GECKIL LAB:Science is awesome!: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
***[[GECKIL GE Lab|back to The GECKIL Genetic Engineering Laboratory]] | ***[[GECKIL GE Lab|back to The GECKIL Genetic Engineering Laboratory]] | ||
THE BRILLIANCE OF BASIC RESEARCH | |||
wasn’t dreaming of developing the GPS,” says Professor Emeritus Dan Kleppner, who in 1960 helped invent the hydrogen maser, an atomic clock that’s now at the heart of satellite-based global positioning systems. | |||
“With basic research, you don’t begin to recognize the applications until the discoveries are in hand,” he says. “In my view, basic science is the best thing that mankind pursues––not so much because it leads to new applications but because it leads to new understanding. For me, there’s no greater pleasure than the joy of discovery.” | |||
This excitement abounds at MIT. Basic research has led to discovery of the first human cancer gene; the first experimental confirmation of the existence of the quark; the first chemical synthesis of penicillin; and the discovery of Prochlorococcus, the most abundant photosynthetic species on Earth. | |||
An astonishing range of basic research is now underway. In nearly every field, MIT has experts at the frontier. Consider Nobel Laureate Bob Horvitz, who discovered that there are specific genes that determine cell death. Today this discovery is revealing new therapies to treat cancer, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s disease. Or consider Janet Conrad, whose investigations of the physics of neutrinos are changing the way we understand matter. In the late 1990s, we learned that these elusive particles have mass, the most shocking surprise in particle physics in the past 40 years. | |||
Each year, 3,500 research scientists and visiting faculty work on projects with faculty and students; thousands of graduate students conduct research to become leaders in their fields; and nine out of 10 undergraduate students participate in UROP, MIT’s flagship Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program, which matches students with faculty in research partnerships. Like faculty, students publish in scholarly journals, present at professional conferences, make policy recommendations, and release their discoveries into the world. | |||
Basic research is the bedrock of MIT—and the foundation for tomorrow. | |||
WHY BASIC RESEARCH? | |||
Why pursue basic research simply for the sake of curiosity, discovery, knowledge, when applied research specifically tackles the world’s biggest problems––poverty, energy, disease, or building new businesses to boost the economy? Faculty say it’s because basic research is the process of creation, and without it, applications vanish. | |||
“People think of basic and applied research as separate, but it’s an extremely important mix,” says Ram Sasisekharan, professor of biological engineering whose research on complex sugars has led to a cascade of potential medical applications that could significantly improve outcomes for patients with cancer and infectious diseases. “Often basic science fuels the applications in a much more profound way,” he says. “To have a higher probability of success in the applied arena, it’s extremely important to be well-grounded in the basic mechanism of the targets we’re after.” | |||
Richard Schrock, the Frederick G. Keyes Professor of Chemistry who won the Nobel Prize in 2005, says: “I got here by doing basic research.” By following his curiosity, he says, he developed the catalysts for the chemical reaction now used every day for the green production of pharmaceuticals, fuels, and other synthetic chemicals. | |||
“The value of basic research is you discover something you didn’t expect — that nobody expected. And it’s where almost everything we now expect came from,” he says. My work had applications. I just didn’t know it at the time.” | |||
LONG-TERM, BREAKTHROUGHS | |||
Basic research can be breathtaking but often takes a breathtaking amount of time. | |||
Recently, Professor Alan Guth celebrated one of the most significant breakthroughs in the history of physics with the first direct evidence confirming his theory of what happened in the fraction of a second after the Big Bang. | |||
His groundbreaking theory of cosmic inflation states that within that first sliver of time, the universe expanded exponentially by a factor of 1025. A golf ball expanding that much would end up 500 times as big as the Milky Way galaxy. Looking back 14 billion years to that first instant of cosmic time with telescopes at the South Pole, a team of radio astronomers recently detected ripples in the fabric of space-time—gravitational waves— the mark of a universe pulling apart in the first fraction of a second after its birth. | |||
Guth’s revolutionary work—first done in 1979—offers spectacular insights into some of humankind’s most basic questions, like, how did the universe begin? And why do we exist? | |||
“Basic science is powerful but takes time to develop,” says Dina Katabi, professor of electrical engineering and computer science and winner of a MacArthur “genius” award. “And unless you invest early on, you cannot reap the benefit later. | |||
