Scientists Make Mice Immune to Radiation
dotmed.com
dotmed.com
NO is, in low doses, a signaling molecule used by the body to facilitate intercellular communication. Similarly to ischemic attacks (as in strokes), what follows acute radiation exposure is a massive disruption of normal cell operations. There are, to use a bit of programmer lingo here, "checksums" in place to detect these kinds of disruptions and to shut down affected cells immediately. This is essentially like a segmentation fault or any other kind of fatal exception, and it's called apoptosis.
During normal conditions, apoptosis signaling pathways are essential to weed out cells that aren't functioning properly. During massive crisis, however, this mechanism kills people, because it is suddenly triggered in a large amount of cells. That's what kills stroke and heart attack victims (if they survive the incident itself). The body simply doesn't know that in this case it would be life-saving if it kept corrupted cells alive.
A similar thing happens with acute radiation poisoning: cells die en masse, usually the mucosae are affected the worst, leading to massive shock and internal bleeding. This particular research apparently focuses on halting these apoptosis pathways, so the body doesn't self destruct.
Yes, that's essential. However, there is a price to pay that the article almost completely ignores. While interfering with the cell death signal saves you from immediate death, it does nothing to repair damaged porteins and DNA.
I am genuinely sorry to be so snarky, but I am really tired of scientific-sounding arguments (like the "Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors" article) being automatically credited on this site.
"While interfering with the cell death signal saves you from immediate death, it does nothing to repair damaged porteins and DNA."
Did you bother to read the second page?
"Also, a bigger mystery is figuring out how, by blocking this pathway, cells are able to fix the damaged DNA within. Dr. Isenberg says they know that following radiation exposure, the DNA is scrambled, but somehow, with this treatment, the cells are able to get themselves right."
"'It's not that we're blocking radiation from hitting the tissue,' he says. 'Somehow...they repair themselves, and go about their business.'"
> "'It's not that we're blocking radiation from hitting the tissue,' he says. 'Somehow...they repair themselves, and go about their business.'"
I strongly suspect there is no data to support this statement. We have known about small-scale repairs for a few years now, but this statement goes far beyond that. With the radiation doses involved, this phenomenon would require the reconstruction of information that is quite simply lost from the genome. Of course it is possible that many of these cells "go about their business", but that's not the same as assuming they have somehow repaired themselves.
As far as being "automatically credited on this site" I think you should give the other users a little more credit, and perhaps tone down your blanket judgements a little at the same time. Just because I made a few "scientific-sounding arguments" doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong. The article claims immunity from radiation which is total gibberish. As far as the alleged complete self-repair goes, there are plenty of reasons to be extremely weary about this as well.
By the way, I think I made it clear in the original post how important research like this is. At the same time I believe it's even more important not to misrepresent findings.
This is from late 2009. Does anyone have an update on this research? Would obviously be a great boon if it was equally effective in humans.
"Perhaps equally exciting, Dr. Isenberg and his team found that while his technique protected healthy cells from damage, it actually increased the effectiveness of radiation treatments on cancer cells."
The paper might be interesting to read, though, especially if it got cited. As always, news articles tend to inflate claims and miss the point entirely.
Rereading it, it seems that the effects seen on the birds are seen in humans too, but at higher contamination levels.
It'd be incredibly interesting to look for changes in the repair mechanisms of these organisms--especially the promoters. I bet they're being expressed at ridiculously high levels.
That said, I can't disagree with your last point - it's probably at least a little embellished.
And here is a follow-up paper in Am J Pathol (2008): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2543077/?tool=pu...
Both are freely available at the links provided.
step closer to have super hero mutant children, perhaps, if it's keeping your gonads alive but mutant.