Monthly Archives: October 2009

Cool heads required!

Every year thousands of babies born in the United States suffer from perinatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HEI), a condition where a lack of oxygen and reduced blood supply during or shortly after birth causes brain damage and can lead to death or serious disability in later life. HEI results from a variety of causes, for example when the umbilical cord becoming wrapped around the child’s neck during birth, and until recently there was no specific treatment to help prevent injury in these cases. A report on the BBC highlights a promising therapeutic approach that may help doctors to reduce the damage.

Cool Cap
In this clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine members of the Total Body Hypothermia for Neonatal Encephalopathy Trial (TOBY) study group lead by Dr Denis V Azzopardi at Imperial College London compared the effects of cooling the whole body of newborn babies to 33.5 degrees Celsius for 72 hours following HEI with a control group who underwent standard intensive care, and found that a significantly larger proportion of babies treated with hypothermia survived without signs of brain damage. This result builds that of two earlier clinical trials published in 2005 which reported that cooling could help to prevent brain damage in HEI babies, and since then one method, the Cool Cap system which cools the head rather than the whole body, has been approved by the FDA. Both the Cool Cap clinical trial and the TOBY trial report the most significant improvements for children who might have otherwise suffered mild-to-moderate injury, which is in agreement with the observation that damage to the brain in these cases occurs in two phases, one during oxygen starvation and a second in the following hours and days, with the hypothermia treatment helping to prevent the second phase of damage.

So where did this technique come from? Well the use of hypothermia in medicine in not entirely novel, indeed for the past fifty years induced hypothermia has been used to reduce oxygen use and slow the flow of blood during heart surgery, giving surgeons more time to perform delicate operations. This technique was first demonstrated by Dr. Wilfred G. Bigelow in 1949 when he demonstrated that hypothermia could increase the time available for open heart surgery in dogs. The use of hypothermia to treat HEI much more recent and is thanks mainly to Professor Marianne Thoresen, another member of the TOBY study group, who performed pioneering research in the mid 1990′s (1,2) which demonstrated that cooling the body by 3-4 degrees could reduce brain damage following oxygen starvation in newborn piglets and rats. Further animal studies by her research group and others (3) determined that the treatment needed to begin within 6 hours of birth and continue for a prolonged period of up to 72 hours for optimum results.

Thanks to the work of Prof. Thorsesen hypothermia is now a promising therapy for oxygen starved babies, but it can no doubt be improved further and studies in both animals and in the clinic are continuing in order refine these techniques.

Regards

Paul Browne

1. Thoresen M. et al.”Mild hypothermia after severe transienthypoxia-ischemia ameliorates delayed cerebralenergy failure in the newborn piglet.” Pediatr Res Vol. 37, Pages 667-670 (1995) PubMed: 7603788
2. Bona E. et al. “Protective effects of moderate hypothermia after neonatal hypoxia-ischemia: short- and long-term outcome.” Pediatr Res Vol.43, pages 738-745 (1998) PubMed: 9621982
3. Gunn A.J. et al.. “Dramatic neuronal rescue with prolonged selective head cooling after ischemia in fetal lambs.” J Clin Invest. Volume 99, Pages 248–256 (1997) DOI:10.1172/JCI11915

Unanimous support of UC Leadership to Animal Research

University of California President Mark Yudof and all UC Chancellors have signed onto the Pro-Test Petition, a statement of principles in support of scientists work with animals in biomedical research.

The Petition, a joint project of Americans for Medical Progress, Pro-Test for Science and Speaking of Research, recently reached the milestone of 10,000 signatories. Among those supporting the petition are Nobel Laureates, including David Baltimore (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1975) and David Hubel (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1981), and members of the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute for Medicine.

In thanking the UC leadership for their unanimous support J. David Jentsch wrote to President Yudof:

Without the support of the institutions and our colleagues, the actions we have taken since April would not have been possible. In addition, it is clear that we have an immense amount of work yet to do, and that will only be possible with continuing enthusiastic support. Never before have we seen our colleagues joining ranks in such numbers around this issue, and your leadership clearly has had an influence on this development.

The petition remains on line and will be presented to key legislators in April 2010.

