formulating measures aimed at protective public health against exposures associated with toxic materials in food, air and water, as well as hazards that may be related with drugs. The word pharmacology itself comes from the Greek word. Pharmacology not only includes the sighting of drugs, but also the study of their biochemical properties, mechanisms of action, uses and biological effects.

Toxicology Conferences | Pharmacology Conferences | Toxicology and Pharmacology Conferences

9th Euro-Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology June 22-24, 2017 Paris, France; 11th Global Toxicology and Risk Management Meeting October 10-12, 2017 London, UK; 3rd Global Genomics and Toxicogenomics Meeting September 27-28, 2017 Chicago, USA; 10th Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology July 20-22, 2017 Chicago, USA; 12th International Conference on Environmental Toxicology and Ecological Risk Assessment October 19-20, 2017 Atlanta, USA; 19th International Conference on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, March 29 - 30, 2017 Singapore, SG; Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry North America 38th Annual Meeting, November 1216, 2017, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States; 53rd European Societies of Toxicology, September 10-13, 2017, Bratislava, Slovak; 56th Annual Meeting of Society of Toxicology March 12-16, 2017 Baltimore USA; 15th International Conference on Toxicology and Clinical Pharmacology December 14-16, 2017 Dubai, UAE; Society of Toxicology; Academy of Toxicological Sciences; American Board of Toxicology; Society of Toxicology of Canada; International Union of Toxicology; American College of Medical Toxicology; Argentine Toxicological Association; EUROTOX; German Society of Toxicology

Track 2: Mechanisms of Toxicity

Mechanisms of toxicity are important in both practical and theory wise. It provides a rational basis for understanding descriptive toxicity data, approximating the possibility that a substance will cause risky effects, establishing measures to avoid or antagonize the toxic effects, designing drugs and industrialized chemicals that are fewer hazardous, and evolving pesticides that are more selectively poisonous for their target organisms.

Toxicity Conferences | Immunotoxicity Conferences | Drug Toxicity Conferences

9th Euro-Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology June 22-24, 2017 Paris, France; 3rd Global Genomics and Toxicogenomics Meeting September 27-28, 2017 Chicago, USA; 11th Global Toxicology and Risk Management Meeting October 10-12, 2017 London, UK; 12th International Conference on Environmental Toxicology and Ecological Risk Assessment October 19-20, 2017 Atlanta, USA; 10th Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology July 20-22, 2017 Chicago, USA; 5th Immunogenicity & Immunotoxicity Conference on February 6-7, 2017 in San Diego, CA; 2nd International Conference on Pollutant Toxic Ions and Molecules, 6 - 9 November 2017, Lisbon, Portugal; Stem Cells in Drug Discovery & Toxicity Screening, July 10-11, 2017, Boston, USA; 19th International Conference on Predictive Human Toxicity, February 16 - 17, 2017, London, United Kingdom; Predicting Drug Toxicity, June 13-14, 2017, Boston, USA; Academy of Toxicological Sciences; EUROTOX; American Board of Toxicology; Society of Toxicology of Canada; International Union of Toxicology; American College of Medical Toxicology; Argentine Toxicological Association;

Track 3: Molecular Toxicology

Molecular toxicology, the use of sub-atomic science standards and advancements to preclinical wellbeing appraisal, speaks to a key apparatus for comprehension systems of danger and surveying the dangers connected with toxicities. The utilization of quality expression markers to early stage preclinical security evaluation can possibly affect pipelines in two fundamental zones: lead improvement and issue administration.

Toxicology Conferences | Molecular Conferences | Molecular Toxicology Conferences

International Conference on Molecular Evolution July 18-19, 2016 Bangkok, Thailand; 2nd World Congress on Molecular Genetics and Gene Therapy July 3-5, 2017 Bangkok, Thailand; 11th Global Toxicology and Risk Management Meeting October 10-12, 2017 London, UK; 9th Euro-Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology June 22-24, 2017 Paris, France; 3rd Global Genomics and Toxicogenomics Meeting September 27-28, 2017 Chicago, USA; Computational Aspects: Biomolecular NMR (GRS) June 10 - 11, 2017, USA; Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) April 3-5, 2017, Berlin, Germany; International Conference on Biochemistry and Molecular Biology April 3-5 2017, Munich, Germany; 60th Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for Molecular Biosciences May 16-20, 2017, Ottawa, Canada; Canadian Anatomic and Molecular Pathology, February 2-4, 2017, Whistler, Canada; 2nd International Conference on Pollutant Toxic Ions and Molecules, 6 - 9 November 2017, Lisbon, Portugal; Academy of Toxicological Sciences; American Board of Toxicology; Society of Toxicology of Canada; International Union of Toxicology; American College of Medical Toxicology; Argentine Toxicological Association;

Track 4: Applied Toxicology

Applied Toxicology deals with the fundamentals in toxicology and risk assessment, including the most important databases. The topics related to Applied Toxicology are Medicinal Chemistry, Biochemistry, Environmental Chemistry, Pharmacology, Pharmacodynamics, Pharmacokinetics and Instrumental Chemistry. Toxicology is the study of the toxic substances which are poisons and their risky effects on biological systems. Drugs are medicines for diseases but can also have unsafe effects prominent to toxicity and deadly injuries

Occupational Toxicology Conferences | Toxicology Conferences | Pharmaceutical Conferences

11th Global Toxicology and Risk Management Meeting October 10-12, 2017 London, UK; 3rd Global Genomics and Toxicogenomics Meeting September 27-28, 2017 Chicago, USA; 10th Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology July 20-22, 2017 Chicago, USA; 12th International Conference on Environmental Toxicology and Ecological Risk Assessment October 19-20, 2017 Atlanta, USA; 9th Euro-Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology June 22-24, 2017 Paris, France; 15th International Conference on Toxicology and Clinical Pharmacology December 14-16, 2017 Dubai, UAE; 19th International Conference on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, March 29 - 30, 2017 Singapore, SG; 56th Annual Meeting of Society of Toxicology March 12-16, 2017 Baltimore USA; Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry North America 38th Annual Meeting, November 1216, 2017, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States; 53rd European Societies of Toxicology, September 10-13, 2017, Bratislava, Slovak; EUROTOX; Academy of Toxicological Sciences; American Board of Toxicology; Society of Toxicology of Canada; International Union of Toxicology; American College of Medical Toxicology; Argentine Toxicological Association; Austrian Society of Toxicology; Colombia Society of Toxicology

Track 5: Regulatory Toxicology

Regulatory Toxicology includes the gathering, handling and evaluation of epidemiological as well as experimental toxicology data to license toxicologically grounded results absorbed to the safety of health against injurious effects of biochemical materials. Furthermore, Regulatory Toxicology supports the growth of regular procedures and new challenging approaches in order to constantly progress the technical basis for decision-making developments.

Regulatory Toxicology Conferences | Toxicology Conferences | Pharmacovigilance Conference

12th International Conference on Environmental Toxicology and Ecological Risk Assessment October 19-20, 2017 Atlanta, USA; 9th Euro-Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology June 22-24, 2017 Paris, France; 11th Global Toxicology and Risk Management Meeting October 10-12, 2017 London, UK; 3rd Global Genomics and Toxicogenomics Meeting September 27-28, 2017 Chicago, USA; 10th Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology July 20-22, 2017 Chicago, USA; 15th International Conference on Toxicology and Clinical Pharmacology December 14-16, 2017 Dubai, UAE; 19th International Conference on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, March 29 - 30, 2017 Singapore, SG; 56th Annual Meeting of Society of Toxicology March 12-16, 2017 Baltimore USA; 53rd European Societies of Toxicology, September 10-13, 2017, Bratislava, Slovak; Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry North America 38th Annual Meeting, November 1216, 2017, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States; Academy of Toxicological Sciences; Argentine Toxicological Association; American Board of Toxicology; EUROTOX; Society of Toxicology of Canada; International Union of Toxicology; American College of Medical Toxicology; Austrian Society of Toxicology; Colombia Society of Toxicology;

Track 6: Clinical Toxicology

Clinical toxicology is absorbed on the diseases related with short-term and long-term disclosure to numerous toxic substances. It typically overlaps with other disciplines such as biochemistry, pharmacology, and pathology. Persons who specify in clinical toxicology are referred to as clinical toxicologists. Their work emphases around the identification, analysis, and treatment of conditions resulting from disclosure to harmful agents. They regularly study the toxic effects of numerous drugs in the body, and are also apprehensive with the treatment and prevention of drug toxicity in the population.

Toxicology Conferences | Clinical Toxicology Conferences | Pharmacology Conferences

9th Euro-Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology June 22-24, 2017 Paris, France; 10th Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology July 20-22, 2017 Chicago, USA; 12th International Conference on Environmental Toxicology and Ecological Risk Assessment October 19-20, 2017 Atlanta, USA; 11th Global Toxicology and Risk Management Meeting October 10-12, 2017 London, UK; 3rd Global Genomics and Toxicogenomics Meeting September 27-28, 2017 Chicago, USA; 53rd European Societies of Toxicology, September 10-13, 2017, Bratislava, Slovak; 19th International Conference on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, March 29 - 30, 2017 Singapore, SG; 15th International Conference on Toxicology and Clinical Pharmacology December 14-16, 2017 Dubai, UAE; 56th Annual Meeting of Society of Toxicology March 12-16, 2017 Baltimore USA; Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry North America 38th Annual Meeting, November 1216, 2017, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States;Academy of Toxicological Sciences; American Board of Toxicology; Society of Toxicology of Canada; International Union of Toxicology; American College of Medical Toxicology; Argentine Toxicological Association; Austrian Society of Toxicology; Colombia Society of Toxicology;

Track 7: Computational Toxicology

Computational toxicology is a discipline in the area of computational molecular sciences which is definitely swiftly emerging due to the overall public attention stimulated by many of us initiatives. Health care specialists beauty sector fragrance and flavour as well seeing that lawmakers and chemical substance protection regulators. It really is of particular concern in remedy discovery and progression and its own assessment is compulsory for the getting of new medicines for humans make use of it. The effect of toxicity and safety connected events in the progression of new biochemical elements is significant whether it pertains to medications or other chemical substances.

Computational Conferences | Toxicology Conferences | Computational Toxicology Conferences

3rd Global Genomics and Toxicogenomics Meeting September 27-28, 2017 Chicago, USA; 9th Euro-Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology June 22-24, 2017 Paris, France; 10th Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology July 20-22, 2017 Chicago, USA; 11th Global Toxicology and Risk Management Meeting October 10-12, 2017 London, UK; 12th International Conference on Environmental Toxicology and Ecological Risk Assessment October 19-20, 2017 Atlanta, USA; 53rd European Societies of Toxicology, September 10-13, 2017, Bratislava, Slovak; 19th International Conference on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, March 29 - 30, 2017 Singapore, SG; 15th International Conference on Toxicology and Clinical Pharmacology December 14-16, 2017 Dubai, UAE; 56th Annual Meeting of Society of Toxicology March 12-16, 2017 Baltimore USA; Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry North America 38th Annual Meeting, November 1216, 2017, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States; Society of Toxicology of Canada; International Union of Toxicology; American College of Medical Toxicology; Argentine Toxicological Association; Austrian Society of Toxicology; Colombia Society of Toxicology; EUROTOX; Academy of Toxicological Sciences; American Board of Toxicology;

Track 8: Organ Toxicity

The gathering of antimicrobial drugs and their metabolic by-products in organs can be poisonous, leading to organ injury. Toxicity is the degree to which a material can harm an organism. Toxicity can mention to the effect on an entire organism and the result on a substructure of the creature such as organ which may effect on any organ of the human being organ or tissue in the human body can be affected by antimicrobial toxicity

Organ Toxicology Conferences | Toxicity Conferences | Neurotoxicology Conferences

3rd Global Genomics and Toxicogenomics Meeting September 27-28, 2017 Chicago, USA; 11th Global Toxicology and Risk Management Meeting October 10-12, 2017 London, UK; 9th Euro-Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology June 22-24, 2017 Paris, France; 10th Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology July 20-22, 2017 Chicago, USA; 12th International Conference on Environmental Toxicology and Ecological Risk Assessment October 19-20, 2017 Atlanta, USA; Predicting Drug Toxicity, June 13-14, 2017, Boston, USA 5th Immunogenicity & Immunotoxicity Conference ImmunoTX Summit on February 6-7, 2017 in San Diego, CA; 2nd International Conference on Pollutant Toxic Ions and Molecules, 6 - 9 November 2017, Lisbon, Portugal; 19th International Conference on Predictive Human Toxicity, February 16 - 17, 2017, London, United Kingdom; Stem Cells in Drug Discovery & Toxicity Screening, July 10-11, 2017, Boston, USA; American Board of Toxicology; Society of Toxicology ; Society of Toxicology of Canada; International Union of Toxicology; American College of Medical Toxicology; Argentine Toxicological Association; Austrian Society of Toxicology; Colombia Society of Toxicology; EUROTOX; Academy of Toxicological Sciences;

Track 9: Applied Pharmacology

Applied Pharmacology is the clinical utilizations of the medications and its use in genuine medicinal practice. Where in this it lets the doctors to extend his realities of the medication the approach it would really work in the medicinal science. It is the utilization of the medications and how the pharmacological activities or data could be connected to the therapeutics. Additionally to give clarification to various medications having associated with the pharmacological activity. It Provides elucidations about medication collaborations and to clear up the activity of different medications on the numerous organs in the body when they are sick state with symptoms disagreements

Pharmacology Conferences | Toxicology Conferences | Pharmaceutical Conferences

9th Euro-Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology June 22-24, 2017 Paris, France; 5th International Conference on Pharmacology and Ethnopharmacology Mar 23-25, 2017 Orlando, USA; 6th Global Experts Meeting on Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Cardiac Medications April 13-14, 2017 Dubai, UAE; 7th Global Experts Meeting on Neuropharmacology July 31-Aug 02, 2017 Milan, Italy; 10th International Conference on Neuropharmacology and Neuropharmaceuticals Oct 23-24, 2017 Dubai, UAE; 7th European Congress of Pharmacology 26-30 June 2016 stanbul, Turkey; Annual International Conference on Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Sciences (PHARMA), 26 - 27 October 2015 Bangkok, Thailand; 18th International Conference on Pharmaceutical Sciences and Pharmacology January 21-22,2016 Paris, France; 117th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics March 8 - 12, 2016 San Diego, California, USA; World congress on pharma and Advanced Clinical Research November 6-8, 2017, Singapore; American Board of Toxicology; Society of Toxicology ; Society of Toxicology of Canada; EUROTOX; Academy of Toxicological Sciences; International Union of Toxicology; American College of Medical Toxicology; Argentine Toxicological Association; Austrian Society of Toxicology; Colombia Society of Toxicology

Track 10: Genetic Toxicology

Genetic toxicology is of the toxic effects of harm to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Genetic info, programmed chemically in DNA, is conserved, simulated and transmitted to consecutive generations with high reliability. Damage to DNA can happen through usual biological procedure or as the result of contact of DNA, directly or indirectly, with biochemical, physical or agents. Genetic toxicology over the years has been to examine mechanisms of inheritance by providing tools to study DNA and RNA structure, DNA repair and the role of mutation at both the individual and population levels

Genetic Conferences | Medical Toxicology Conferences | Genetic Toxicology Conferences

9th Euro-Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology June 22-24, 2017 Paris, France; 3rd Global Genomics and Toxicogenomics Meeting September 27-28, 2017 Chicago, USA; 10th Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology July 20-22, 2017 Chicago, USA; 12th International Conference on Environmental Toxicology and Ecological Risk Assessment October 19-20, 2017 Atlanta, USA; 11th Global Toxicology and Risk Management Meeting October 10-12, 2017 London, UK; Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry North America 38th Annual Meeting, November 1216, 2017, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States; 53rd European Societies of Toxicology, September 10-13, 2017, Bratislava, Slovak; 19th International Conference on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, March 29 - 30, 2017 Singapore, SG; 15th International Conference on Toxicology and Clinical Pharmacology December 14-16, 2017 Dubai, UAE; 56th Annual Meeting of Society of Toxicology March 12-16, 2017 Baltimore USA; Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry North America 38th Annual Meeting, November 1216, 2017, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States; Society of Toxicology; Society of Toxicology of Canada; EUROTOX; Academy of Toxicological Sciences; International Union of Toxicology; American College of Medical Toxicology; Argentine Toxicological Association; Austrian Society of Toxicology; Colombia Society of Toxicology; American Board of Toxicology