“Sometimes you need to invest at the time when it’s not clear that this development will lead to anything, say, in terms of a product. But later, even 60 years later, it becomes pretty clear that this work has become an amazing innovation.” | |||
IDEAS IN THE MARKETPLACE | |||
Ram Sasisekharan, who holds 85 patents and launched three biotech companies in Kendall Square in Cambridge, says that basic science can lead to applications, companies, jobs, a stronger economy, and global competitiveness. | |||
What sets MIT apart from other universities, he says, is that MIT’s culture emerged from its history as an engineering school with deep ties to industry, making it easier for the discoveries of science to enter the marketplace than at other science institutions. In part, he says, MIT’s success is because of MIT’s Technology and Licensing Office, which makes patenting and licensing easier, and also because MIT values and supports collaboration, often across engineering and science. | |||
At other universities, it may be tough, say, for a biologist to launch a company, but at MIT, biologists have helped transform Kendall Square into a biotech capital of the world. Kendall Square (the neighborhood surrounding MIT’s campus) now hosts 150 high-tech companies, including some of the most celebrated technology, biotech, and pharmaceutical companies on the planet. | |||
“MIT is a powerhouse. Its success is combining basic research with launching companies to bring those innovations to market,” says Kripa Varanasi, associate professor of mechanical engineering, who has filed for more than 50 patents, and who studies hydrophobic (water-shedding) surfaces, like those found in nature. His work could solve big problems in energy, water, agriculture, or transportation, but, he says, typical of basic research, his efforts recently led in a surprising direction when he launched LiquiGlide, a company to market his nonstick, nontoxic, super-slippery coating for packaging, which aids in completely dispensing from a container various viscous liquids like ketchup, toothpaste, or jelly. The product—supported by a viral video that showed ketchup flowing easily from the bottle—was named by TIME magazine among the best inventions of 2012. | |||
“We came up with a great technology, but the whole MIT ecosystem is responsible for our success. Everybody rallied—people at the Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship, the Venture Mentoring Service, the MIT Deshpande Center for Technological Innovation. They posted our videos of ketchup sliding out of the bottle and overnight it became national news,” says Varanasi, adding that MIT’s entrepreneurial culture makes commercialization easy and the Institute unique. | |||
LESS FUNDING SLOWS DISCOVERY | |||
Basic research takes not only time but also money. Just ask Penny Chisholm, the Lee and Geraldine Martin Professor of Environmental Studies, who revolutionized our understanding of life in the world’s oceans in 1988 when she and colleagues identified Prochlorococcus, a form of ocean plankton that is the tiniest and most abundant photosynthetic organism in the ocean, and which plays a role in regulating climate. | |||
Not only is it also the most abundant single species on Earth, it was completely unknown before her discovery—and Chisholm credits federal funding for the breakthrough. “For 25 years, most of my research was funded by the federal government,” she says. | |||
In fact, MIT played a key role in the 20th century in advancing federal investment in basic research. By the start of World War II, MIT ranked among the U.S.’s top science universities. | |||
At the end of World War II, Vannevar Bush, MIT professor, engineering dean, and science advisor to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, wrote Science: The Endless Frontier, a report that became the foundation for post-WWII science policy and led to the 1950 creation of the National Science Foundation to support civilian scientific research. | |||
After the war, the U.S. government funding for science, spurred by an interest in national defense, led to exponential growth in the percent of the federal budget spent on research, support that peaked during the Apollo program in the 1960s. After the Cold War, as defense-research spending declined, federal spending on the life sciences grew. MIT faculty began reorienting their research to address new opportunities provided by the revolution in molecular biology. | |||
For more than 60 years, MIT and other American research universities have led the world in discovery and innovation—with benefits to the entire country—due to federal funding. This vital support, however, is now on the decline. In 1960, for example, 55 percent of MIT’s campus revenue came from federal research dollars. By 2013, it fell to 22 percent. Chisholm says the decline is disrupting the research process. | |||
“Researchers are focusing on projects with a high probability of results, because these projects have a better chance of getting funded. What’s happening is faculty are doing safe things because they know they’ll work. They take fewer risks, but then the probability of discovering something really new and exciting goes down,” she says. | |||