You can sign by going to www.raisingvoices.net

Speaking of Research

Nobel Prize time again (and the Laskers too)

Greider

Greider

Back in August, Dario wrote about how basic science contributes to medical advances and today the Nobel Assembly chose to recognize the importance of such work by awarding the The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2009 to Dr. Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Professor Carol W. Greider and Professor Jack W. Szostak for their discovery of “how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase”.

Blackburn

Blackburn

The discovery was made when Dr. Blackburn was sequencing the DNA of the tiny unicellular fresh water animal Tetrahymena, a popular model organism among scientists studying the process of cell division and the architecture of the organelles within the cell, and found repetitive CCCCAA sequences at the ends of their chromosomes. She then teamed up with Prof. Szostak who was then studying the stability of DNA molecules called minichromosomes in yeast, and as the Nobel Prize press release tells us they performed…

… an experiment that would cross the boundaries between very distant species . From the DNA of Tetrahymena, Blackburn isolated the CCCCAA sequence. Szostak coupled it to the minichromosomes and put them back into yeast cells. The results, which were published in 1982, were striking – the telomere DNA sequence protected the minichromosomes from degradation.

Szostak

Szostak

Professor Greider, then a graduate student working in Dr. Blackburn’s lab, then identified telomerase, the enzyme responsible for making and maintaining the telomeres. This was a very significant discovery as it proved that telomeres were made using a different mechanism than that used to make the rest of the DNA sequence in a chromosome. Further research by Blackburn, Greider and Szostak and others demonstrated that telomeres are present in a wide range of plants and animals, organisms that diverged from a common ancestor over a billion years ago, and discovered that they play an important role in cellular ageing, first in yeast and subsequently in humans. Telomeres also appear to have a role in cancer, as it appears that in some (but not all) cancers elevated levels of telomerase activity contribute to the cancer cells continuing to divide and produce new cancer cells long after healthy cells would have lost the ability to divide due to the loss of their telomeres, consequently the field of telomerase inhibitors has seen intense activity as scientists seek new cancer treatments. Many of the recent insights into the role of telomeres and telomerase in ageing, inherited diseases and cancer have come from research on mice, particularly genetically modified mice with altered telomerase activity levels, and Professor Greider in particular has been at the forefront of this work for over a decade (1).

We offer our congratulations to this years’ Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine, their work is a striking example of how basic, curiosity-driven research on species that may appear only distantly related to us can illuminate human biology and open up whole new fields of medical research.

Tetrahymena: Ciliate Genome Sequence Reveals Unique Features of a Model Eukaryote

Tetrahymena: Ciliate Genome Sequence Reveals Unique Features of a Model Eukaryote

It did not escape our notice that the same trio who won this years’ Nobel Prize were awarded the Albert Lasker Basic Medical Research Award in 2006, for the same work. We were delighted to learn a couple of weeks ago that this years Albert Lasker Basic Medical Research Award has been awarded to Professor John Gurdon and Professor Shinya YamanakaFor discoveries concerning nuclear reprogramming“. The Lasker Foundation has published an excellent summary of their contributions to this exciting field which demonstrates the absolutely crucial contribution of animal research to their work.

A couple of years ago I discussed Professor Yamanaka’s work on the Pro-Test blog, and since then I have had the opportunity to discuss cellular reprogramming on Speaking of Research, which makes it all the more gratifying to see his work recognized in this way so soon.

We offer both Professor Gurdon and Professor Yamanaka our heartiest congratulations, the smart money has to be on them being summoned to Stockholm in the not too distant future.

Regards

Paul Browne

1) Blackburn E.H., Greider C.W., and Szostak J.W.”Telomeres and telomerase: the path from maize, Tetrahymena and yeast to human cancer and aging.” Nat Med. Volume 12(10), Pages1133-1138 (2006) http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nm1006-1133

Working toward a cure for paralysis

We have been pleasantly surprised by the magnitude of the positive responses received from our recent publication in Nature Neuroscience regarding the demonstration of several interventions which resulted in the recovery of well controlled locomotion after a complete spinal cord injury.