Track 11: Risk assessment

Risk assessment is a methodical investigation of an assignment, job or procedure that we carry out at work for the persistence of classifying the important risks that are present. Risk assessments are very significant as they form an essential part of a virtuous occupational health and safety management strategy. They help to make consciousness of exposures and risks. Identify them who may be at risk. The identification, assessment, and valuation of the levels of risks complicated in a situation, their assessment against standards, and determination of an acceptable level of risk

Risk Assessment Conferences | Occupational Conferences | Toxicology Conferences

11th Global Toxicology and Risk Management Meeting October 10-12, 2017 London, UK; 9th Euro-Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology June 22-24, 2017 Paris, France; 3rd Global Genomics and Toxicogenomics Meeting September 27-28, 2017 Chicago, USA; 10th Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology July 20-22, 2017 Chicago, USA; 12th International Conference on Environmental Toxicology and Ecological Risk Assessment October 19-20, 2017 Atlanta, USA; 53rd European Societies of Toxicology, September 10-13, 2017, Bratislava, Slovak; 19th International Conference on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, March 29 - 30, 2017 Singapore, SG; 15th International Conference on Toxicology and Clinical Pharmacology December 14-16, 2017 Dubai, UAE; 56th Annual Meeting of Society of Toxicology March 12-16, 2017 Baltimore USA; Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry North America 38th Annual Meeting, November 1216, 2017, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States; Society of Toxicology; Society of Toxicology of Canada; EUROTOX; Academy of Toxicological Sciences; International Union of Toxicology; American College of Medical Toxicology; Argentine Toxicological Association; Austrian Society of Toxicology; Colombia Society of Toxicology; American Board of Toxicology

Track 12: Environmental and Occupational Toxicology

Environmental Toxicology is the investigation of effects of contaminations on the structure and capacity of biological communities. It does exclude the regular poisons, additionally the synthetic chemicals and their impact on the earth. It relies on upon the impacts of the toxicants on the organic chemistry and physiology. The principle motivation behind the natural toxicology is to recognize the mode/site of the activity of a xenobiotic. It additionally incorporate how the chemicals travel through biological systems and how they are consumed and metabolized by plants and creatures, the instruments by which they cause illness, result in inherent deformities, or toxin living beings

Environmental Toxicology Conferences | Ecologic Conferences | Occupational Conferences

12th International Conference on Environmental Toxicology and Ecological Risk Assessment October 19-20, 2017 Atlanta, USA; 9th Euro-Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology June 22-24, 2017 Paris, France; 11th Global Toxicology and Risk Management Meeting October 10-12, 2017 London, UK; 3rd Global Genomics and Toxicogenomics Meeting September 27-28, 2017 Chicago, USA; 10th Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology July 20-22, 2017 Chicago, USA; 12th International Conference on Environmental Toxicology and Ecological Risk Assessment October 19-20, 2017 Atlanta, USA; 53rd European Societies of Toxicology, September 10-13, 2017, Bratislava, Slovak; 19th International Conference on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, March 29 - 30, 2017 Singapore, SG; 15th International Conference on Toxicology and Clinical Pharmacology December 14-16, 2017 Dubai, UAE; 56th Annual Meeting of Society of Toxicology March 12-16, 2017 Baltimore USA; Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry North America 38th Annual Meeting, November 1216, 2017, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States; Academy of Toxicological Sciences; International Union of Toxicology; American College of Medical Toxicology; Argentine Toxicological Association; Colombia Society of Toxicology; American Board of Toxicology; Society of Toxicology; Society of Toxicology of Canada

Track 13: Experimental Toxicology

Protection of any live non-human vertebrate drifting animals of a tame species shall not be used in processes. The take care of animals used in processes, including management, shall have had suitable education and preparation. Experimental Toxicology widely covers all features of experimental and clinical studies of functional, biochemical and structural disorder. Validity announcements are also given in valuation procedures particularly if a skilled must choose which data of.

Experimental Conferences | Toxicology Conferences | Pharmaceutical Conferences

10th Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology July 20-22, 2017 Chicago, USA;9th Euro-Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology June 22-24, 2017 Paris, France; 12th International Conference on Environmental Toxicology and Ecological Risk Assessment October 19-20, 2017 Atlanta, USA; 3rd Global Genomics and Toxicogenomics Meeting September 27-28, 2017 Chicago, USA; 11th Global Toxicology and Risk Management Meeting October 10-12, 2017 London, UK; 12th International Conference on Environmental Toxicology and Ecological Risk Assessment October 19-20, 2017 Atlanta, USA; 53rd European Societies of Toxicology, September 10-13, 2017, Bratislava, Slovak; 19th International Conference on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, March 29 - 30, 2017 Singapore, SG; 15th International Conference on Toxicology and Clinical Pharmacology December 14-16, 2017 Dubai, UAE; 56th Annual Meeting of Society of Toxicology March 12-16, 2017 Baltimore USA; Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry North America 38th Annual Meeting, November 1216, 2017, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States; American College of Medical Toxicology; Argentine Toxicological Association; American Board of Toxicology; Society of Toxicology; Society of Toxicology of Canada

Track 14: Immunotoxicology

Immunotoxicology offers a critical assessment of planned experimental animal models and methods, and discusses the influence that immunotoxicity can make to the overall valuation of chemical-induced adverse health effects on individuals and the ecosystem. Animal models of autoimmunity associated with chemical exposure, includes recommendations for the selection of sentinel species in ecotoxicology

Immunological Conferences | Immunotoxicology Conferences | Toxicity Conferences

12th International Conference on Environmental Toxicology and Ecological Risk Assessment October 19-20, 2017 Atlanta, USA; 9th Euro-Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology June 22-24, 2017 Paris, France; 3rd Global Genomics and Toxicogenomics Meeting September 27-28, 2017 Chicago, USA; 11th Global Toxicology and Risk Management Meeting October 10-12, 2017 London, UK; 10th Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology July 20-22, 2017 Chicago, USA; 12th International Conference on Environmental Toxicology and Ecological Risk Assessment October 19-20, 2017 Atlanta, USA; 53rd European Societies of Toxicology, September 10-13, 2017, Bratislava, Slovak; 19th International Conference on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, March 29 - 30, 2017 Singapore, SG; 15th International Conference on Toxicology and Clinical Pharmacology December 14-16, 2017 Dubai, UAE; 56th Annual Meeting of Society of Toxicology March 12-16, 2017 Baltimore USA; Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry North America 38th Annual Meeting, November 1216, 2017, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States; Academy of Toxicological Sciences; International Union of Toxicology; American College of Medical Toxicology; Argentine Toxicological Association; Colombia Society of Toxicology; American Board of Toxicology; Society of Toxicology

Track 15: Toxicity Testing

Toxicity is key to evaluate potential dangers to people through the intense, sub endless, and interminable presentation of creatures to pesticides. The more correct sorts of harmfulness that are resolved incorporate cancer-causing nature; developing incorporating teratogenicity in regenerative danger and neurotoxicity the degree of metabolite testing required relies on upon the level of conceivable poisonous quality and ecological steadiness of the metabolite. A toxicity test, by augmentation, is intended to create information in regards to the antagonistic impacts of a material on human or creature wellbeing, or the earth.

Toxicology Conferences | Toxicity Conferences | Pharmaceutical Conferences

9th Euro-Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology June 22-24, 2017 Paris, France; 11th Global Toxicology and Risk Management Meeting October 10-12, 2017 London, UK; 10th Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology July 20-22, 2017 Chicago, USA; 3rd Global Genomics and Toxicogenomics Meeting September 27-28, 2017 Chicago, USA; 12th International Conference on Environmental Toxicology and Ecological Risk Assessment October 19-20, 2017 Atlanta, USA; Stem Cells in Drug Discovery & Toxicity Screening, July 10-11, 2017, Boston, USA; 2nd International Conference on Pollutant Toxic Ions and Molecules, 6 - 9 November 2017, Lisbon, Portugal; Predicting Drug Toxicity, June 13-14, 2017, Boston, USA 5th Immunogenicity & Immunotoxicity Conference, one of three parallel tracks to the ImmunoTX Summit on February 6-7, 2017 in San Diego, CA; 19th International Conference on Predictive Human Toxicity, February 16 - 17, 2017, London, United Kingdom; American Board of Toxicology; Society of Toxicology; Society of Toxicology of Canada; EUROTOX; Academy of Toxicological Sciences International Union of Toxicology; Argentine Toxicological Association; Austrian Society of Toxicology; Colombia Society of Toxicology; American College of Medical Toxicology

Toxicology 2016

6th Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology was hosted by the Conference Series LLC in Houston, USA during October 17-19, 2016. The conference was focused on the theme "Bringing together leading researchers to share pragmatic insights" and facilitated by the Conference Series LLC. Liberal reaction and cooperation was received from the Editorial Board Members of Conference Series LLC Journals, Toxicology-2016 Organizing Committee Members, and from researchers, analysts and pioneers in Toxicology.

The conference was started by the Keynote Forum and we are chuffed to thank all our Keynote Speakers, Honorable Guests, Speakers and Conference Attendees for creating a successful meeting.

The conference has encrusted through the following sessions:

We would like to specially mention our Keynote Speakers who participated very enthusiastically and actively

The speakers gave their productive commitment as exceptionally enlightening presentations and made the meeting an extraordinary achievement.

We thank all the members who supported the conference by encouraging the healthy discussions. Conference Series LLC expresses gratitude to the Organizing Committee Members for their generous nearness, support and help towards Toxicology-2016. After the immense idealistic reaction from logical crew, prestigious identities and the Editorial Board individuals from Conference Series LLC, we are pleased to announce our forth coming conference 10th Global Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology" to be held in Chicago, USA during July 20-22, 2017.

We anticipate your precious presence at the Toxicology-2017 Conference.

Let us meet again @ Toxicology-2017

Toxicology 2015

Toxicology 2015 Past Conference Report

Conference Series LLC is the proud host of the4thGlobal Summit on Toxicologywhich took place inPhiladelphia, USAduringAugust 24-26, 2015with the theme,Exploring the Tailored Strategies and Lucid Technologies in Toxicology and Pharmacology.The Editorial Board Members of Conference Series LLC Journals and the Organizing Committee Members of the conference have extended their unsparing support and active participation towards Toxicology 2015. The participants included eminent speakers, scientists, industrialists, delegates, researchers and students who thoroughly relished the conference.

The core of the conference revolved around interactive sessions on the following scientific tracks:

This event is a collaborative effort and Conference Series LLC would like to thank the following people for making this conference a grand success:

Moderators

Keynote Speakers

We would sincerely thank the distinguished speakers who resplendently conducted workshops on Genotoxicity:

The conference marked its start by an opening ceremony which included introduction by the Honorable Guests and the Members of Keynote Forum. All the speakers have extended their contribution in the form of highly informative presentations to lead the conference to the ladder of success. Conference Series LLC extends its warm gratitude towards all the Participants, Eminent Speakers, Young Researchers, Delegates and Students.

All accepted abstracts have been indexed inConference Series LLCjournal, theJournal ofClinical Toxicologyas a special issue.

After the huge optimistic response from scientific fraternity, renowned personalities and the Editorial Board Members ofConference Series LLCfrom across the world,Conference Series LLCis pleased to announce the5thGlobal Summit on Toxicology and Applied Pharmacologyto be held duringOctober 17-19, 2016inHouston, Texas, USA.

We look forward to welcoming you to theToxicology 2016Conference and hope that the event will be both informative and enjoyable.

Toxicology-2014

Toxicology 2014 Past Conference Report

The3rdInternational Summit on Toxicology & Applied Pharmacologytook place inChicago, USAonOctober 20-22, 2014. The conference was titled: New Challenges and Innovations in Pharmacological and Toxicological Sciences and hosted by theConference Series LLC. Generous response and active participation was received from the Editorial Board Members ofConference Series LLCJournals, Toxicology-2014 Organizing Committee Members, as well as from scientists, researchers and leaders in Toxicology.

Students from various parts of the world took active participation in poster presentations. Students who presented well were awarded Best Poster Presentations for their outstanding contribution in the field of Toxicology.

The conference was carried out through various sessions and the discussions were held on the following scientific tracks:

The conference was opened by introductions from the honorable guests and members of the keynote forum. On the first day of opening the keynote speakers were,

Gerhard Eisenbrand,University of Kaiserslautern, Germany

Pavel Vodicka,Institute of Experimental Medicine, Czech Republic

Anne Marie Vinggaard,Technical University of Denmark, Denmark

Special session was conducted by Carter Cliff, Cellular Dynamics International, USA on the topic Pluripotent stem cell models-Application in toxicology and beyond, Heres-Pulido M E, Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico on the topic The Somatic Mutation and Recombination Test (SMART) in Drosophila melanogaster.

Symposium conducted by Cinzia Forni from University of Rome Tor Vergata, Italy and Hemant Misra from Prolong Pharmaceuticals, USA and the title of the Symposium is Stress response in living organisms exposed to pollutants.

All the speakers gave their fruitful contribution in the form of highly informative presentations and made the conference a great success.

All accepted abstracts have been indexed inConference Series LLCJournal of Clinical Toxicologyas a special issue.

Toxicology-2013

Toxicology 2013 Past Conference Report

The2ndInternational Summit on Toxicologytook place inLas Vegas, USAonOctober 07-09, 2013.The conference was titled: Insight into the Global Issues of Toxicology and hosted by theConference Series LLC. Generous response and active participation was received from the Editorial Board Members ofConference Series LLCJournals, Organizing Committee Members, scientists, researchers, clinical experts and leaders from the field of Toxicology.

Original post:
Toxicology Conferences 2017 | Pharmacology Conferences ...

Read More...

Propofol – Wikipedia

January 21st, 2017 4:45 am

Propofol, marketed as Diprivan among others, is a short-acting medication that results in a decreased level of consciousness and lack of memory for events.[2] Its uses include the starting and maintenance of general anesthesia, sedation for mechanically ventilated adults, and procedural sedation. It is also used for status epilepticus if other medications have not worked. It is given intravenously. Maximum effect takes about two minutes to occur and it typically lasts five to ten minutes.[2]

Common side effects include an irregular heart rate, low blood pressure, burning sensation at the site of injection, and the stopping of breathing. Other serious side effects may include seizures, infections with improper use, addiction, and propofol infusion syndrome with long-term use. It appears to be safe for using during pregnancy but has not been well studied in this group. However, it is not recommended during cesarean section.[2] Propofol is not a pain medication, so opioids such as morphine may also be used.[3] Whether or not they are always needed is unclear.[4] Propofol is believed to work at least partly via the receptor for GABA.[2]

Propofol was discovered in 1977.[5] It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the most effective and safe medicines needed in a health system.[6] It is available as a generic medication.[2] The wholesale price in the developing world is between 0.61 and 8.50 USD per vial.[7] It has been referred to as milk of amnesia because of the milk-like appearance of the intravenous preparation.[8] Propofol is also used in veterinary medicine.[9]

Propofol is used for induction and maintenance (in some cases) of anesthesia, having largely replaced sodium thiopental.[3] It can also be administered as part of an anaesthesia maintenance technique called total intravenous anesthesia using either manually-programmed infusion pumps or computer-controlled infusion pumps in a process called target controlled infusion or TCI. Propofol is also used to sedate individuals who are receiving mechanical ventilation but are not undergoing surgery, such as patients in the intensive care unit. In critically ill patients, propofol has been found to be superior to lorazepam both in effectiveness and overall cost.[10]

Propofol is often used instead of sodium thiopental for starting anesthesia because recovery from propofol is more rapid and "clear."

Propofol is also used for procedural sedation. Its use in these settings results in a faster recovery compared to midazolam.[11] It can also be combined with opioids or benzodiazepines.[12][13][14] Because of its fast induction and recovery time, propofol is also widely used for sedation of infants and children undergoing MRI.[15] It is also often used in combination with ketamine as the two together have lower rates of side effects.[16]

The Missouri Supreme Court decided to allow the use of propofol to execute prisoners condemned to death. However, the first execution by administration of a lethal dose of propofol was halted on 11 October 2013 by governor Jay Nixon following threats from the European Union to limit the drug's export if it were used for that purpose.[17][18] The United Kingdom had already banned the export of medicines or veterinary medicines containing propofol to the United States.[19]

Recreational use of the drug via self-administration has been reported[20][21] (including among medical professionals, see below), but is relatively rare due to its potency and the level of monitoring required for safe use.[citation needed] Critically, the steep dose-response curve of the drug makes potential misuse very dangerous without proper monitoring, and deaths from self-administration continue to be reported.[22][23]

The short-term effects sought via recreational use include mild euphoria, hallucinations, and disinhibition.[24][25] The euphoria caused by propofol has been reported to be unlike that caused by other sedation agents; as one anesthetist reported, "I... remember my first experience using [administering] propofol: a young woman... emerging from a MAC anesthesia looked at me as though I were a masked Brad Pitt and told me that she felt simply wonderful."[26]

Recreational use of the drug has been described among medical staff, such as anesthetists who have access to the drug,[27] and is reportedly more common among anesthetists on rotations with short rest periods (as rousing is to a well-rested state).[28] Long-term use has been reported to result in addiction.[27][29]

Attention to the risks of off-label use of propofol increased in August 2009 due to the Los Angeles County coroner's conclusion that music icon Michael Jackson died from a mixture of propofol and the benzodiazepine drugs lorazepam and diazepam on June 25, 2009, the propofol sometimes administered orally.[30][31][32][33] According to a 22 July 2009 search warrant affidavit unsealed by the district court of Harris County, Texas, Jackson's personal physician, Conrad Murray, administered 25 milligrams of propofol diluted with lidocaine shortly before Jackson's death.[31][32][34] Even so, as of 2016 propofol was not on a U.S Drug Enforcement Administration schedule.[28][35]

One of propofol's most frequent side effects is pain on injection, especially in smaller veins. This pain arises from activation of the pain receptor, TRPA1,[36] found on sensory nerves and can be mitigated by pretreatment with lidocaine.[37] Less pain is experienced when infused at a slower rate in a large vein (antecubital fossa). Patients show great variability in their response to propofol, at times showing profound sedation with small doses.