Sasisekharan, now based at the David. H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, whose work on complex sugars had a powerful impact on the multibillion-dollar industry behind Heparin, a sugar-based blood thinner, adds: “NIH funding is vital. If I had not had that, it would have been a lot more difficult to do things. Clearly, it is getting harder because we are getting far more risk-averse, and hence, funding basic science definitely has gotten a lot harder than it used to be.” | |||
Chisholm adds that it’s now great that foundations and private donors are funding high-risk basic research in fields with limited funding. “That’s changed my research life,” she says. “And it’s changing the landscape of science.” | |||
MAINTAINING COMPETITIVENESS | |||
Erosion of federal support has consequences, faculty say. Graduate programs shrink; we lose young faculty to institutions with more money; it becomes tougher to inspire the next generation to pursue basic research; and as the U.S. gives up its lead in various fields, eventually it loses its competitiveness. | |||
“There’s been a decline in the size of the graduate programs in the last few years,” says Richard Schrock. “The number of graduate students now in chemistry is about half of what it has been historically.” | |||
Chisholm adds: “As funding shrinks, there’s less support for postdocs, less fellowship support. And,” she says, “we risk losing mid-career star faculty to universities in countries that are investing more in basic research. The U.S. is at risk of losing its position as a world leader in science and engineering–both in terms of research and education.” | |||
“Any time is the time to invest in basic research,” says Dina Katabi, who works at the brink of computer science, electrical engineering, and physics to improve the speed, reliability, and security of data exchange. “If we don’t, after 10 or 20 years we’ll be facing other countries whose foundational science platform will be much stronger than ours. We have always been the leader in science, but very quickly, we may find ourselves behind.” | |||
“A commitment to basic science and the convergence of disciplines will propel us to stay ahead and stay competitive globally,” Sasisekharan says. “Anything that derails us will have a price. And,” he says, “less federal funding makes it difficult to inspire a younger generation to be excited about basic science.” | |||
FAITH IN THE FUTURE | |||
Kwanghun Chung is a young assistant professor of chemical engineering who joined MIT last fall and is a researcher at the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science (IMES). He’s collaborating with engineers, neuroscientists, biologists, and doctors on brain disorders and is developing new techniques. Recently, he developed Clarity, a new technology to understand large-scale complex biological systems like the brain. “Our technique is in its very early developmental stages, but it has a great potential to transform the way we do biological research and diagnosis,” he says. | |||
Many faculty members are excited about Chung’s work and where it will lead in 10, 25, or 50 years. | |||
“Everybody knows funding is getting more difficult,” Chung says. “The pot is small, and competition is really fierce. It’s too early to be discouraged. I don’t want to think about it. I just love doing research, so that makes me feel optimistic.” | |||
Dan Kleppner says his 50-year career has led him to focus only on the positive. “One quality of science I really appreciate is its inherent optimism. In spite of all the problems the world faces, I am fundamentally an optimist.” | |||
Schrock believes that basic research is the future. And that MIT’s scientific leadership in the world depends on it. He swings open a cabinet door in his office, closes his hand around a gold medal, and hands a visitor his Nobel Prize. | |||
“I have so much faith in the future,” he says. “I wish I could come back 50 years after I die and look around. Think of what we’ll know. I mean, we’ll no longer have to worry about breast cancer, or cervical cancer, or heart troubles. And wouldn’t it be great if we could just drive a car with power from the sun? | |||
“Won’t it be great to harness that energy to power trains, and cars, and airplanes? I mean, think about it,” he says. “It will be fantastic.” (by Liz Karagianis, Spectrum, Spring 2014 Issue, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) | |||
'''Cancer prevention through a diet that affects your epigenome''' | '''Cancer prevention through a diet that affects your epigenome''' |
Revision as of 12:14, 12 June 2014
THE BRILLIANCE OF BASIC RESEARCH
wasn’t dreaming of developing the GPS,” says Professor Emeritus Dan Kleppner, who in 1960 helped invent the hydrogen maser, an atomic clock that’s now at the heart of satellite-based global positioning systems.
“With basic research, you don’t begin to recognize the applications until the discoveries are in hand,” he says. “In my view, basic science is the best thing that mankind pursues––not so much because it leads to new applications but because it leads to new understanding. For me, there’s no greater pleasure than the joy of discovery.”