It has been characterized as a major breakthrough in facilitating the level of recovery of locomotion following a severe spinal cord injury. This in itself implies that these findings were the result of a single experiment with rats. But the reality is that these experiments were based on 100s of other experiments by not only my laboratory, but many other scientists. All of the previous animal experiments relevant to our understanding of the control of movement, involving many different species ranging at least from fish to humans, have contributed to the evolution of the concepts that underly our most recent publication. This full range of animal species is essential for the continuing progress toward the development of interventions to recover all of those functions that are lost, following a severe spinal cord injury. Our particular publication only addressed the recovery of locomotion, but there are other severe functional losses such as bladder and bowel control and hand function among others that are in need of breakthroughs. It is certain that the concepts which led to the Nature Neuroscience publication would not have evolved at any time in the near future without these gradual and incremental experiments which formed the scientific basis of these concepts. There is no way that these concepts and the experimental results could have been predicted by any non-animal mechanism, for example, computer modeling.

It should also be pointed out that these experiments have significant implications to many other neuromuscular pathologies, such as brain injury, stroke, Parkinson’s, etc. The cost to benefit ratio of these experiments to humans as well as to the care of domestic animals is significant. While there is a real and sincere philosophical position of some, that the rights of animals are equal to humans, the hypocritical nature of this position by many is blatantly exposed as soon as they seek medical attention and even simply, not being a vegetarian. There are a few medical procedures that are used today that have not benefited or completely developed or at least based on the results of animal experiments. Few people let themselves make the moral comparisons of the use of animals for science as opposed to the advantages of pleasing ones appetite. How equal are humans and other animals? And why it is there a bias in the ferocity of protecting one animal specie compared to another? What is the basis for this moral distinction?

It is quite clear that the reason for the apparent downward shift in opinions of the public regarding the use of animals in experiments is because there has been a deficiency and near absence of our educational efforts. The facts related to the consequences of there being no access to animals for experiments versus having excess are rarely discussed within our educational system, grade school through the university level.

V. Reggie Edgerton,
PhD Department of Neurobiology
University of California, Los Angeles

Personal Touches – Scientists speak from the heart

The Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR) recently started to broadcast the following one minute video clip, entitled “Larry’s Story”, of why researchers do what they do, and why animal research is crucial for their work.  It is a great step to see FBR showing the human side of researchers – ordinary people trying hard to alleviate the suffering of others across the world.

This video, and others produced by FBR, is an important step in allowing the public to connect with the work researchers do. Not long ago Americans for Medical Progress made their own videos showing how animal research was crucial to veterinary medicine. This video feature John D. Young, Director of Comparative Medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Centre talking about how animal research was crucial in saving the life of his dog valentine.

I encourage you to log into YouTube and leave high ratings for both videos. Hopefully more and more scientists will follow suit and get their name out there.

Cheers

Tom Holder

Scientists affirm need to defend research

The recent commentary by Ringach and Jentsch (both Speaking of Research committee members) on need for scientists to defend biomedical research publicly is beginning to generate a consensus amongst top biomedical researchers around the world.

Their commentary is now the top rated Biology article in the Faculty of 1000 system.  The Faculty of 1000 is an information clearinghouse in which leading scientists identify crucial scientific perspectives for discussion and promulgation. The recognition of their comments by the Faculty of 1000 indicates the rise of a new tide of advocacy and determination amongst the scientific community to confront threats to research.

Among the various comments one can read:

This article, written by two scientists at UCLA who have been the victims of appalling terrorist attacks because of the research they carry out, provides a timely and much-needed attempt to galvanize the scientific community to speak out in support of the responsible use of animals in research.
Ringach and Jentsch persuasively argue that the scientific community must adopt a stronger, more proactive, and more united stance against the violence, intimidation, and misinformation programs of animal-rights extremists.
Ringach and Jentsch highlight in their article the continuing problems that researchers face from anti-vivisectionists. They have experienced at first-hand the intimidation, terrorism and violence that these groups inflict upon scientists in the name of animal welfare. This article states that the greatest benefit would come from educating the public of the need for animal research and the improvements in animal welfare already undertaken by researchers. The issues affect researchers everywhere; recent past experience in the UK, and ongoing problems in Germany and Switzerland, highlight the need for international efforts to better inform people about the benefits of animal research.

This commentary is important as it summarizes succinctly the harassment and other difficulties faced by animal researchers in the United States, particularly those working on non-human primates, and encourages all of us to face up to the threats to our work by proposing that the scientific community seek to better inform the public about their research.
Clearly, a rapidly increasing proportion of scientists agree that time has come to seek a broader dialogue with the public and voice our collective opinions, so that the public can reach an informed decision on the use of animals in biomedical research.

Regards

Sam