Additional side effects include low blood pressure related to vasodilation, transient apnea following induction doses, and cerebrovascular effects. Propofol has more pronounced hemodynamic effects relative to many intravenous anesthetic agents.[38] Reports of blood pressure drops of 30% or more are thought to be at least partially due to inhibition of sympathetic nerve activity.[39] This effect is related to dose and rate of propofol administration. It may also be potentiated by opioid analgesics.[40] Propofol can also cause decreased systemic vascular resistance, myocardial blood flow, and oxygen consumption, possibly through direct vasodilation.[41] There are also reports that it may cause green discolouration of the urine.[42]

As a respiratory depressant, propofol frequently produces apnea. The persistence of apnea can depend on factors such as premedication, dose administered, and rate of administration, and may sometimes persist for longer than 60 seconds.[43] Possibly as the result of depression of the central inspiratory drive, propofol may produce significant decreases in respiratory rate, minute volume, tidal volume, mean inspiratory flow rate, and functional residual capacity.[38]

Diminishing cerebral blood flow, cerebral metabolic oxygen consumption, and intracranial pressure are also characteristics of propofol administration.[44] In addition, propofol may decrease intraocular pressure by as much as 50% in patients with normal intraocular pressure.[45]

A more serious but rare side effect is dystonia.[46] Mild myoclonic movements are common, as with other intravenous hypnotic agents. Propofol appears to be safe for use in porphyria, and has not been known to trigger malignant hyperpyrexia.[citation needed]

Propofol is also reported to induce priapism in some individuals,[47][48] and has been observed to suppress REM sleep stage and to worsen the poor sleep quality in some patients.[49]

As with any other general anesthetic agent, propofol should be administered only where appropriately trained staff and facilities for monitoring are available, as well as proper airway management, a supply of supplemental oxygen, artificial ventilation, and cardiovascular resuscitation.[50]

Another recently described rare, but serious, side effect is propofol infusion syndrome. This potentially lethal metabolic derangement has been reported in critically ill patients after a prolonged infusion of high-dose substance in combination with catecholamines and/or corticosteroids.[51]

People with this gene have trouble processing sulphites (one of the potential ingredients), and should discuss use of this drug with their specialist.

The respiratory effects of propofol are increased if given with other respiratory depressants, including benzodiazepines.[52]

Propofol has been proposed to have several mechanisms of action,[53][54][55] both through potentiation of GABAA receptor activity, thereby slowing the channel-closing time,[56][57][58] and also acting as a sodium channel blocker.[59][60] Recent research has also suggested that the endocannabinoid system may contribute significantly to propofol's anesthetic action and to its unique properties.[61]EEG research upon those undergoing general anesthesia with propofol finds that it causes a prominent reduction in the brain's information integration capacity at gamma wave band frequencies.[62]

Researchers have identified the site where propofol binds to GABAA receptors in the brain, on the second transmembrane domain of the beta subunit of the GABA A receptor.[63]

Propofol is highly protein-bound in vivo and is metabolised by conjugation in the liver.[64] The half-life of elimination of propofol has been estimated to be between 2 and 24 hours. However, its duration of clinical effect is much shorter, because propofol is rapidly distributed into peripheral tissues. When used for IV sedation, a single dose of propofol typically wears off within minutes. Propofol is versatile; the drug can be given for short or prolonged sedation, as well as for general anesthesia. Its use is not associated with nausea as is often seen with opioid medications. These characteristics of rapid onset and recovery along with its amnestic effects[65] have led to its widespread use for sedation and anesthesia.

Propofol was originally developed in the UK by Imperial Chemical Industries as ICI 35868. Clinical trials followed in 1977, using a form solubilised in cremophor EL. However, due to anaphylactic reactions to cremophor, this formulation was withdrawn from the market and subsequently reformulated as an emulsion of a soya oil/propofol mixture in water. The emulsified formulation was relaunched in 1986 by ICI (now AstraZeneca) under the brand name Diprivan. The currently available preparation is 1% propofol, 10% soybean oil, and 1.2% purified egg phospholipid as an emulsifier, with 2.25% glycerol as a tonicity-adjusting agent, and sodium hydroxide to adjust the pH. Diprivan contains EDTA, a common chelation agent, that also acts alone (bacteriostatically against some bacteria) and synergistically with some other antimicrobial agents. Newer generic formulations contain sodium metabisulfite or benzyl alcohol as antimicrobial agents. Propofol emulsion is a highly opaque white fluid due to the scattering of light from the tiny (about 150-nm) oil droplets it contains.

A water-soluble prodrug form, fospropofol, has recently been developed and tested with positive results. Fospropofol is rapidly broken down by the enzyme alkaline phosphatase to form propofol. Marketed as Lusedra, this new formulation may not produce the pain at injection site that often occurs with the traditional form of the drug. The US Food and Drug Administration approved the product in 2008.[66] However fospropofol is a Schedule IV controlled substance with the DEA ACSCN of 2138 in the United States unlike propofol.[67]

On 4 June 2010, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., an Israel-based pharmaceutical firm and a major supplier of the drug, announced the firm would no longer manufacture it. This aggravates an already existing shortage, caused by manufacturing difficulties at Teva and Hospira. A Teva spokesperson attributed the halt to ongoing process difficulties, and a number of pending lawsuits related to the drug.[68] In Switzerland, various preparations of the drug are supplied by Fresenius-Kabi, a German company.

By incorporation of an azobenzene unit, a photoswitchable version of propofol (AP2) was developed in 2012 that allows for optical control of GABAA receptors with light.[69] In 2013, a propofol binding site on mammalian GABAA receptors has been identified by photolabeling using a Diazirine derivative.[70] Additionally, it was shown that the hyaluronan polymer present in the synovia can be protected from free-radical synovia by propofol.[71]

Propofol is one of the chemicals used in the manufacture of Avasamibe (ACAT inhibitor).

Read more:
Propofol - Wikipedia

Read More...

Integrative Medicine | Carin Nielsen, MD Serving Northern …

January 21st, 2017 4:45 am

Are you ready for a fresh approach to your health?Whether you have a chronic medical condition, want to lose weight, have a specific concern, or are simply looking to optimize your general health, Dr. Carin Nielsen can work with you to create a health care plan that is personalized for your individual needs.

Working with an experienced, board-certified physician makes a difference.

Dr. Nielsens innovative approach to treating a variety of medical concerns begins as soon as you walk through the door. One of the hallmarks that sets Dr. Nielsen apart from other physicians is the amount of time she spends getting to know you and discussing your concerns. Your questions will be answered and you will leave with the comfort of knowing that you are receiving a higher level of medical care than you have experienced in the past. Physician services include:

We are Petoskey's Integrative Medicine Specialists, providing Integrative and Functional Medicine and Medical Weight Loss in Petoskey, Harbor Springs, Bay Harbor, Walloon Lake, and across Northern Michigan.

Read the original:
Integrative Medicine | Carin Nielsen, MD Serving Northern ...

Read More...

gene therapy facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com …

January 21st, 2017 4:44 am

Gene therapy is a rapidly growing field of medicine in which genes are introduced into the body to treat diseases. Genes control heredity and provide the basic biological code for determining a cell's specific functions. Gene therapy seeks to provide genes that correct or supplant the disease-controlling functions of cells that are not, in essence, doing their job. Somatic gene therapy introduces therapeutic genes at the tissue or cellular level to treat a specific individual. Germ-line gene therapy inserts genes into reproductive cells or possibly into embryos to correct genetic defects that could be passed on to future generations. Initially conceived as an approach for treating inherited diseases, like cystic fibrosis and Huntington's disease, the scope of potential gene therapies has grown to include treatments for cancers, arthritis, and infectious diseases. Although gene therapy testing in humans has advanced rapidly, many questions surround its use. For example, some scientists are concerned that the therapeutic genes themselves may cause disease. Others fear that germ-line gene therapy may be used to control human development in ways not connected with disease, like intelligence or appearance.

Gene therapy has grown out of the science of genetics or how heredity works. Scientists know that life begins in a cell, the basic building block of all multicellular organisms. Humans, for instance, are made up of trillions of cells, each performing a specific function. Within the cell's nucleus (the center part of a cell that regulates its chemical functions) are pairs of chromosomes. These threadlike structures are made up of a single molecule of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), which carries the blueprint of life in the form of codes, or genes, that determine inherited characteristics.

A DNA molecule looks like two ladders with one of the sides taken off both and then twisted around each other. The rungs of these ladders meet (resulting in a spiral staircase-like structure) and are called base pairs. Base pairs are made up of nitrogen molecules and arranged in specific sequences. Millions of these base pairs, or sequences, can make up a single gene, specifically defined as a segment of the chromosome and DNA that contains certain hereditary information. The gene, or combination of genes formed by these base pairs ultimately direct an organism's growth and characteristics through the production of certain chemicals, primarily proteins, which carry out most of the body's chemical functions and biological reactions.

Scientists have long known that alterations in genes present within cells can cause inherited diseases like cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, and hemophilia. Similarly, errors in the total number of chromosomes can cause conditions such as Down syndrome or Turner's syndrome. As the study of genetics advanced, however, scientists learned that an altered genetic sequence also can make people more susceptible to diseases, like atherosclerosis, cancer, and even schizophrenia. These diseases have a genetic component, but also are influenced by environmental factors (like diet and lifestyle). The objective of gene therapy is to treat diseases by introducing functional genes into the body to alter the cells involved in the disease process by either replacing missing genes or providing copies of functioning genes to replace nonfunctioning ones. The inserted genes can be naturally-occurring genes that produce the desired effect or may be genetically engineered (or altered) genes.

Scientists have known how to manipulate a gene's structure in the laboratory since the early 1970s through a process called gene splicing. The process involves removing a fragment of DNA containing the specific genetic sequence desired, then inserting it into the DNA of another gene. The resultant product is called recombinant DNA and the process is genetic engineering.

There are basically two types of gene therapy. Germ-line gene therapy introduces genes into reproductive cells (sperm and eggs) or someday possibly into embryos in hopes of correcting genetic abnormalities that could be passed on to future generations. Most of the current work in applying gene therapy, however, has been in the realm of somatic gene therapy. In this type of gene therapy, therapeutic genes are inserted into tissue or cells to produce a naturally occurring protein or substance that is lacking or not functioning correctly in an individual patient.

In both types of therapy, scientists need something to transport either the entire gene or a recombinant DNA to the cell's nucleus, where the chromosomes and DNA reside. In essence, vectors are molecular delivery trucks. One of the first and most popular vectors developed were viruses because they invade cells as part of the natural infection process. Viruses have the potential to be excellent vectors because they have a specific relationship with the host in that they colonize certain cell types and tissues in specific organs. As a result, vectors are chosen according to their attraction to certain cells and areas of the body.

One of the first vectors used was retroviruses. Because these viruses are easily cloned (artificially reproduced) in the laboratory, scientists have studied them extensively and learned a great deal about their biological action. They also have learned how to remove the genetic information that governs viral replication, thus reducing the chances of infection.

Retroviruses work best in actively dividing cells, but cells in the body are relatively stable and do not divide often. As a result, these cells are used primarily for ex vivo (outside the body) manipulation. First, the cells are removed from the patient's body, and the virus, or vector, carrying the gene is inserted into them. Next, the cells are placed into a nutrient culture where they grow and replicate. Once enough cells are gathered, they are returned to the body, usually by injection into the blood stream. Theoretically, as long as these cells survive, they will provide the desired therapy.

Another class of viruses, called the adenoviruses, also may prove to be good gene vectors. These viruses can effectively infect nondividing cells in the body, where the desired gene product then is expressed naturally. In addition to being a more efficient approach to gene transportation, these viruses, which cause respiratory infections, are more easily purified and made stable than retroviruses, resulting in less chance of an unwanted viral infection. However, these viruses live for several days in the body, and some concern surrounds the possibility of infecting others with the viruses through sneezing or coughing. Other viral vectors include influenza viruses, Sindbis virus, and a herpes virus that infects nerve cells.

Scientists also have delved into nonviral vectors. These vectors rely on the natural biological process in which cells uptake (or gather) macromolecules. One approach is to use liposomes, globules of fat produced by the body and taken up by cells. Scientists also are investigating the introduction of raw recombinant DNA by injecting it into the bloodstream or placing it on microscopic beads of gold shot into the skin with a "gene-gun." Another possible vector under development is based on dendrimer molecules. A class of polymers (naturally occurring or artificial substances that have a high molecular weight and formed by smaller molecules of the same or similar substances), is "constructed" in the laboratory by combining these smaller molecules. They have been used in manufacturing Styrofoam, polyethylene cartons, and Plexiglass. In the laboratory, dendrimers have shown the ability to transport genetic material into human cells. They also can be designed to form an affinity for particular cell membranes by attaching to certain sugars and protein groups.

In the early 1970s, scientists proposed "gene surgery" for treating inherited diseases caused by faulty genes. The idea was to take out the disease-causing gene and surgically implant a gene that functioned properly. Although sound in theory, scientists, then and now, lack the biological knowledge or technical expertise needed to perform such a precise surgery in the human body.

However, in 1983, a group of scientists from Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, proposed that gene therapy could one day be a viable approach for treating Lesch-Nyhan disease, a rare neurological disorder. The scientists conducted experiments in which an enzyme-producing gene (a specific type of protein) for correcting the disease was injected into a group of cells for replication. The scientists theorized the cells could then be injected into people with Lesch-Nyhan disease, thus correcting the genetic defect that caused the disease.

As the science of genetics advanced throughout the 1980s, gene therapy gained an established foothold in the minds of medical scientists as a promising approach to treatments for specific diseases. One of the major reasons for the growth of gene therapy was scientists' increasing ability to identify the specific genetic malfunctions that caused inherited diseases. Interest grew as further studies of DNA and chromosomes (where genes reside) showed that specific genetic abnormalities in one or more genes occurred in successive generations of certain family members who suffered from diseases like intestinal cancer, bipolar disorder, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, diabetes, and many more. Although the genes may not be the only cause of the disease in all cases, they may make certain individuals more susceptible to developing the disease because of environmental influences, like smoking, pollution, and stress. In fact, some scientists theorize that all diseases may have a genetic component.

On September 14, 1990, a four-year old girl suffering from a genetic disorder that prevented her body from producing a crucial enzyme became the first person to undergo gene therapy in the United States. Because her body could not produce adenosine deaminase (ADA), she had a weakened immune system, making her extremely susceptible to severe, life-threatening infections. W. French Anderson and colleagues at the National Institutes of Health's Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, took white blood cells (which are crucial to proper immune system functioning) from the girl, inserted ADA producing genes into them, and then transfused the cells back into the patient. Although the young girl continued to show an increased ability to produce ADA, debate arose as to whether the improvement resulted from the gene therapy or from an additional drug treatment she received.

Nevertheless, a new era of gene therapy began as more and more scientists sought to conduct clinical trial (testing in humans) research in this area. In that same year, gene therapy was tested on patients suffering from melanoma (skin cancer). The goal was to help them produce antibodies (disease fighting substances in the immune system) to battle the cancer.

These experiments have spawned an ever growing number of attempts at gene therapies designed to perform a variety of functions in the body. For example, a gene therapy for cystic fibrosis aims to supply a gene that alters cells, enabling them to produce a specific protein to battle the disease. Another approach was used for brain cancer patients, in which the inserted gene was designed to make the cancer cells more likely to respond to drug treatment. Another gene therapy approach for patients suffering from artery blockage, which can lead to strokes, induces the growth of new blood vessels near clogged arteries, thus ensuring normal blood circulation.