This excitement abounds at MIT. Basic research has led to discovery of the first human cancer gene; the first experimental confirmation of the existence of the quark; the first chemical synthesis of penicillin; and the discovery of Prochlorococcus, the most abundant photosynthetic species on Earth.
An astonishing range of basic research is now underway. In nearly every field, MIT has experts at the frontier. Consider Nobel Laureate Bob Horvitz, who discovered that there are specific genes that determine cell death. Today this discovery is revealing new therapies to treat cancer, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s disease. Or consider Janet Conrad, whose investigations of the physics of neutrinos are changing the way we understand matter. In the late 1990s, we learned that these elusive particles have mass, the most shocking surprise in particle physics in the past 40 years.
Each year, 3,500 research scientists and visiting faculty work on projects with faculty and students; thousands of graduate students conduct research to become leaders in their fields; and nine out of 10 undergraduate students participate in UROP, MIT’s flagship Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program, which matches students with faculty in research partnerships. Like faculty, students publish in scholarly journals, present at professional conferences, make policy recommendations, and release their discoveries into the world.
Basic research is the bedrock of MIT—and the foundation for tomorrow.
WHY BASIC RESEARCH?
Why pursue basic research simply for the sake of curiosity, discovery, knowledge, when applied research specifically tackles the world’s biggest problems––poverty, energy, disease, or building new businesses to boost the economy? Faculty say it’s because basic research is the process of creation, and without it, applications vanish.
“People think of basic and applied research as separate, but it’s an extremely important mix,” says Ram Sasisekharan, professor of biological engineering whose research on complex sugars has led to a cascade of potential medical applications that could significantly improve outcomes for patients with cancer and infectious diseases. “Often basic science fuels the applications in a much more profound way,” he says. “To have a higher probability of success in the applied arena, it’s extremely important to be well-grounded in the basic mechanism of the targets we’re after.”
Richard Schrock, the Frederick G. Keyes Professor of Chemistry who won the Nobel Prize in 2005, says: “I got here by doing basic research.” By following his curiosity, he says, he developed the catalysts for the chemical reaction now used every day for the green production of pharmaceuticals, fuels, and other synthetic chemicals.
“The value of basic research is you discover something you didn’t expect — that nobody expected. And it’s where almost everything we now expect came from,” he says. My work had applications. I just didn’t know it at the time.”
LONG-TERM, BREAKTHROUGHS
Basic research can be breathtaking but often takes a breathtaking amount of time.
Recently, Professor Alan Guth celebrated one of the most significant breakthroughs in the history of physics with the first direct evidence confirming his theory of what happened in the fraction of a second after the Big Bang.
His groundbreaking theory of cosmic inflation states that within that first sliver of time, the universe expanded exponentially by a factor of 1025. A golf ball expanding that much would end up 500 times as big as the Milky Way galaxy. Looking back 14 billion years to that first instant of cosmic time with telescopes at the South Pole, a team of radio astronomers recently detected ripples in the fabric of space-time—gravitational waves— the mark of a universe pulling apart in the first fraction of a second after its birth.
Guth’s revolutionary work—first done in 1979—offers spectacular insights into some of humankind’s most basic questions, like, how did the universe begin? And why do we exist?
“Basic science is powerful but takes time to develop,” says Dina Katabi, professor of electrical engineering and computer science and winner of a MacArthur “genius” award. “And unless you invest early on, you cannot reap the benefit later.
“Sometimes you need to invest at the time when it’s not clear that this development will lead to anything, say, in terms of a product. But later, even 60 years later, it becomes pretty clear that this work has become an amazing innovation.”
IDEAS IN THE MARKETPLACE
Ram Sasisekharan, who holds 85 patents and launched three biotech companies in Kendall Square in Cambridge, says that basic science can lead to applications, companies, jobs, a stronger economy, and global competitiveness.
What sets MIT apart from other universities, he says, is that MIT’s culture emerged from its history as an engineering school with deep ties to industry, making it easier for the discoveries of science to enter the marketplace than at other science institutions. In part, he says, MIT’s success is because of MIT’s Technology and Licensing Office, which makes patenting and licensing easier, and also because MIT values and supports collaboration, often across engineering and science.
At other universities, it may be tough, say, for a biologist to launch a company, but at MIT, biologists have helped transform Kendall Square into a biotech capital of the world. Kendall Square (the neighborhood surrounding MIT’s campus) now hosts 150 high-tech companies, including some of the most celebrated technology, biotech, and pharmaceutical companies on the planet.
“MIT is a powerhouse. Its success is combining basic research with launching companies to bring those innovations to market,” says Kripa Varanasi, associate professor of mechanical engineering, who has filed for more than 50 patents, and who studies hydrophobic (water-shedding) surfaces, like those found in nature. His work could solve big problems in energy, water, agriculture, or transportation, but, he says, typical of basic research, his efforts recently led in a surprising direction when he launched LiquiGlide, a company to market his nonstick, nontoxic, super-slippery coating for packaging, which aids in completely dispensing from a container various viscous liquids like ketchup, toothpaste, or jelly. The product—supported by a viral video that showed ketchup flowing easily from the bottle—was named by TIME magazine among the best inventions of 2012.
“We came up with a great technology, but the whole MIT ecosystem is responsible for our success. Everybody rallied—people at the Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship, the Venture Mentoring Service, the MIT Deshpande Center for Technological Innovation. They posted our videos of ketchup sliding out of the bottle and overnight it became national news,” says Varanasi, adding that MIT’s entrepreneurial culture makes commercialization easy and the Institute unique.
LESS FUNDING SLOWS DISCOVERY
Basic research takes not only time but also money. Just ask Penny Chisholm, the Lee and Geraldine Martin Professor of Environmental Studies, who revolutionized our understanding of life in the world’s oceans in 1988 when she and colleagues identified Prochlorococcus, a form of ocean plankton that is the tiniest and most abundant photosynthetic organism in the ocean, and which plays a role in regulating climate.
Not only is it also the most abundant single species on Earth, it was completely unknown before her discovery—and Chisholm credits federal funding for the breakthrough. “For 25 years, most of my research was funded by the federal government,” she says.
In fact, MIT played a key role in the 20th century in advancing federal investment in basic research. By the start of World War II, MIT ranked among the U.S.’s top science universities.
At the end of World War II, Vannevar Bush, MIT professor, engineering dean, and science advisor to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, wrote Science: The Endless Frontier, a report that became the foundation for post-WWII science policy and led to the 1950 creation of the National Science Foundation to support civilian scientific research.
After the war, the U.S. government funding for science, spurred by an interest in national defense, led to exponential growth in the percent of the federal budget spent on research, support that peaked during the Apollo program in the 1960s. After the Cold War, as defense-research spending declined, federal spending on the life sciences grew. MIT faculty began reorienting their research to address new opportunities provided by the revolution in molecular biology.
For more than 60 years, MIT and other American research universities have led the world in discovery and innovation—with benefits to the entire country—due to federal funding. This vital support, however, is now on the decline. In 1960, for example, 55 percent of MIT’s campus revenue came from federal research dollars. By 2013, it fell to 22 percent. Chisholm says the decline is disrupting the research process.
“Researchers are focusing on projects with a high probability of results, because these projects have a better chance of getting funded. What’s happening is faculty are doing safe things because they know they’ll work. They take fewer risks, but then the probability of discovering something really new and exciting goes down,” she says.
Sasisekharan, now based at the David. H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, whose work on complex sugars had a powerful impact on the multibillion-dollar industry behind Heparin, a sugar-based blood thinner, adds: “NIH funding is vital. If I had not had that, it would have been a lot more difficult to do things. Clearly, it is getting harder because we are getting far more risk-averse, and hence, funding basic science definitely has gotten a lot harder than it used to be.”
Chisholm adds that it’s now great that foundations and private donors are funding high-risk basic research in fields with limited funding. “That’s changed my research life,” she says. “And it’s changing the landscape of science.”
MAINTAINING COMPETITIVENESS
Erosion of federal support has consequences, faculty say. Graduate programs shrink; we lose young faculty to institutions with more money; it becomes tougher to inspire the next generation to pursue basic research; and as the U.S. gives up its lead in various fields, eventually it loses its competitiveness.
“There’s been a decline in the size of the graduate programs in the last few years,” says Richard Schrock. “The number of graduate students now in chemistry is about half of what it has been historically.”
Chisholm adds: “As funding shrinks, there’s less support for postdocs, less fellowship support. And,” she says, “we risk losing mid-career star faculty to universities in countries that are investing more in basic research. The U.S. is at risk of losing its position as a world leader in science and engineering–both in terms of research and education.”