Currently, there are a host of new gene therapy agents in clinical trials. In the United States, both nucleic acid based (in vivo ) treatments and cell-based (ex vivo ) treatments are being investigated. Nucleic acid based gene therapy uses vectors (like viruses) to deliver modified genes to target cells. Cell-based gene therapy techniques remove cells from the patient in order to genetically alter them then reintroduce them to the patient's body. Presently, gene therapies for the following diseases are being developed: cystic fibrosis (using adenoviral vector), HIV infection (cell-based), malignant melanoma (cell-based), Duchenne muscular dystrophy (cell-based), hemophilia B (cell-based), kidney cancer (cell-based), Gaucher's Disease (retroviral vector), breast cancer (retroviral vector), and lung cancer (retroviral vector). When a cell or individual is treated using gene therapy and successful incorporation of engineered genes has occurred, the cell or individual is said to be transgenic.

The medical establishment's contribution to transgenic research has been supported by increased government funding. In 1991, the U.S. government provided $58 million for gene therapy research, with increases in funding of $15-40 million dollars a year over the following four years. With fierce competition over the promise of societal benefit in addition to huge profits, large pharmaceutical corporations have moved to the forefront of transgenic research. In an effort to be first in developing new therapies, and armed with billions of dollars of research funds, such corporations are making impressive strides toward making gene therapy a viable reality in the treatment of once elusive diseases.

The potential scope of gene therapy is enormous. More than 4,200 diseases have been identified as resulting directly from abnormal genes, and countless others that may be partially influenced by a person's genetic makeup. Initial research has concentrated on developing gene therapies for diseases whose genetic origins have been established and for other diseases that can be cured or improved by substances genes produce.

The following are examples of potential gene therapies. People suffering from cystic fibrosis lack a gene needed to produce a salt-regulating protein. This protein regulates the flow of chloride into epithelial cells, (the cells that line the inner and outer skin layers) that cover the air passages of the nose and lungs. Without this regulation, patients with cystic fibrosis build up a thick mucus that makes them prone to lung infections. A gene therapy technique to correct this abnormality might employ an adenovirus to transfer a normal copy of what scientists call the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator, or CTRF, gene. The gene is introduced into the patient by spraying it into the nose or lungs. Researchers announced in 2004 that they had, for the first time, treated a dominant neurogenerative disease called Spinocerebella ataxia type 1, with gene therapy. This could lead to treating similar diseases such as Huntingtons disease. They also announced a single intravenous injection could deliver therapy to all muscles, perhaps providing hope to people with muscular dystrophy.

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) also is an inherited disease, resulting in the inability to process cholesterol properly, which leads to high levels of artery-clogging fat in the blood stream. Patients with FH often suffer heart attacks and strokes because of blocked arteries. A gene therapy approach used to battle FH is much more intricate than most gene therapies because it involves partial surgical removal of patients' livers (ex vivo transgene therapy). Corrected copies of a gene that serve to reduce cholesterol build-up are inserted into the liver sections, which then are transplanted back into the patients.

Gene therapy also has been tested on patients with AIDS. AIDS is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which weakens the body's immune system to the point that sufferers are unable to fight off diseases like pneumonias and cancer. In one approach, genes that produce specific HIV proteins have been altered to stimulate immune system functioning without causing the negative effects that a complete HIV molecule has on the immune system. These genes are then injected in the patient's blood stream. Another approach to treating AIDS is to insert, via white blood cells, genes that have been genetically engineered to produce a receptor that would attract HIV and reduce its chances of replicating. In 2004, researchers reported that had developed a new vaccine concept for HIV, but the details were still in development.

Several cancers also have the potential to be treated with gene therapy. A therapy tested for melanoma, or skin cancer, involves introducing a gene with an anticancer protein called tumor necrosis factor (TNF) into test tube samples of the patient's own cancer cells, which are then reintroduced into the patient. In brain cancer, the approach is to insert a specific gene that increases the cancer cells' susceptibility to a common drug used in fighting the disease. In 2003, researchers reported that they had harnessed the cell killing properties of adenoviruses to treat prostate cancer. A 2004 report said that researchers had developed a new DNA vaccine that targeted the proteins expressed in cervical cancer cells.

Gaucher disease is an inherited disease caused by a mutant gene that inhibits the production of an enzyme called glucocerebrosidase. Patients with Gaucher disease have enlarged livers and spleens and eventually their bones deteriorate. Clinical gene therapy trials focus on inserting the gene for producing this enzyme.

Gene therapy also is being considered as an approach to solving a problem associated with a surgical procedure known as balloon angioplasty. In this procedure, a stent (in this case, a type of tubular scaffolding) is used to open the clogged artery. However, in response to the trauma of the stent insertion, the body initiates a natural healing process that produces too many cells in the artery and results in restenosis, or reclosing of the artery. The gene therapy approach to preventing this unwanted side effect is to cover the outside of the stents with a soluble gel. This gel contains vectors for genes that reduce this overactive healing response.

Regularly throughout the past decade, and no doubt over future years, scientists have and will come up with new possible ways for gene therapy to help treat human disease. Recent advancements include the possibility of reversing hearing loss in humans with experimental growing of new sensory cells in adult guinea pigs, and avoiding amputation in patients with severe circulatory problems in their legs with angiogenic growth factors.

Although great strides have been made in gene therapy in a relatively short time, its potential usefulness has been limited by lack of scientific data concerning the multitude of functions that genes control in the human body. For instance, it is now known that the vast majority of genetic material does not store information for the creation of proteins, but rather is involved in the control and regulation of gene expression, and is, thus, much more difficult to interpret. Even so, each individual cell in the body carries thousands of genes coding for proteins, with some estimates as high as 150,000 genes. For gene therapy to advance to its full potential, scientists must discover the biological role of each of these individual genes and where the base pairs that make them up are located on DNA.

To address this issue, the National Institutes of Health initiated the Human Genome Project in 1990. Led by James D. Watson (one of the co-discoverers of the chemical makeup of DNA) the project's 15-year goal is to map the entire human genome (a combination of the words gene and chromosomes). A genome map would clearly identify the location of all genes as well as the more than three billion base pairs that make them up. With a precise knowledge of gene locations and functions, scientists may one day be able to conquer or control diseases that have plagued humanity for centuries.

Scientists participating in the Human Genome Project identified an average of one new gene a day, but many expected this rate of discovery to increase. By the year 2005, their goal was to determine the exact location of all the genes on human DNA and the exact sequence of the base pairs that make them up. Some of the genes identified through this project include a gene that predisposes people to obesity, one associated with programmed cell death (apoptosis), a gene that guides HIV viral reproduction, and the genes of inherited disorders like Huntington's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, and some colon and breast cancers. In April 2003, the finished sequence was announced, with 99% of the human genome's gene-containing regions mapped to an accuracy of 99.9%.

Gene therapy seems elegantly simple in its concept: supply the human body with a gene that can correct a biological malfunction that causes a disease. However, there are many obstacles and some distinct questions concerning the viability of gene therapy. For example, viral vectors must be carefully controlled lest they infect the patient with a viral disease. Some vectors, like retroviruses, also can enter cells functioning properly and interfere with the natural biological processes, possibly leading to other diseases. Other viral vectors, like the adenoviruses, often are recognized and destroyed by the immune system so their therapeutic effects are short-lived. Maintaining gene expression so it performs its role properly after vector delivery is difficult. As a result, some therapies need to be repeated often to provide long-lasting benefits.

One of the most pressing issues, however, is gene regulation. Genes work in concert to regulate their functioning. In other words, several genes may play a part in turning other genes on and off. For example, certain genes work together to stimulate cell division and growth, but if these are not regulated, the inserted genes could cause tumor formation and cancer. Another difficulty is learning how to make the gene go into action only when needed. For the best and safest therapeutic effort, a specific gene should turn on, for example, when certain levels of a protein or enzyme are low and must be replaced. But the gene also should remain dormant when not needed to ensure it doesn't oversupply a substance and disturb the body's delicate chemical makeup.

One approach to gene regulation is to attach other genes that detect certain biological activities and then react as a type of automatic off-and-on switch that regulates the activity of the other genes according to biological cues. Although still in the rudimentary stages, researchers are making headway in inhibiting some gene functioning by using a synthetic DNA to block gene transcriptions (the copying of genetic information). This approach may have implications for gene therapy.

While gene therapy holds promise as a revolutionary approach to treating disease, ethical concerns over its use and ramifications have been expressed by scientists and lay people alike. For example, since much needs to be learned about how these genes actually work and their long-term effect, is it ethical to test these therapies on humans, where they could have a disastrous result? As with most clinical trials concerning new therapies, including many drugs, the patients participating in these studies usually have not responded to more established therapies and often are so ill the novel therapy is their only hope for long-term survival.

Another questionable outgrowth of gene therapy is that scientists could possibly manipulate genes to genetically control traits in human offspring that are not health related. For example, perhaps a gene could be inserted to ensure that a child would not be bald, a seemingly harmless goal. However, what if genetic manipulation was used to alter skin color, prevent homosexuality, or ensure good looks? If a gene is found that can enhance intelligence of children who are not yet born, will everyone in society, the rich and the poor, have access to the technology or will it be so expensive only the elite can afford it?

The Human Genome Project, which plays such an integral role for the future of gene therapy, also has social repercussions. If individual genetic codes can be determined, will such information be used against people? For example, will someone more susceptible to a disease have to pay higher insurance premiums or be denied health insurance altogether? Will employers discriminate between two potential employees, one with a "healthy" genome and the other with genetic abnormalities?

Some of these concerns can be traced back to the eugenics movement popular in the first half of the twentieth century. This genetic "philosophy" was a societal movement that encouraged people with "positive" traits to reproduce while those with less desirable traits were sanctioned from having children. Eugenics was used to pass strict immigration laws in the United States, barring less suitable people from entering the country lest they reduce the quality of the country's collective gene pool. Probably the most notorious example of eugenics in action was the rise of Nazism in Germany, which resulted in the Eugenic Sterilization Law of 1933. The law required sterilization for those suffering from certain disabilities and even for some who were simply deemed "ugly." To ensure that this novel science is not abused, many governments have established organizations specifically for overseeing the development of gene therapy. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health require scientists to take a precise series of steps and meet stringent requirements before proceeding with clinical trials. As of mid-2004, more than 300 companies were carrying out gene medicine developments and 500 clinical trials were underway. How to deliver the therapy is the key to unlocking many of the researchers discoveries.

In fact, gene therapy has been immersed in more controversy and surrounded by more scrutiny in both the health and ethical arena than most other technologies (except, perhaps, for cloning) that promise to substantially change society. Despite the health and ethical questions surrounding gene therapy, the field will continue to grow and is likely to change medicine faster than any previous medical advancement.

Cell The smallest living unit of the body that groups together to form tissues and help the body perform specific functions.

Chromosome A microscopic thread-like structure found within each cell of the body, consisting of a complex of proteins and DNA. Humans have 46 chromosomes arranged into 23 pairs. Changes in either the total number of chromosomes or their shape and size (structure) may lead to physical or mental abnormalities.

Clinical trial The testing of a drug or some other type of therapy in a specific population of patients.

Clone A cell or organism derived through asexual (without sex) reproduction containing the identical genetic information of the parent cell or organism.

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) The genetic material in cells that holds the inherited instructions for growth, development, and cellular functioning.

Embryo The earliest stage of development of a human infant, usually used to refer to the first eight weeks of pregnancy. The term fetus is used from roughly the third month of pregnancy until delivery.

Enzyme A protein that causes a biochemical reaction or change without changing its own structure or function.

Eugenics A social movement in which the population of a society, country, or the world is to be improved by controlling the passing on of hereditary information through mating.

Gene A building block of inheritance, which contains the instructions for the production of a particular protein, and is made up of a molecular sequence found on a section of DNA. Each gene is found on a precise location on a chromosome.

Gene transcription The process by which genetic information is copied from DNA to RNA, resulting in a specific protein formation.

Genetic engineering The manipulation of genetic material to produce specific results in an organism.

Genetics The study of hereditary traits passed on through the genes.

Germ-line gene therapy The introduction of genes into reproductive cells or embryos to correct inherited genetic defects that can cause disease.

Liposome Fat molecule made up of layers of lipids.

Macromolecules A large molecule composed of thousands of atoms.

Nitrogen A gaseous element that makes up the base pairs in DNA.

Nucleus The central part of a cell that contains most of its genetic material, including chromosomes and DNA.

Protein Important building blocks of the body, composed of amino acids, involved in the formation of body structures and controlling the basic functions of the human body.

Somatic gene therapy The introduction of genes into tissue or cells to treat a genetic related disease in an individual.

Vectors Something used to transport genetic information to a cell.

Abella, Harold. "Gene Therapy May Save Limbs." Diagnostic Imaging (May 1, 2003): 16.

Christensen R. "Cutaneous Gene TherapyAn Update." Histochemical Cell Biology (January 2001): 73-82.

"Gene Therapy Important Part of Cancer Research." Cancer Gene Therapy Week (June 30, 2003): 12.

"Initial Sequencing and Analysis of the Human Genome." Nature (February 15, 2001): 860-921.

Kingsman, Alan. "Gene Therapy Moves On." SCRIP World Pharmaceutical News (July 7, 2004): 19:ndash;21.

Nevin, Norman. "What Has Happened to Gene Therapy?" European Journal of Pediatrics (2000): S240-S242.

"New DNA Vaccine Targets Proteins Expressed in Cervical Cancer Cells." Gene Therapy Weekly (September 9, 2004): 14.

"New Research on the Progress of Gene Therapy Presented at Meeting." Obesity, Fitness & Wellness Week (July 3, 2004): 405.

Pekkanen, John. "Genetics: Medicine's Amazing Leap." Readers Digest (September 1991): 23-32.

Silverman, Jennifer, and Steve Perlstein. "Genome Project Completed." Family Practice News (May 15, 2003): 50-51.

"Study Highlights Potential Danger of Gene Therapy." Drug Week (June 20, 2003): 495.

"Study May Help Scientists Develop Safer Mthods for Gene Therapy." AIDS Weekly (June 30, 2003): 32.

Trabis, J. "With Gene Therapy, Ears Grow New Sensory Cells." Science News (June 7, 2003): 355.

National Human Genome Research Institute. The National Institutes of Health. 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 496-2433. http://www.nhgri.nih.gov.

Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man. Online genetic testing information sponsored by National Center for Biotechnology Information. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Omim/.

Originally posted here:
gene therapy facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com ...

Read More...

The promise of gene therapy for Eli and Ella, but not …

January 21st, 2017 4:44 am

By the time 2-year-old Calliope Joy Carr, of Bala Cynwyd, was diagnosed with an incurable degenerative brain disease, two children with the same deadly ailment, just 20 miles away, were being offered a tenuous lifeline.

Advertisment

of

Eli and Ella Vivian, 7- and 4-year-old siblings from Upper Providence Township, also had metachromatic leukodystrophy, a genetic disease that robs its victims, mostly children, of their motor and mental skills and, eventually, their lives. But because their symptoms were less severe than Calliope's, the Vivian children were eligible for a gene therapy clinical trial in Milan, Italy, that she was not.

Today, at 7, Calliope is bedridden, able to smile at her family and favorite TV programs and move her head slightly, but unable to speak. MLD continues to take its toll, as well, on Eli and Ella Vivian, 11 and 8. But they attend school, play, and are rambunctious in a way that Calliope has not been since three months after her diagnosis, when she spoke for the last time, saying "Daddy."

Eli and Ella "shouldn't be able to do what they are doing," said their mother, Becky Vivian. "We have hope and we are grateful, but we are realistic. It may not save their lives, just prolong it."

One in 40,000 infants is born with MLD. Now, gene therapy - the transfer of normal genes into cells to replace missing or defective ones - is engendering hope in families that their children can be more effectively treated, if not as yet cured.

Other recent developments have further boosted that optimism.

Alessandra Biffi, the physician/researcher who led the trial at Milan's San Raffaele Hospital, now directs the gene therapy program at Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center. Further, the experimental treatment has been licensed by GlaxoSmithKline, which has major operations in Philadelphia. And the Leukodystrophy Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, opened in 2015, is delivering cutting-edge care.

Andrew Shenker, vice president in GSK's rare diseases unit and project physician leader for its MLD program, cautions that the research begun in Italy in 2009 is ongoing. The pharmaceutical company expects to submit data from the trial to government regulators in 2018, after which those agencies will conduct their own reviews.

Children with MLD lack an enzyme in key cells needed for the production and maintenance of myelin, which protects nerves and facilitates the transmission of impulses within the brain. Without myelin, communication is disrupted. The patient loses basic functions, resulting in paralysis, blindness, seizures, and eventual death.

The condition is passed down from two carrier parents; any child they produce has a 1 in 4 chance of having the disease. Survival ages vary, depending on when MLD is discovered and the level of medical care. In the absence of treatment, the mean age of death for a child diagnosed at 1 to 2 years of age is 4.2 years; for those diagnosed between 4 and 14, the mean age is 17.4 years.

The most common form of treatment is stem cell therapy, but results have been "mixed" and "disappointing," Shenker said.

Other researchers are investigating treatments including enzyme replacement and gene therapy, and screening procedures to diagnose the disease at birth, said Dean Suhr, president of the Oregon-based MLD Foundation.

Results published so far on the Milan trial indicate that when treatment is administered before patients show obvious signs of the disease, the onset of symptoms is delayed, and their severity lessened.

Gene therapy appears most effective with children diagnosed before age 2 and treated before they show symptoms, Shenker said. Research on the treatment's benefit for older youngsters is ongoing.

Two children who were treated after the onset of symptoms died while participating in the trial, but their deaths were attributed to the progression of the disease, not the safety of the closely-monitored treatment, Shenker said.

Ella Vivian was one of the test cases. Because his symptoms were more advanced than hers, Eli was not part of the trial, but was treated under a "compassionate use protocol." The Inquirer published an article about the siblings in January of 2013 before the family left for Italy.

They spent six months in Milan, during which they received massive doses of chemotherapy to kill the diseased stem cells and make room for new cells containing the healthy gene to take hold. Researchers used a form of the HIV virus, minus the disease component, as a transfer agent to insert the genes.

Becky Vivian, 44, a Gymboree teacher, accompanied her children to Milan, while husband Steve stayed home with older sons Eric and Evan.

"Right now, we know they are a miracle," she said. ". . . Unfortunately, we can still see progression of the disease, albeit slowly."

Eli has difficulty standing up straight and walking, and cannot run. Ella has pain in her arms and legs, and her walking is getting slower, her writing less legible.

They have regular physical and occupational therapy, but are on no medication, their mother said. They also return to Milan every six months for checkups. In several weeks, they will be visiting Biffi in Boston for testing.

The Vivian siblings give Calliope's parents hope - if not for their daughter, then for other children with the disease and those diagnosed in the future.

Calliope, called "Cal," was diagnosed at 21/2, shortly after her parents noticed she was losing her balance on stairs.

"When we found out Cal was sick, we were really lost," said her mother, Maria Kefalas, 49, a sociology professor at Saint Joseph's University.

Three months later, Cal said her last word.

"It was like she fell off a cliff," said her father, Patrick Carr, 50, an associate professor and director of the Criminal Justice Program at Rutgers University-New Brunswick.

Cal has been in hospice care for four years, but the little girl her family knew at 2 is still there, Carr says. She loves her favorite TV shows and dolls, and smiles when brother P.J., 12, gets scolded.

Shortly after their daughter was diagnosed, Kefalas and Carr created the Calliope Joy Foundation, which has raised $300,000 - much of it by selling cupcakes - for research and patient care, including $60,000 for the Leukodystrophy Center of Excellence. The annual fund-raiser is May 6 at Lincoln Financial Field.

The charity also supports families like the Vivians, who got a donation to help with travel to Italy.

Becky Vivian says she is in a desperate race to save her children. And the family isn't letting up.

When Eli struggles with a tall chair and asks for a boost, his mother says no.

"Once we give in, it'll be time for a wheelchair. So I say, 'Eli, you've got to do it yourself.' "

kholmes@phillynews.com

610-313-8211

For information on the Calliope Joy Foundation, visit http://www.thecalliopejoyfoundation.org/

For updates on the Vivian children, visit http://www.facebook.com/Eli-Ellas-Prayer-Warriors-393482210723355/

See original here:
The promise of gene therapy for Eli and Ella, but not ...

Read More...

Eating for Longevity: Foods for a Long, Healthy Life

January 16th, 2017 10:46 am

It Can Help Your Heart continued...

Make sure you have salmon and other fish like trout and herring. Theyre high in omega-3 fatty acids, which help reduce the risk of heart disease and slightly lower blood pressure, among other benefits. Shoot for two servings a week.

You should also know thatthe fiber in veggies -- also found in whole grains -- helps lower your odds of cardiovascular disease. It also helps digestion and regularity, which often are a problem for older adults.

Remember that no one food is going to help your heart, any more than just one would help your brain or your bones or your muscles or any other part of your anatomy.

You need a complete, healthy diet.

If youre eating a lot of fish but, in addition to that, youre living on ice cream and candy and stuff like that, Rock says, its not going to save you.

A loss of memory, a big worry among some older adults, has been linked to, among other things, a lack of vitamin B12. You can get that in:

Alzheimers disease has been linked to chronic inflammation, which can be caused by foods like white bread, french fries, red meat, sugary beverages, and margarine.

The science is still emergingon the relationship between some foods and brain health. Check with your doctor or dietitian.

There was some issue with the Food and Drug Administration disallowing food claims for memory loss, says Adam Drewnowski, the director of the Nutritional Sciences Program at the University of Washington.

I would not want to identify a specific food that prevents memory loss. I probably would tell someone that if you want to be functioning well, then some fruits and antioxidants will do better for you than another slice of cake.

Antioxidants, found in many vegetables and in fruits like blueberries, help reduce inflammation. They also help you get rid of damaging stuff created when you convert food into energy.

Again, though, its important to realize that good brain function may be as much about what you dont eat as what you do.

Originally posted here:
Eating for Longevity: Foods for a Long, Healthy Life

Read More...

Integrative Medicine in Charlotte, North Carolina with …

January 15th, 2017 2:46 pm

Physicians and surgeons help to keep people - from infants to the elderly - as healthy as possible. These individuals provide diagnoses and treatments for a wide variety of ailments, and preventative care and early detection for more serious illnesses. Whether you love or hate going to the doctor, the fact is your physician is there to listen to your health concerns, take preventative measures against diseases and advise you on your optionsfor stayingin tip-top shape.

In 2013, there were more than 1 million doctors of medicine in the U.S., over 854,000 of which were active. Additionally, in 2012, there were about 18,000 active general surgeons in the country. It's important to know which type of physician or surgeon you need, how to choose the best one, and account for other considerations in order to stay healthy.

Patients can choose from a wide variety of physicians depending on doctor specialty and what problems they are experiencing. Here are a few of the most common types of physicians that you may see in your lifetime:

General Practitioner Your GP is the doctor that you go to for regular checkups, vaccines and to identify health issues. GPs can treat many different illnesses and injuries, from the common cold to a broken arm. If your health requires a second opinion or expert care, the GP will refer you to a specialist who has the skills to focus in on the issue.

Cardiologist Heart attacks and heart disease are some of the most common afflictions seen across the country, making cardiologists important to your long-term health. These physicians specialize in studying and treating the heart and related diseases.

Dentist Other than a GP, the dentist is likely the most common physician you'll ever see. These professionals work with the human mouth, ensuring that your teeth and gum health are up to par. Patients typically go to the dentist twice a year.

Dermatologist Dermatologists are focused on skin-related issues and diseases, from skin cancers, to acute acne, eczema, psoriasis, and general cosmetic concerns like aging and scars. Most will also perform annual or semi-annual mole checks to screen for any signs of melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer.

ENT If you have a number of sinus infections or have had your tonsils taken out, you've likely seen an ENT specialist. ENTs handle ailments related to the ear, nose and throat, often related to taking out tonsils and treating hearing issues.

OB/GYN For many women, their gynecologist and obstetrician are the same person. These professionals work with the female reproductive system to focus on reproductive health, fertility issues, prenatal care, options for new and expectant mothers, neonatal care and childbirth. OB/GYNs can also help in the early detection of breast or cervical cancer.

There are obviously a number of physicians that you can choose from, but how do you know if they'rethe best choice for you? Here are a few considerations to help you pick a physician:

Look at Your Insurance Before you get down to the details, you need to verify which doctors are covered by your insurance and whether they are in or out of your carrier's network. Rates may be cheaper if the doc is in network a doctor can be covered by your insurance but not necessarily in network. Out of network is typically more expensive.Doctors often add and drop plans, so it's important to ensure that your options are compatible with your insurance plan. Doing your homework will help you avoid unexpected expenses.

Check for Board Certification Your physician should be certified through the American Board of Medical Specialties. Doctors must earn a medical degree from a qualified school, complete three to seven years of residency training, be licensed by a state medical board and pass one or more ABMS exams to be certified.

Examine the Reviews Reviewsof a doctor can reveal a lot about what your experience may be like. People may grade on staff friendliness, availability and effectiveness of treatment. Looking at these evaluations and getting recommendations from family and friends can direct you toward a physician for your needs.

Surgeons can literally hold your life in their hands, and it's important to find the best one that can put you at ease and treat you effectively

Compatibility Factor You need to feel comfortable with your surgeon. It's important to communicate your concerns and that your surgeon can respond adequately. Surgeons should be willing to go over the details of your procedure and answer any questions that you may have. They must take the time to discuss and address your worries.

Expertise Level If you're going in for surgery, you want someone that knows what they're doing and has a high success rate. Ask how often the surgeon performs this surgery and try to find one that regularly does it. This will give you peace of mind that you're in capable hands.

Your decisionon a physician or surgeon can be majorly affected by the insurance plan you have. You may have insurance through employment, your spouse, your parents if you're under 26, or the marketplace if the previous options don't apply to you. It's important to understand how your insurance works to have the full picture of what you'll need to pay for.

Your insurance will have a deductible, which is the amount that you're responsible to pay for covered medical expenses. Some plans have coinsurances, where you must pay a certain percentage of the bill, and insurance will cover the rest. Co-pays state a flat rate for certain services, like paying $20 when you visit your GP or a $100 co-pay for an emergency room visit. Once you reach your out-of-pocket maximum, which will differ if you're an individual or within a family plan, your insurance may pay for 100 percent of covered medical expenses for the rest of the plan year.

If youplan to go to the doctor, need medication or have been recommended for surgery, call your insurance provider or go online to see what your plan covers. You can choose the best doctor for your needs, understand your options and prevent yourself from being blindsided by medical expenses.

Most doctors require a phone call for an appointment, although some may provide online scheduling as well. Be sure to have your insurance card with you when you set an appointment, and to bring it with you to the actual appointment. They need the ID numbers to verify your coverage, and will usually make a copy of the card for their files so you don't have to show it again unless your insurance changes.

When you call, let them know if you're a new patient, as this will require you to complete some paperwork for your first visit. Tell them the reason for your visit, such as your symptoms if you're feeling sick. It's also important to inform them if you have Medicaid and to find out if you need to bring anything to the visit, like current medications or medical records.

From here, the receptionist will likely ask what dates and times work best for you. During your call, it's important to be honest about your symptoms and the reason for your visit. This information will help the doctor treat you and give him or her an idea of what to expect. Your appointment may progress faster as a result, and the doctor can come prepared with a list of options to better care for you.

Doctors see a number of patients in a day, sometimes in 15-minute increments in areas where the physicians are in high demand. This can leavelittle time for doctors to perform thorough examinations, and they can end up missing certain problem indicators. While some problems, like a cold or flu, can be diagnosedin this time, more complex ailments require attention, which takes up time. Reviews can illuminate which doctors actively spend the necessary time with their patients and which ones are pressed against the clock to meet demand.

Surgery has some more dire risks attached to it, so be sure to talk to your surgeon about the potential issues that can come up as a result of your procedure. If a patient has a reaction to anesthesia, it can cause very serious complications, but this is an uncommon occurrence. Blood clots can be a significant problem aftersurgery, often caused by inactivity during recovery. Infections, numbness, scarring, swelling and death are all possible, but the likelihood of these issueswill vary depending on the type of surgery you're undergoing. Talk to your doctor about your concerns and your risk potential.

Surgery affects people in different ways, but as you begin to emerge from anesthesia, you'll want to alert your nurse to any issues you may have. The nurse will tell you how the procedure went, what effect it will have on your condition, what to expect when you get home and how long it will take to getback to normal. If you start feeling pain, the nurse may give you medication to stop it from getting worse. When possible, it's also advised to move around to avoid blood clots from developing in your legs. This can be as simple as occasionally flexing your knee or rotating your foot.

Some surgeries are outpatient procedures, where people are released the same day. For major surgeries, patients may stay at the hospital for a few days to be monitored and address any concerns before being sent home. Discuss with your surgeon the projected length of the hospital stayand what you need to bring.

Your recovery time and follow-up expectations will vary depending on your procedure. For example, you can be expected to be on your feet within a few days of having your wisdom teeth taken out, but it may be weeks before you have fully recovered from a broken foot or heart-valve surgery. Your surgeon will give you a list of things that you'll need to do during this time, including what medications to take and when you'll be able to get back to work and other activities.

Every surgery will have a follow-up call or appointment to discuss your recovery and allow you to ask any questions about unusual symptoms or changes in your overall health. If you have a major operation, like heart surgery, it's important to make regular checkupswith your doctor or a specialist to ensure that everything is normal. Visiting a doctor will help deter infection and verify that everything is healing as expected. These appointments will give you peace of mind about your state of health and ensure that any issues are caught early on.

...more

view less

The rest is here:
Integrative Medicine in Charlotte, North Carolina with ...

Read More...

Family Practice & more in Denver, NC

January 15th, 2017 2:46 pm

The physicians and staff of North State Medical Group, P.A. would like to thank you for choosing us to meet your medical needs. Our website should help answer any questions you may have about our practice.

Our commitment is to consistently provide the highest quality and most up-to-date care possible. It is our goal to provide comprehensive care to your entire family. If a health problem should arise that fall outside our specialty, we will assist you in locating an appropriate specialist and work closely with them to ensure your complete satisfaction.

We offer two locations for your convenience. To schedule an appointment at one of our offices, please see the phone numbers below or visit our Locations page.

or fill in the form on our Appointments page:

FILL IN THE FORM

Our most important medical departments, but just a few of what our clinic offers:

VIEW ALL SERVICES

Dr. Gerald Ahigian and Dr. Susane Habashi-Ahigian

To learn more about our team of physicians, please click the button below.

MORE ABOUT US

This is a wonderful place to receive care from. The doctors and nurses are very compassionate and make you feel very comfortable.

Melinda

These doctors have taken care of my in-laws for about fifteen years and my in laws, and now we, love them. Doctors Susane and Gerald are always glad to take all the time I need to discuss anything that I feel is important. They have listened to my side of the story, and what I think is wrong with me and they do not immediately discredit my ability to judge my problem. . . .They do not rush their patients in and out. If I have to wait longer than 20 minutes, it is rare, but I dont care because I know that I will receive the same lengthy, courteous, professional treatment.

K Douthit

Link:
Family Practice & more in Denver, NC

Read More...

Masters in Biotechnology Programs and Degrees in Biotechnology

January 13th, 2017 6:45 pm

Considering a Masters in Biotechnology Program or reviewing options for Masters Degrees in Biotechnology? A Masters in Biotechnology can openupexciting

Biotechnology is a challenging field that can involve a number of facets of both science and business or law. Many biotechnology master's degree programs focus on aspects of biology, cell biology, chemistry, or biological or chemical engineering. In general, biotechnology degrees involve research whether they are at a Masters or PhD level.

Scientific understanding is rapidly evolving, particularly in areas of cellular and molecular systems. Biotechnology master's students can therefore enjoy rich study opportunities particularly in fields such as genetic engineering, the Human Genome project, the production of new medicinal products, and research into the relationship between genetic malfunction and the origin of disease. These are just a few of the many areas that biotechnology students have the opportunity to explore today.

Another focus of biotechnology masters programs may be to equip students with the combination of science and business knowledge they need to help produce products and move them toward production. Today's complex business environment and government regulations require many steps and people with the ability to both understand and help produce new scientific technologies as well as get them approved and be able to market them.

Master degrees in biotechnology might prepare students to pursue careers in a variety of industries. While many students go on to further research or academic positions, there may also be some demand for biotechnologists outside of academia, both in the government and private sectors. Biotechnologists might pursue careers in anything from research to applied science and manufacturing. Those with specializations in business aspects of biotechnology may be qualified to pursue management positions within organizations attempting to produce and market new biotechnology.

More:
Masters in Biotechnology Programs and Degrees in Biotechnology

Read More...