“Any time is the time to invest in basic research,” says Dina Katabi, who works at the brink of computer science, electrical engineering, and physics to improve the speed, reliability, and security of data exchange. “If we don’t, after 10 or 20 years we’ll be facing other countries whose foundational science platform will be much stronger than ours. We have always been the leader in science, but very quickly, we may find ourselves behind.”
“A commitment to basic science and the convergence of disciplines will propel us to stay ahead and stay competitive globally,” Sasisekharan says. “Anything that derails us will have a price. And,” he says, “less federal funding makes it difficult to inspire a younger generation to be excited about basic science.”
FAITH IN THE FUTURE
Kwanghun Chung is a young assistant professor of chemical engineering who joined MIT last fall and is a researcher at the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science (IMES). He’s collaborating with engineers, neuroscientists, biologists, and doctors on brain disorders and is developing new techniques. Recently, he developed Clarity, a new technology to understand large-scale complex biological systems like the brain. “Our technique is in its very early developmental stages, but it has a great potential to transform the way we do biological research and diagnosis,” he says.
Many faculty members are excited about Chung’s work and where it will lead in 10, 25, or 50 years.
“Everybody knows funding is getting more difficult,” Chung says. “The pot is small, and competition is really fierce. It’s too early to be discouraged. I don’t want to think about it. I just love doing research, so that makes me feel optimistic.”
Dan Kleppner says his 50-year career has led him to focus only on the positive. “One quality of science I really appreciate is its inherent optimism. In spite of all the problems the world faces, I am fundamentally an optimist.”
Schrock believes that basic research is the future. And that MIT’s scientific leadership in the world depends on it. He swings open a cabinet door in his office, closes his hand around a gold medal, and hands a visitor his Nobel Prize.
“I have so much faith in the future,” he says. “I wish I could come back 50 years after I die and look around. Think of what we’ll know. I mean, we’ll no longer have to worry about breast cancer, or cervical cancer, or heart troubles. And wouldn’t it be great if we could just drive a car with power from the sun?
“Won’t it be great to harness that energy to power trains, and cars, and airplanes? I mean, think about it,” he says. “It will be fantastic.” (by Liz Karagianis, Spectrum, Spring 2014 Issue, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Cancer prevention through a diet that affects your epigenome
Cancer, the leading cause of death worldwide, caused 8.2 million deaths in 2012. With 575,000 deaths attributable to cancer in 2010 in the United States, cancer-related deaths in the US are second only to those caused by heart disease, which caused 594,000. How can we end cancer? First and foremost, focus on prevention—the most viable option as a cure.
Historically, cancer has been perceived as a disease in which our genetic makeup dictates our likelihood of developing cancer. Presently, it has become broadly recognized that the initiation and progression of cancer is an intricate web of both genetic makeup and epigenetic events that alter our gene expression. Many studies have proven that epigenetic alterations are key components of the initiation and progression of cancer. These epigenetic processes—including DNA methylation, histone modification, and microRNA expression—are potentially reversible.
CpG island hypermethylation and down-regulation, histon acetylation and the resulting up-regulation of genes are common for many genes involved in a broad range of functions that are deregulated in cancer.
Dietary compounds have been shown to elicit epigenetic changes in cancer cells. To fully understand how we can modulate cancer prevention through lifestyle, research must focus on how diet and bioactive food components specifically impact epigenetic processes. Antioxidants such as carotenoids and fiber found in many vegetables and fruit offer a variety of anti-cancer benefits. Increased dietary folate, a soluble form of B6 vitamin, consumption has been linked to a decrease in colorectal cancer through its affect on DNA methylation. Dietary phytochemicals, that act as anti-cancer agents (including polyphenols, genistein, sulforaphane, resveratrol, and curcumin) have been shown to act through epigenetic mechanisms.