Biotechnology – fb.org

January 13th, 2017 6:45 pm

Biotechnology has proven to be an important tool for better sustainability and food security. It helps farmers grow more food while improving the environment. For example, biotechnology reduces the use of costly inputs and improves weed management, allowing farmers to reduce tillage for better soil, water and air quality. Today, roughly 90 percent of corn, cotton and soybeans grown in the U.S. have been improved through biotechnology, and farmers are choosing biotech traits when growing other crops such as alfalfa, sugarbeets and canola.

Despite rapid adoption by farmers and a strong scientific consensus that biotechnology does not pose health and environmental risks, regulatory burdens are slowing research and innovation of new biotech traits and are starting to reduce U.S. farmers international competitive advantage. In addition, activist groups routinely threaten the availability of new traits by blocking science-based regulatory decisions, filing lawsuits and advocating for labeling mandates.

GM crops require less water and fewer chemical applications than conventional crops, and they are better able to survive drought, weeds, and insects.

U.S. agriculture will maintain its competitive advantage in world markets only if we continue to support innovations in technology and grasp opportunities for future biotech products.

To improve regulation of biotechnology, Farm Bureau supports:

Farm Bureau encourages efforts to educate farmers to be good stewards of biotech crops to preserve accessand marketability.

Farm Bureau believes agricultural products grown using approved biotechnology should not be subject to mandatory labeling. We supportexisting FDA labeling policies and opposestate policies on biotech labeling, identification, use and availability.

On July 29, 2016 the president signed S. 764, the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, into law. While not perfect, S. 764 was a compromise that Farm Bureau endorsed. The law creates a uniform standard for the disclosure of ingredients derived from bioengineering and allows food companies to provide that information through an on-package statement, symbol or electronic disclosure. It also created a strong federal preemption provision to protect interstate commerce and prevent state-by-state labeling laws and was effective on the date of enactment. USDA has two years to develop the disclosure standards and Farm Bureau will be an active participant in the rulemaking process.

Farm Bureau supports active involvement and leadership by the U.S. government in the development of international standards for biotechnology, including harmonization of regulatory standards, testing and LLP policies.

This resource can help set the record straight on GMOs, to correct misinformation and show why biotechnology is so important to agriculture.

Benefits of Biotech Toolkit (PDF)

Here is the original post:
Biotechnology - fb.org

Read More...

Gene Therapy for Pediatric Diseases | DNA Therapy – Dana …

January 13th, 2017 1:42 am

Gene therapy delivers DNA into a patients cells to replace faulty or missing genes or adds new genes in an attempt to cure diseases or to make changes so the body is better able to fight off disease. The DNA for a gene or genes is carried into a patients cells by a delivery vehicle called a vector, typically a specially engineered virus. The vector then inserts the gene(s) into the cells' DNA.

Although gene therapy is relatively new and often still considered experimental, it can provide a cure for life-threatening diseases that dont respond well to other therapies (including immunodeficiencies, metabolic disorders, and relapsed cancers) and for acute conditions that currently rely on complex and expensive life-long medication and management (such as sickle cell disease and hemophilia).

Our Gene Therapy Clinical Trials

Learn more about our gene therapy clinical trials

Dana-Farber/Boston Childrens has one the most extensive and long-running pediatric gene therapy programs in the world. Since 2010, we have treated 25 patients from 11 countries through eight gene therapy clinical trials.

Why choose Dana-Farber/Boston Childrens:

Learn more

See the original post:
Gene Therapy for Pediatric Diseases | DNA Therapy - Dana ...

Read More...

Lamarckism – Wikipedia

January 5th, 2017 7:45 pm

Lamarckism (or Lamarckian inheritance) is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it has acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or soft inheritance). It is named after the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (17441829), who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories as a supplement to his concept of an inherent progressive tendency driving organisms continuously towards greater complexity, in parallel but separate lineages with no extinction. Lamarck did not originate the idea of soft inheritance, which proposes that individual efforts during the lifetime of the organisms were the main mechanism driving species to adaptation, as they supposedly would acquire adaptive changes and pass them on to offspring.

When Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection in On the Origin of Species (1859), he continued to give credence to what he called "use and disuse inheritance," but rejected other aspects of Lamarck's theories. Later, Mendelian genetics supplanted the notion of inheritance of acquired traits, eventually leading to the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis, and the general abandonment of the Lamarckian theory of evolution in biology. Despite this abandonment, interest in Lamarckism has continued as studies in the field of epigenetics have highlighted the possible inheritance of behavioral traits acquired by the previous generation.[1][2][3][4][5] However, this remains controversial as science historians have asserted that it is inaccurate to describe transgenerational epigenetic inheritance as a form of Lamarckism.[6][7][8][9]

Between 1794 and 1796 Erasmus Darwin wrote Zoonomia suggesting "that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament... with the power of acquiring new parts" in response to stimuli, with each round of "improvements" being inherited by successive generations.[10] Subsequently, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck repeated in his Philosophie Zoologique of 1809 the folk wisdom that characteristics which were "needed" were acquired (or diminished) during the lifetime of an organism then passed on to the offspring. He incorporated this mechanism into his thoughts on evolution, seeing it as resulting in the adaptation of life to local environments.

Lamarck founded a school of French Transformationism which included tienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, and which corresponded with a radical British school of anatomy based in the extramural anatomy schools in Edinburgh, Scotland, which included the surgeon Robert Knox and the comparative anatomist Robert Edmond Grant. In addition, the Regius Professor of Natural History at the University of Edinburgh, Robert Jameson, was the probable author of an anonymous paper in 1826 praising "Mr. Lamarck" for explaining how the higher animals had "evolved" from the "simplest worms"this was the first use of the word "evolved" in a modern sense. As a young student, Charles Darwin was tutored by Grant, and worked with him on marine creatures.

The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, authored by Robert Chambers in St Andrews, Scotland, and published anonymously in England in 1844, proposed a theory which combined radical phrenology with Lamarckism, causing political controversy for its radicalism and unorthodoxy, but exciting popular interest and preparing a huge and prosperous audience for Darwin.

Darwin's On the Origin of Species proposed natural selection as the main mechanism for development of species, but did not rule out a variant of Lamarckism as a supplementary mechanism.[11] Darwin called his Lamarckian hypothesis pangenesis, and explained it in the final chapter of his book The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication (1868), after describing numerous examples to demonstrate what he considered to be the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Pangenesis, which he emphasised was a hypothesis, was based on the idea that somatic cells would, in response to environmental stimulation (use and disuse), throw off 'gemmules' or 'pangenes' which travelled around the body (though not necessarily in the bloodstream). These pangenes were microscopic particles that supposedly contained information about the characteristics of their parent cell, and Darwin believed that they eventually accumulated in the germ cells where they could pass on to the next generation the newly acquired characteristics of the parents. Darwin's half-cousin, Francis Galton, carried out experiments on rabbits, with Darwin's cooperation, in which he transfused the blood of one variety of rabbit into another variety in the expectation that its offspring would show some characteristics of the first. They did not, and Galton declared that he had disproved Darwin's hypothesis of pangenesis, but Darwin objected, in a letter to the scientific journal Nature, that he had done nothing of the sort, since he had never mentioned blood in his writings. He pointed out that he regarded pangenesis as occurring in Protozoa and plants, which have no blood.[12]

The identification of Lamarckism with the inheritance of acquired characteristics is regarded by some as an artifact of the subsequent history of evolutionary thought, repeated in textbooks without analysis. American paleontologist and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould wrote that in the late 19th century, evolutionists "re-read Lamarck, cast aside the guts of it ... and elevated one aspect of the mechanicsinheritance of acquired charactersto a central focus it never had for Lamarck himself."[13] He argued that "the restriction of 'Lamarckism' to this relatively small and non-distinctive corner of Lamarck's thought must be labelled as more than a misnomer, and truly a discredit to the memory of a man and his much more comprehensive system."[14] Gould advocated defining "Lamarckism" more broadly, in line with Lamarck's overall evolutionary theory.

Lamarck incorporated two ideas into his theory of evolution, in his day considered to be generally true. The first was the idea of use versus disuse; he theorized that individuals lose characteristics they do not require, or use, and develop characteristics that are useful. His second point was to argue that the acquired traits were heritable. Examples of what is traditionally called "Lamarckism" would include the idea that when giraffes stretch their necks to reach leaves high in trees (especially Acacias), they strengthen and gradually lengthen their necks. These giraffes have offspring with slightly longer necks (also known as "soft inheritance"). Similarly, a blacksmith, through his work, strengthens the muscles in his arms, and thus his sons will have similar muscular development when they mature.

Lamarck stated the following two laws:

English translation:

In essence, a change in the environment brings about change in "needs" (besoins), resulting in change in behavior, bringing change in organ usage and development, bringing change in form over timeand thus the gradual transmutation of the species.

However, as historians of science such as Michael Ghiselin and Stephen Jay Gould have pointed out, none of these views were original to Lamarck.[17][18] On the contrary, Lamarck's contribution was a systematic theoretical framework for understanding evolution. He saw evolution as comprising two processes;

The idea that germline cells contain information that passes to each generation unaffected by experience and independent of the somatic (body) cells, came to be referred to as the Weismann barrier, and is frequently quoted as putting a final end to Lamarckism and theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics.

August Weismann conducted the experiment of removing the tails of 68 white mice, repeatedly over five generations, and reporting that no mice were born in consequence without a tail or even with a shorter tail. He stated that "901 young were produced by five generations of artificially mutilated parents, and yet there was not a single example of a rudimentary tail or of any other abnormality in this organ."[19]

However, the experiment has been questioned in relationship to Lamarck's hypothesis as it did not address the use and disuse of characteristics in response to the environment. Biologist Peter Gauthier noted that:

Can Weismann's experiment be considered a case of disuse? Lamarck proposed that when an organ was not used, it slowly, and very gradually atrophied. In time, over the course of many generations, it would gradually disappear as it was inherited in its modified form in each successive generation. Cutting the tails off mice does not seem to meet the qualifications of disuse, but rather falls in a category of accidental misuse... Lamarck's hypothesis has never been proven experimentally and there is no known mechanism to support the idea that somatic change, however acquired, can in some way induce a change in the germplasm. On the other hand it is difficult to disprove Lamarck's idea experimentally, and it seems that Weismann's experiment fails to provide the evidence to deny the Lamarckian hypothesis, since it lacks a key factor, namely the willful exertion of the animal in overcoming environmental obstacles.[20]

Science historian Michael Ghiselin also considers the Weismann tail-chopping experiment to have no bearing on the Lamarckian hypothesis:

The acquired characteristics that figured in Lamarck's thinking were changes that resulted from an individual's own drives and actions, not from the actions of external agents. Lamarck was not concerned with wounds, injuries or mutilations, and nothing that Lamarck had set forth was tested or "disproven" by the Weismann tail-chopping experiment.[17]

The period of the history of evolutionary thought between Darwin's death in the 1880s, and the foundation of population genetics in the 1920s and beginnings of modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1930s, is called the eclipse of Darwinism by some historians of science. During that time many scientists and philosophers accepted the reality of evolution but doubted whether natural selection was the main evolutionary mechanism.[21]

Among the most popular alternatives were theories involving the inheritance of characteristics acquired during an organism's lifetime. Scientists who felt that such Lamarckian mechanisms were the key to evolution were called neo-Lamarckians and included the British botanist George Henslow (18351925), who studied the effects of environmental stress on the growth of plants, in the belief that such environmentally-induced variation might explain much of plant evolution, and the American entomologist Alpheus Spring Packard, Jr., who studied blind animals living in caves and wrote a book in 1901 about Lamarck and his work.[22][23]

Also included were a number of paleontologists like Edward Drinker Cope and Alpheus Hyatt, who felt that the fossil record showed orderly, almost linear, patterns of development that they felt were better explained by Lamarckian mechanisms than by natural selection. Some people, including Cope and the Darwin critic Samuel Butler, felt that inheritance of acquired characteristics would let organisms shape their own evolution, since organisms that acquired new habits would change the use patterns of their organs, which would kick-start Lamarckian evolution. They considered this philosophically superior to Darwin's mechanism of random variation acted on by selective pressures. Lamarckism also appealed to those, like the philosopher Herbert Spencer and the German anatomist Ernst Haeckel, who saw evolution as an inherently progressive process.[22] The German zoologist Theodor Eimer combined Larmarckism with ideas about orthogenesis.[24]

With the development of the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution and a lack of evidence for a mechanism for acquiring and passing on new characteristics, or even their heritability, Lamarckism largely fell from favor. Unlike neo-Darwinism, the term neo-Lamarckism refers more to a loose grouping of largely heterodox theories and mechanisms that emerged after Lamarck's time, than to any coherent body of theoretical work.

In a series of experiments from 1869 to 1891, Charles-douard Brown-Squard cut the sciatic nerve of the leg and spinal cord in the dorsal regions of guinea pigs, causing an abnormal nervous condition resembling epilepsy; these were then bred and produced epileptic offspring.[25] Although some scientists considered this evidence for Lamarckian inheritance, the experiments were not Lamarckian, as they did not address the use and disuse of characteristics in response to the environment.[26] The results from the experiment were not duplicated by other scientists.[27] One explanation for the results was that they show a transmitted disease, and not evidence for the inheritance of an acquired characteristic.[28] Brown-Squard's experiments are now considered anomalous and alternative explanations have been suggested.[29]

The French botanist Gaston Bonnier, conducting experiments in the French Alps in 1884 and the Pyrenees in 1886, studied structural changes induced by growing plants at various altitudes and transplanting them to others. Bonnier believed he had proven acquired adaptive characteristics; however, he did not weed, cultivate, fertilize or protect his plant specimens from native vegetation. In the 1920s his experiments were analysed and attributed to genetic contamination rather than Lamarckian inheritance.[30]

In a series of experiments (in 1891, 1893 and 1895) on the action of light on the coloration of flatfish, the British marine biologist Joseph Thomas Cunningham (18591935) directed light upon the lower sides of flatfishes by means of a glass-bottomed tank placed over a mirror. He discovered the influence of light in producing pigments on the lower sides of flatfishes and gave his results a Lamarckian interpretation.[31][32][33] Other scientists wrote that Cunningham had received some definite results, but that they were open to more than one interpretation.[34] The geneticist William Bateson was not convinced that the cause of the increase in pigmentation was from the illumination. George Romanes wrote approvingly of Cunningham's interpretation.[35]Thomas Hunt Morgan criticized the experiments and did not believe the results were evidence for Lamarckism.[36]

In 1906, the philosopher Eugenio Rignano wrote a book, Sur La Transmissibilit Des Caractres Acquis, that argued for the inheritance of acquired characteristics.[37] He advanced a moderated Lamarckian hypothesis of inheritance known as "centro-epigenesis."[38][39] However, his views were controversial and not accepted by the majority in the scientific community.[40]

In a series of experiments from 1907 to 1910, William Lawrence Tower performed experiments on potato beetles which were said by Ernest MacBride to have provided evidence for the inheritance of acquired characteristics.[41] These were heavily criticized by William Bateson.[42] It was later suggested that his research may have been faked.[43] Tower claimed that the records of his experimental results had been lost in a fire.[44] The geneticist William E. Castle who visited Tower's laboratory was not impressed by the experimental conditions. He later concluded that Tower had faked his data. Castle found the fire suspicious and also Tower's claim that a steam leak in his greenhouse had destroyed all his beetle stocks.[45]

Experiments conducted by Gustav Tornier from 1907 to 1918 on goldfish and embryos of frogs and newts were supported by neo-Lamarckians such as Cunningham and MacBride as demonstrating the inheritance of acquired characteristics.[46][47] The abnormalities were interpreted as the result of an osmotic effect by other researchers.[48]

In the late 19th century, Frederick Merrifield exposed caterpillars and chrysalids to significantly high and low temperatures, and discovered permanent changes in some offspring's wing patterns. Swiss biologist Maximilian Rudolph Standfuss (18541917) led 30 years of intensive breeding experiments with European butterflies and after several generations, found similar preserved variations even generations after the cessation of exposing them to low temperatures.[49] Standfuss was a neo-Lamarckian and attributed the results of his experiments as direct changes to the environment.[50] In 1940, Richard Goldschmidt interpreted these results without invoking Lamarckian inheritance, and in 1998 Ernst Mayr wrote that results reported by Standfuss and others on the effects of abnormal temperatures on Lepidoptera are difficult to interpret.[51]

In 1910, the American zoologist Charles Rupert Stockard (18791939) tested the effects of alcohol intoxication on the offspring of pregnant guinea pigs. Stockard discovered that repeated alcohol intoxication in the guinea pigs produced defects and malformations in their offspring that was passed down to two or more generations. His results were challenged by the biologist Raymond Pearl who performed the same experiments with chickens.[52] Pearl discovered that the offspring of the chickens that had been exposed to alcohol were not defected but were healthy. He attributed his findings to the detrimental effects of alcohol only on the eggs and sperm which were already weak, the strong eggs and sperm were unaffected by alcohol intoxication. Pearl argued that his results had a Darwinian, not a Lamarckian explanation.[52]

The French zoologist Yves Delage in his book The Theories of Evolution (1912) reviewed experiments into Lamarckism concluded the evidence "is not of uniform value and is more or less open to criticism; very little of it is convincing... [due to] difficulties of experimentation and, above all, of interpretation."[53]

In a series of experiments, Francis Bertody Sumner (18741945) reared several generations of white mice under different conditions of temperature and relative humidity.[54] Sumner discovered that the white mice at 20C to 30C developed longer bodies, tails and hind feet which were also transmitted to their offspring over a number of generations, however, later results were not entirely consistent and the experiments ended in uncertainty.[55]

Between 1918 and 1924, two American scientists Michael F. Guyer and Elizabeth A. Smith performed experiments in which fowl serum antibodies for rabbit lens-protein were injected into pregnant rabbits which resulted in defects in the eyes of some of their offspring that were inherited through eight generations.[56] Their experiments were criticized and were not repeated by other scientists.[57]

In the 1920s, experiments by Paul Kammerer on amphibians, particularly the midwife toad, appeared to find evidence supporting Lamarckism. However, his specimens with supposedly acquired black foot-pads were found to have been tampered with. In The Case of the Midwife Toad (1971), author and journalist Arthur Koestler surmised that the tampering had been done by a Nazi sympathiser to discredit Kammerer for his political views, and that his research might actually have been valid. However, most biologists believe that Kammerer was a fraud, and even among those who believe he was honest, most believe that he misinterpreted the results of his experiments.[58]

During the 1920s, Harvard University researcher William McDougall studied the abilities of rats to correctly solve mazes. He found that offspring of rats that had learned the maze were able to run it faster. The first rats would get it wrong 165 times before being able to run it perfectly each time, but after a few generations it was down to 20. McDougall attributed this to some sort of Lamarckian evolutionary process.[59]Oscar Werner Tiegs and Wilfred Eade Agar later showed McDougall's results to be incorrect, caused by poor experimental controls.[60][61]Peter Medawar wrote that "careful and extensive repetitions of McDougall's research failed altogether to confirm it. His work therefore becomes an exhibit in the capacious ill-lit museum of unreproducible phenomena."[62]

In the 1920s, John William Heslop-Harrison conducted experiments on the peppered moth, claiming to have evidence for the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Other scientists failed to replicate his results.[63][64] The Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov claimed to have observed a similar phenomenon in white mice being subject to a conditioned reflex experiment involving food and the sound of a bell. He wrote that with each generation, the mice became easier to condition. In 1926, Pavlov announced that there had been a fatal flaw in his experiment and retracted his claim to have demonstrated Lamarckian inheritance.[65] Other researchers were also unable to replicate his results.[66]

In other experiments, Coleman Griffith (1920, 1922) and John Detlefson (1923, 1925) reared rats in cages on a rotating table for three months. The rats adapted to the rotating condition to such an extent that when the rotation was stopped they showed signs of disequilibration and other physiological conditions which were inherited for several generations.[67][68][69][70] In 1933, Roy Dorcus replicated their experiments but obtained different results as the rotated rats did not manifest any abnormalities of posture described by Griffith and Detlefson.[71] Other studies revealed that the same abnormalities could occur in rats without rotation if they were suffering from an ear infection thus the results were interpreted as a case of infection, not Lamarckian inheritance.[72]

In the 1930s, the German geneticist Victor Jollos (18871941) in a series of experiments claimed evidence for inherited changes induced by heat treatment in Drosophila melanogaster.[73] His experiments were described as Lamarckian. However, Jollos was not an advocate of Lamarckian evolution and attributed the results from his experiments as evidence for directed mutagenesis. American scientists were unable to replicate his results.[74]

The British anthropologist Frederic Wood Jones and the South African paleontologist Robert Broom supported a neo-Lamarckian view of human evolution as opposed to the Darwinian view. The German anthropologist Hermann Klaatsch relied on a neo-Lamarckian model of evolution to try and explain the origin of bipedalism. Neo-Lamarckism remained influential in biology until the 1940s when the role of natural selection was reasserted in evolution as part of the modern evolutionary synthesis.[75]

Herbert Graham Cannon, a British zoologist, defended Lamarckism in his 1959 book Lamarck and Modern Genetics.[76]

In the 1960s, "biochemical Lamarckism" was advocated by the embryologist Paul Wintrebert.[77]

In the 1970s, Australian immunologist Edward J. Steele and colleagues proposed a neo-Lamarckian mechanism to try to explain why homologous DNA sequences from the VDJ gene regions of parent mice were found in their germ cells and seemed to persist in the offspring for a few generations. The mechanism involved the somatic selection and clonal amplification of newly acquired antibody gene sequences that were generated via somatic hypermutation in B-cells. The messenger RNA (mRNA) products of these somatically novel genes were captured by retroviruses endogenous to the B-cells and were then transported through the bloodstream where they could breach the soma-germ barrier and retrofect (reverse transcribe) the newly acquired genes into the cells of the germ line. Although Steele was advocating this theory for the better part of two decades, little more than indirect evidence was ever acquired to support it. An interesting attribute of this idea is that it strongly resembles Darwin's own theory of pangenesis, except in the soma to germ line feedback theory, pangenes are replaced with realistic retroviruses.[78] Regarding Steele's research, historian of biology Peter J. Bowler wrote, "his work was bitterly criticized at the time by biologists who doubted his experimental results and rejected his hypothetical mechanism as implausible."[79]

Neo-Lamarckism was dominant in French biology for more than a century. French scientists who supported neo-Lamarckism included Edmond Perrier (18441921), Alfred Giard (18461908), Gaston Bonnier (18531922) and Pierre-Paul Grass (18951985).[80]

In 1987, Ryuichi Matsuda coined the term "pan-environmentalism" for his evolutionary theory which he saw as a fusion of Darwinism with neo-Lamarckism. He held that heterochrony is a main mechanism for evolutionary change and that novelty in evolution can be generated by genetic assimilation.[81][82] His views were criticized by Arthur M. Shapiro for providing no solid evidence for his theory. Shapiro noted that "Matsuda himself accepts too much at face value and is prone to wish-fulfilling interpretation."[82]

Within the discipline of history of technology, Lamarckism has been used in linking cultural development to human evolution by classifying artefacts as extensions of human anatomy: in other words, as the acquired cultural characteristics of human beings. Ben Cullen has shown that a strong element of Lamarckism exists in sociocultural evolution.[83]

A form of Lamarckism was revived in the Soviet Union of the 1930s when Trofim Lysenko promoted Lysenkoism which suited the ideological opposition of Joseph Stalin to genetics. This ideologically driven research influenced Soviet agricultural policy which in turn was later blamed for crop failures.[84]

Neo-Lamarckian versions of evolution were widespread in the late 19th century. The idea that living things could to some degree choose the characteristics that would be inherited allowed them things to be in charge of their own destiny as opposed to the Darwinian view, which made them puppets at the mercy of the environment. Such ideas were more popular than natural selection in the late 19th century as it made it possible for biological evolution to fit into a framework of a divine or naturally willed plan, thus the neo-Lamarckian view of evolution was often advocated by proponents of orthogenesis.[85] According to Peter J. Bowler:

One of the most emotionally compelling arguments used by the neo-Lamarckians of the late nineteenth century was the claim that Darwinism was a mechanistic theory which reduced living things to puppets driven by heredity. The selection theory made life into a game of Russian roulette, where life or death was predetermined by the genes one inherited. The individual could do nothing to mitigate bad heredity. Lamarckism, in contrast, allowed the individual to choose a new habit when faced with an environmental challenge and shape the whole future course of evolution.[86]

Supporters of neo-Lamarckism such as George Bernard Shaw and Arthur Koestler claimed that Lamarckism is more humane and optimistic than Darwinism.[87]

George Gaylord Simpson in his book Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944) claimed that experiments in heredity have failed to corroborate any Lamarckian process.[88] Simpson noted that neo-Lamarckism "stresses a factor that Lamarck rejected: inheritance of direct effects of the environment" and neo-Lamarckism is closer to Darwin's pangenesis than Lamarck's views.[89] Simpson wrote, "the inheritance of acquired characters, failed to meet the tests of observation and has been almost universally discarded by biologists."[90]

Botanist Conway Zirkle pointed out that Lamarck did not originate the hypothesis that acquired characters were heritable, therefore it is incorrect to refer to it as Lamarckism:

What Lamarck really did was to accept the hypothesis that acquired characters were heritable, a notion which had been held almost universally for well over two thousand years and which his contemporaries accepted as a matter of course, and to assume that the results of such inheritance were cumulative from generation to generation, thus producing, in time, new species. His individual contribution to biological theory consisted in his application to the problem of the origin of species of the view that acquired characters were inherited and in showing that evolution could be inferred logically from the accepted biological hypotheses. He would doubtless have been greatly astonished to learn that a belief in the inheritance of acquired characters is now labeled "Lamarckian," although he would almost certainly have felt flattered if evolution itself had been so designated.[91]

Peter Medawar wrote regarding Lamarckism, "very few professional biologists believe that anything of the kind occursor can occurbut the notion persists for a variety of nonscientific reasons." Medawar stated there is no known mechanism by which an adaption acquired in an individual's lifetime can be imprinted on the genome and Lamarckian inheritance is not valid unless it excludes the possibility of natural selection but this has not been demonstrated in any experiment.[92]

Martin Gardner wrote in his book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (1957):

A host of experiments have been designed to test Lamarckianism. All that have been verified have proved negative. On the other hand, tens of thousands of experiments reported in the journals and carefully checked and rechecked by geneticists throughout the world have established the correctness of the gene-mutation theory beyond all reasonable doubt... In spite of the rapidly increasing evidence for natural selection, Lamarck has never ceased to have loyal followers.... There is indeed a strong emotional appeal in the thought that every little effort an animal puts forth is somehow transmitted to his progeny.[93]

According to Ernst Mayr, any Lamarckian theory involving the inheritance of acquired characters has been refuted as "DNA does not directly participate in the making of the phenotype and that the phenotype, in turn, does not control the composition of the DNA."[94] Peter J. Bowler has written that although many early scientists took Lamarckism seriously, it was discredited by genetics in the early twentieth century.[95]

Forms of 'soft' or epigenetic inheritance within organisms have been suggested as neo-Lamarckian in nature by such scientists as Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb. In addition to 'hard' or genetic inheritance, involving the duplication of genetic material and its segregation during meiosis, there are other hereditary elements that pass into the germ cells also.[96] These include things like methylation patterns in DNA and chromatin marks, both of which regulate the activity of genes. These are considered Lamarckian in the sense that they are responsive to environmental stimuli and can differentially affect gene expression adaptively, with phenotypic results that can persist for many generations in certain organisms.[97]

Jablonka and Lamb have called for an extended evolutionary synthesis. They have argued that there is evidence for Lamarckian epigenetic control systems causing evolutionary changes and the mechanisms underlying epigenetic inheritance can also lead to saltational changes that reorganize the epigenome.[98]

Interest in Lamarckism has increased, as studies in the field of epigenetics have highlighted the possible inheritance of behavioral traits acquired by the previous generation.[96] A 2009 study examined foraging behavior in chickens as a function of stress:

Transmissions of information across generations which does not involve traditional inheritance of DNA-sequence alleles is often referred to as soft inheritance [99] or "Lamarckian inheritance."[100]

The study concluded:

Our findings suggest that unpredictable food access caused seemingly adaptive responses in feeding behavior, which may have been transmitted to the offspring by means of epigenetic mechanisms, including regulation of immune genes. This may have prepared the offspring for coping with an unpredictable environment.[100]

The evolution of acquired characteristics has also been shown in human populations who have experienced starvation, resulting in altered gene function in both the starved population and their offspring.[101] The process of DNA methylation is thought to be behind such changes.

In October 2010, further evidence linking food intake to traits inherited by the offspring were shown in a study of rats conducted by several Australian universities.[102] The study strongly suggested that fathers can transfer a propensity for obesity to their daughters as a result of the fathers' food intake, and not their genetics (or specific genes), prior to the conception of the daughter. A "paternal high-fat diet" was shown to cause cell dysfunction in the daughter, which in turn led to obesity for the daughter. Felicia Nowak, et al. reported at the Endocrine Society meeting in June 2013 that obese male rats passed on the tendency to obesity to their male offspring.[103]

Several studies, one conducted by researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and another by researchers at the Tufts University School of Medicine, have rekindled the debate once again. As reported in MIT Technology Review in February 2009, "The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring ... The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring."[104] A report investigating the inheritance of resistance to viral infection in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans suggests that small RNA molecules may be inherited in a non-Mendelian fashion and provide resistance to infection.[105] More recent studies in C. elegans have revealed that progeny may inherit information regarding environmental challenges that the parent experienced, such as starvation, and that this epigenetic effect may persist for multiple generations.[106]

A study (Akimoto et al. 2007) on epigenetic inheritance in rice plants came to the conclusion that "gene expression is flexibly tuned by methylation, allowing plants to gain or lose particular traits which are heritable as far as methylation patterns of corresponding genes are maintained. This is in support of the concept of Lamarckian inheritance, suggesting that acquired traits are heritable."[107] Another study (Sano, 2010) wrote that observations suggest that acquired traits are heritable in plants as far as the acquired methylation pattern is stably transmitted which is consistent with Lamarckian evolution.[108] Handel and Ramagopalan found that there is evidence that epigenetic alterations such as DNA methylation and histone modifications are transmitted transgenerationally as a mechanism for environmental influences to be passed from parents to offspring. According to Handel and Romagopalan "epigenetics allows the peaceful co-existence of Darwinian and Lamarckian evolution."[109]

In their book An Introduction to Zoology (2013), Joseph Springer and Dennis Holley wrote:

Lamarck and his ideas were ridiculed and discredited. In a strange twist of fate, Lamarck may have the last laugh. Epigenetics, an emerging field of genetics, has shown that Lamarck may have been at least partially correct all along. It seems that reversible and heritable changes can occur without a change in DNA sequence (genotype) and that such changes may be induced spontaneously or in response to environmental factorsLamarck's "acquired traits." Determining which observed phenotypes are genetically inherited and which are environmentally induced remains an important and ongoing part of the study of genetics, developmental biology, and medicine.[110]

Eugene Koonin has written that the prokaryotic CRISPR system and Piwi-interacting RNA could be classified as Lamarckian and came to the conclusion that "Both Darwinian and Lamarckian modalities of evolution appear to be important, and reflect different aspects of the interaction between populations and the environment."[111]

A study in 2013 reported that mutations caused by a father's lifestyle can be inherited by his children through multiple generations.[112] A study from Lund University in Sweden showed that exercise changes the epigenetic pattern of genes that affect fat storage in the body.[113]

Commenting on this, Charlotte Ling explained:

The cells of the body contain DNA, which contains genes. We inherit our genes and they cannot be changed. The genes, however, have 'methyl groups' attached which affect what is known as 'gene expression' whether the genes are activated or deactivated. The methyl groups can be influenced in various ways, through exercise, diet and lifestyle, in a process known as 'DNA methylation'.[114]

A 2013 study published in Nature Neuroscience reported that mice trained to fear the smell of a chemical called acetophenone passed their fear onto at least two generations.[115][116] The science magazine New Scientist commented on the study saying, "While it needs to be corroborated, this finding seems consistent with Lamarckian inheritance. It is, however, based on epigenetics: changes that tweak the action of genes, not the genes themselves. So it fits with natural selection and may yet give Lamarck's name a sheen of respectability."[117]

Guy Barry wrote that Darwin's hypothesis pangenesis coupled with "Lamarckian somatic cell-derived epigenetic modifications" and de novo RNA and DNA mutations can explain the evolution of the human brain.[118]

Lamarckian elements also appear in the hologenome theory of evolution.[119]

The significance of epigenetic inheritance to the evolutionary process is uncertain. Critics assert that epigenetic inheritance modifications are not inherited past two or three generations, so are not a stable basis for evolutionary change.[122][123] According to a recent review in 2015, "there are no reported epigenetic marks transmitted via the male germ line during more than three generations."[122]

The evolutionary biologist T. Ryan Gregory contends that epigenetic inheritance should not be considered Lamarckian. According to Gregory, Lamarck did not claim the environment imposed direct effects on organisms. Instead, Lamarck "argued that the environment created needs to which organisms responded by using some features more and others less, that this resulted in those features being accentuated or attenuated, and that this difference was then inherited by offspring." Gregory has stated that Lamarckian evolution in the context of epigenetics is actually closer to the view held by Darwin rather than by Lamarck.[6]

In a paper titled Weismann Rules! OK? Epigenetics and the Lamarckian Temptation (2007), David Haig writes that research into epigenetic processes does allow a Lamarckian element in evolution but the processes do not challenge the main tenets of the modern evolutionary synthesis as modern Lamarckians have claimed. Haig argued for the primary of DNA and evolution of epigenetic switches by natural selection.[124] Haig has also written there is a "visceral attraction" to Lamarckian evolution from the public and some scientists as it posits the world with a meaning, in which organisms can shape their own evolutionary destiny.[125]

American biologist Jerry Coyne has stated that "lots of studies show us that Lamarckian inheritance doesnt operate" and epigenetic changes are rarely passed on to future generations, thus do not serve as the basis of evolutionary change.[126] Coyne has also written:

Lamarckism is not a heresy, but simply a hypothesis that hasnt held up... If epigenetics in the second sense is so important in evolution, let us have a list of, say, a hundred adaptations of organisms that evolved in this Larmackian way as opposed to the old, boring, neo-Darwinian way involving inherited changes in DNA sequence... I cant think of a single entry for that list.[127]

Thomas Dickens and Qazi Rahman (2012) have written epigenetic mechanisms such as DNA methylation and histone modification are genetically inherited under the control of natural selection and do not challenge the modern synthesis. Dickens and Rahman have taken issue with the claims of Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb on Lamarckian epigenetic processes.[128]

Edith Heard and Robert Martienssen (2014) in a Cell review were not convinced that epigenetics has revived Lamarckism as there is no evidence epigenetic changes are passed on to successive generations in mammals. They concluded the characteristics that are thought to be the result of epigenetic inheritance may be caused by other factors such as behavioral changes, undetected mutations, microbiome alterations or the transmission of metabolites.[129]

In 2015, Khursheed Iqbal and colleagues discovered that although "endocrine disruptors exert direct epigenetic effects in the exposed fetal germ cells, these are corrected by reprogramming events in the next generation." Molecular biologist Emma Whitelaw has cited this study as an example of evidence disputing Lamarckian epigenetic inheritance.[130] Another critic recently argued that bringing back Lamarck in the context of epigenetics is misleading, commenting, "We should remember [Lamarck] for the good he contributed to science, not for things that resemble his theory only superficially. Indeed, thinking of CRISPR and other phenomena as Lamarckian only obscures the simple and elegant way evolution really works."[131]

Go here to see the original:
Lamarckism - Wikipedia

Read More...

Medical genetics – Wikipedia

January 4th, 2017 11:44 pm

Medical genetics is the branch of medicine that involves the diagnosis and management of hereditary disorders. Medical genetics differs from human genetics in that human genetics is a field of scientific research that may or may not apply to medicine, while medical genetics refers to the application of genetics to medical care. For example, research on the causes and inheritance of genetic disorders would be considered within both human genetics and medical genetics, while the diagnosis, management, and counselling people with genetic disorders would be considered part of medical genetics.

In contrast, the study of typically non-medical phenotypes such as the genetics of eye color would be considered part of human genetics, but not necessarily relevant to medical genetics (except in situations such as albinism). Genetic medicine is a newer term for medical genetics and incorporates areas such as gene therapy, personalized medicine, and the rapidly emerging new medical specialty, predictive medicine.

Medical genetics encompasses many different areas, including clinical practice of physicians, genetic counselors, and nutritionists, clinical diagnostic laboratory activities, and research into the causes and inheritance of genetic disorders. Examples of conditions that fall within the scope of medical genetics include birth defects and dysmorphology, mental retardation, autism, and mitochondrial disorders, skeletal dysplasia, connective tissue disorders, cancer genetics, teratogens, and prenatal diagnosis. Medical genetics is increasingly becoming relevant to many common diseases. Overlaps with other medical specialties are beginning to emerge, as recent advances in genetics are revealing etiologies for neurologic, endocrine, cardiovascular, pulmonary, ophthalmologic, renal, psychiatric, and dermatologic conditions.

In some ways, many of the individual fields within medical genetics are hybrids between clinical care and research. This is due in part to recent advances in science and technology (for example, see the Human genome project) that have enabled an unprecedented understanding of genetic disorders.

Clinical genetics is the practice of clinical medicine with particular attention to hereditary disorders. Referrals are made to genetics clinics for a variety of reasons, including birth defects, developmental delay, autism, epilepsy, short stature, and many others. Examples of genetic syndromes that are commonly seen in the genetics clinic include chromosomal rearrangements, Down syndrome, DiGeorge syndrome (22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome), Fragile X syndrome, Marfan syndrome, Neurofibromatosis, Turner syndrome, and Williams syndrome.

In the United States, physicians who practice clinical genetics are accredited by the American Board of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ABMGG).[1] In order to become a board-certified practitioner of Clinical Genetics, a physician must complete a minimum of 24 months of training in a program accredited by the ABMGG. Individuals seeking acceptance into clinical genetics training programs must hold an M.D. or D.O. degree (or their equivalent) and have completed a minimum of 24 months of training in an ACGME-accredited residency program in internal medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, or other medical specialty.[2]

Metabolic (or biochemical) genetics involves the diagnosis and management of inborn errors of metabolism in which patients have enzymatic deficiencies that perturb biochemical pathways involved in metabolism of carbohydrates, amino acids, and lipids. Examples of metabolic disorders include galactosemia, glycogen storage disease, lysosomal storage disorders, metabolic acidosis, peroxisomal disorders, phenylketonuria, and urea cycle disorders.

Cytogenetics is the study of chromosomes and chromosome abnormalities. While cytogenetics historically relied on microscopy to analyze chromosomes, new molecular technologies such as array comparative genomic hybridization are now becoming widely used. Examples of chromosome abnormalities include aneuploidy, chromosomal rearrangements, and genomic deletion/duplication disorders.

Molecular genetics involves the discovery of and laboratory testing for DNA mutations that underlie many single gene disorders. Examples of single gene disorders include achondroplasia, cystic fibrosis, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, hereditary breast cancer (BRCA1/2), Huntington disease, Marfan syndrome, Noonan syndrome, and Rett syndrome. Molecular tests are also used in the diagnosis of syndromes involving epigenetic abnormalities, such as Angelman syndrome, Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, Prader-willi syndrome, and uniparental disomy.

Mitochondrial genetics concerns the diagnosis and management of mitochondrial disorders, which have a molecular basis but often result in biochemical abnormalities due to deficient energy production.

There exists some overlap between medical genetic diagnostic laboratories and molecular pathology.

Genetic counseling is the process of providing information about genetic conditions, diagnostic testing, and risks in other family members, within the framework of nondirective counseling. Genetic counselors are non-physician members of the medical genetics team who specialize in family risk assessment and counseling of patients regarding genetic disorders. The precise role of the genetic counselor varies somewhat depending on the disorder.

Although genetics has its roots back in the 19th century with the work of the Bohemian monk Gregor Mendel and other pioneering scientists, human genetics emerged later. It started to develop, albeit slowly, during the first half of the 20th century. Mendelian (single-gene) inheritance was studied in a number of important disorders such as albinism, brachydactyly (short fingers and toes), and hemophilia. Mathematical approaches were also devised and applied to human genetics. Population genetics was created.

Medical genetics was a late developer, emerging largely after the close of World War II (1945) when the eugenics movement had fallen into disrepute. The Nazi misuse of eugenics sounded its death knell. Shorn of eugenics, a scientific approach could be used and was applied to human and medical genetics. Medical genetics saw an increasingly rapid rise in the second half of the 20th century and continues in the 21st century.

The clinical setting in which patients are evaluated determines the scope of practice, diagnostic, and therapeutic interventions. For the purposes of general discussion, the typical encounters between patients and genetic practitioners may involve:

Each patient will undergo a diagnostic evaluation tailored to their own particular presenting signs and symptoms. The geneticist will establish a differential diagnosis and recommend appropriate testing. Increasingly, clinicians use SimulConsult, paired with the National Library of Medicine Gene Review articles, to narrow the list of hypotheses (known as the differential diagnosis) and identify the tests that are relevant for a particular patient. These tests might evaluate for chromosomal disorders, inborn errors of metabolism, or single gene disorders.

Chromosome studies are used in the general genetics clinic to determine a cause for developmental delay/mental retardation, birth defects, dysmorphic features, and/or autism. Chromosome analysis is also performed in the prenatal setting to determine whether a fetus is affected with aneuploidy or other chromosome rearrangements. Finally, chromosome abnormalities are often detected in cancer samples. A large number of different methods have been developed for chromosome analysis:

Biochemical studies are performed to screen for imbalances of metabolites in the bodily fluid, usually the blood (plasma/serum) or urine, but also in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Specific tests of enzyme function (either in leukocytes, skin fibroblasts, liver, or muscle) are also employed under certain circumstances. In the US, the newborn screen incorporates biochemical tests to screen for treatable conditions such as galactosemia and phenylketonuria (PKU). Patients suspected to have a metabolic condition might undergo the following tests:

Each cell of the body contains the hereditary information (DNA) wrapped up in structures called chromosomes. Since genetic syndromes are typically the result of alterations of the chromosomes or genes, there is no treatment currently available that can correct the genetic alterations in every cell of the body. Therefore, there is currently no "cure" for genetic disorders. However, for many genetic syndromes there is treatment available to manage the symptoms. In some cases, particularly inborn errors of metabolism, the mechanism of disease is well understood and offers the potential for dietary and medical management to prevent or reduce the long-term complications. In other cases, infusion therapy is used to replace the missing enzyme. Current research is actively seeking to use gene therapy or other new medications to treat specific genetic disorders.

In general, metabolic disorders arise from enzyme deficiencies that disrupt normal metabolic pathways. For instance, in the hypothetical example:

Compound "A" is metabolized to "B" by enzyme "X", compound "B" is metabolized to "C" by enzyme "Y", and compound "C" is metabolized to "D" by enzyme "Z". If enzyme "Z" is missing, compound "D" will be missing, while compounds "A", "B", and "C" will build up. The pathogenesis of this particular condition could result from lack of compound "D", if it is critical for some cellular function, or from toxicity due to excess "A", "B", and/or "C". Treatment of the metabolic disorder could be achieved through dietary supplementation of compound "D" and dietary restriction of compounds "A", "B", and/or "C" or by treatment with a medication that promoted disposal of excess "A", "B", or "C". Another approach that can be taken is enzyme replacement therapy, in which a patient is given an infusion of the missing enzyme.

Dietary restriction and supplementation are key measures taken in several well-known metabolic disorders, including galactosemia, phenylketonuria (PKU), maple syrup urine disease, organic acidurias and urea cycle disorders. Such restrictive diets can be difficult for the patient and family to maintain, and require close consultation with a nutritionist who has special experience in metabolic disorders. The composition of the diet will change depending on the caloric needs of the growing child and special attention is needed during a pregnancy if a woman is affected with one of these disorders.

Medical approaches include enhancement of residual enzyme activity (in cases where the enzyme is made but is not functioning properly), inhibition of other enzymes in the biochemical pathway to prevent buildup of a toxic compound, or diversion of a toxic compound to another form that can be excreted. Examples include the use of high doses of pyridoxine (vitamin B6) in some patients with homocystinuria to boost the activity of the residual cystathione synthase enzyme, administration of biotin to restore activity of several enzymes affected by deficiency of biotinidase, treatment with NTBC in Tyrosinemia to inhibit the production of succinylacetone which causes liver toxicity, and the use of sodium benzoate to decrease ammonia build-up in urea cycle disorders.

Certain lysosomal storage diseases are treated with infusions of a recombinant enzyme (produced in a laboratory), which can reduce the accumulation of the compounds in various tissues. Examples include Gaucher disease, Fabry disease, Mucopolysaccharidoses and Glycogen storage disease type II. Such treatments are limited by the ability of the enzyme to reach the affected areas (the blood brain barrier prevents enzyme from reaching the brain, for example), and can sometimes be associated with allergic reactions. The long-term clinical effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapies vary widely among different disorders.

There are a variety of career paths within the field of medical genetics, and naturally the training required for each area differs considerably. It should be noted that the information included in this section applies to the typical pathways in the United States and there may be differences in other countries. US Practitioners in clinical, counseling, or diagnostic subspecialties generally obtain board certification through the American Board of Medical Genetics.

Genetic information provides a unique type of knowledge about an individual and his/her family, fundamentally different from a typically laboratory test that provides a "snapshot" of an individual's health status. The unique status of genetic information and inherited disease has a number of ramifications with regard to ethical, legal, and societal concerns.

On 19 March 2015, scientists urged a worldwide ban on clinical use of methods, particularly the use of CRISPR and zinc finger, to edit the human genome in a way that can be inherited.[3][4][5][6] In April 2015 and April 2016, Chinese researchers reported results of basic research to edit the DNA of non-viable human embryos using CRISPR.[7][8][9] In February 2016, British scientists were given permission by regulators to genetically modify human embryos by using CRISPR and related techniques on condition that the embryos were destroyed within seven days.[10] In June 2016 the Dutch government was reported to be planning to follow suit with similar regulations which would specify a 14-day limit.[11]

The more empirical approach to human and medical genetics was formalized by the founding in 1948 of the American Society of Human Genetics. The Society first began annual meetings that year (1948) and its international counterpart, the International Congress of Human Genetics, has met every 5 years since its inception in 1956. The Society publishes the American Journal of Human Genetics on a monthly basis.

Medical genetics is now recognized as a distinct medical specialty in the U.S. with its own approved board (the American Board of Medical Genetics) and clinical specialty college (the American College of Medical Genetics). The College holds an annual scientific meeting, publishes a monthly journal, Genetics in Medicine, and issues position papers and clinical practice guidelines on a variety of topics relevant to human genetics.

The broad range of research in medical genetics reflects the overall scope of this field, including basic research on genetic inheritance and the human genome, mechanisms of genetic and metabolic disorders, translational research on new treatment modalities, and the impact of genetic testing

Basic research geneticists usually undertake research in universities, biotechnology firms and research institutes.

Sometimes the link between a disease and an unusual gene variant is more subtle. The genetic architecture of common diseases is an important factor in determining the extent to which patterns of genetic variation influence group differences in health outcomes.[12][13][14] According to the common disease/common variant hypothesis, common variants present in the ancestral population before the dispersal of modern humans from Africa play an important role in human diseases.[15] Genetic variants associated with Alzheimer disease, deep venous thrombosis, Crohn disease, and type 2 diabetes appear to adhere to this model.[16] However, the generality of the model has not yet been established and, in some cases, is in doubt.[13][17][18] Some diseases, such as many common cancers, appear not to be well described by the common disease/common variant model.[19]

Another possibility is that common diseases arise in part through the action of combinations of variants that are individually rare.[20][21] Most of the disease-associated alleles discovered to date have been rare, and rare variants are more likely than common variants to be differentially distributed among groups distinguished by ancestry.[19][22] However, groups could harbor different, though perhaps overlapping, sets of rare variants, which would reduce contrasts between groups in the incidence of the disease.

The number of variants contributing to a disease and the interactions among those variants also could influence the distribution of diseases among groups. The difficulty that has been encountered in finding contributory alleles for complex diseases and in replicating positive associations suggests that many complex diseases involve numerous variants rather than a moderate number of alleles, and the influence of any given variant may depend in critical ways on the genetic and environmental background.[17][23][24][25] If many alleles are required to increase susceptibility to a disease, the odds are low that the necessary combination of alleles would become concentrated in a particular group purely through drift.[26]

One area in which population categories can be important considerations in genetics research is in controlling for confounding between population substructure, environmental exposures, and health outcomes. Association studies can produce spurious results if cases and controls have differing allele frequencies for genes that are not related to the disease being studied,[27] although the magnitude of this problem in genetic association studies is subject to debate.[28][29] Various methods have been developed to detect and account for population substructure,[30][31] but these methods can be difficult to apply in practice.[32]

Population substructure also can be used to advantage in genetic association studies. For example, populations that represent recent mixtures of geographically separated ancestral groups can exhibit longer-range linkage disequilibrium between susceptibility alleles and genetic markers than is the case for other populations.[33][34][35][36] Genetic studies can use this admixture linkage disequilibrium to search for disease alleles with fewer markers than would be needed otherwise. Association studies also can take advantage of the contrasting experiences of racial or ethnic groups, including migrant groups, to search for interactions between particular alleles and environmental factors that might influence health.[37][38]

Go here to see the original:
Medical genetics - Wikipedia

Read More...

Page 1,079«..1020..1,0781,0791,0801,081..1,0901,100..»


2025 © StemCell Therapy is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) Comments (RSS) | Violinesth by Patrick