Cancer prevention is the best way to ultimately cure the disease. To work towards cancer prevention, we must further explore how dietary modifications may achieve epigenetic reprogramming, resulting in the maintenance of normal gene expression and reversal of tumor progression. (Scizzle, FEBRUARY 4, 2014 • KELLY JAMIESON THOMAS)
Healing cancer cells and aerobic glycolysis
Instead of relying on mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, most cancer cells rely heavily on aerobic glycolysis, a phenomenon termed as “the Warburg effect. This effect may be is a direct consequence of damage and it persists in cancer cells that recover from damage. Glycolysis and rate of cell proliferation in cancer cells that recovered from severe damage show that such in vitro Damage-Recovered (DR) cells exhibit mitochondrial structural remodeling, display Warburg effect, and show increased in vitro and in vivo proliferation and tolerance to damage.
To test whether cancer cells derived from tumor microenvironment can show similar properties, (DR) cells from tumors show increased aerobic glycolysis and a high growth rate. These findings show that Warburg effect and its consequences are induced in cancer cells that survive severe damage. (Biochemical and biophysical research communications. 2014 May 24, PMID: 24802411).
Lower energy flux and higher aerobic glycolysis: constant growth
Fermentating glucose in the presence of enough oxygen to support respiration, known as aerobic glycolysis (a.k.a. Warburg effect) is believed to maximize growth rate. The cells support a constant biomass-production rate with decreasing rates of respiration and ATP production but also decrease their stress resistance. As the respiration rate decreases, so do the levels of enzymes catalyzing rate-determining reactions of the tricarboxylic-acid cycle (providing NADH for respiration) and of mitochondrial folate-mediated NADPH production (required for oxidative defense).
The findings demonstrate that exponential growth can represent not a single metabolic/physiological state but a continuum of changing states and that aerobic glycolysis can reduce the energy demands associated with respiratory metabolism and stress survival. (Cell reports. 2014 Apr 24. PMID: 24767987)
Stem cells on a diet
Knowing how an organism’s tissues handle stress throughout life is key to understanding ageing and disease. Stems cells of the blood system seem to tackle metabolic stress by means of a process called autophagy.
Stem cells in adult tissues function to replace lost, damaged or diseased cells throughout an organism’s life, thereby helping to maintain tissue health. But what protects the rare, long-lived stem cells from a lifetime of exposure to cellular and environmental stressors such as inflammation, radiation and metabolic alterations?
Aautophagy, a process of cellular self-cannibalization, is one mechanism that haematopoietic stem cells of the blood system use to protect themselves during times of metabolic stress, when nutrients are limited. When cells are starved of nutrients, the tissue’s stem cells must choose whether to live or die. The options are committing suicide by apoptotic cell death, or self-preservation through autophagy, whereby cells recycle damaged or dispensable proteins and organelles into basic components to support cellular growth.
Autophagy is thought to be a major factor in ageing. Loss of autophagy in tissues such as the brain, liver and heart leads to an increase in age-related disorders, including neurodegeneration, metabolic syndromes and cardiac dysfunction. Conversely, factors that stimulate autophagy abrogate these problems and have been linked to greater longevity. It has therefore been hypothesized that reduced autophagy contributes to the diminishing stem-cell function that occurs with age. No study, however, has investigated the direct role of autophagy in adult stem-cell function.
Warr et al. explore this question in both young mouse haematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) and in more-differentiated HSC progeny, including progenitor cells of the immune cells granulocytes and macrophages. The authors find that little or no autophagy occurs in freshly isolated young HSCs, but that this process can be rapidly induced when the cells are exposed to metabolic stress both in vitro and in vivo. Moreover, when autophagy is inhibited during such metabolic stress, young HSCs rapidly die through apoptosis, indicating that autophagy is crucial for their survival. By contrast, granulocyte–macrophage progenitor cells show higher baseline levels of autophagy, but no shift under starvation conditions. Autophagy can be stimulated in several ways, including through inhibition of the signalling molecule mTOR and activation of stress-induced transcription factors such as FoxO3 and p53. Warr and colleagues find that the primary driver in HSCs is FoxO3, with little contribution from mTOR or p53.(Nature 494, 317–318 (21 February 2013) doi:10.1038/nature11948)
Wnt proteins as morphogens
Wnt signalling molecules are thought to direct the development of an organism by spreading through tissues. But flies grow with almost normal appendages even when their main Wnt protein cannot move.
The Drosophila (fruitfly) protein Wingless (Wg) is the prototype member of the Wnt family of proteins, which regulate tissue patterning and growth during development. Wg is thought to act as a morphogen — a protein that forms concentration gradients as it spreads from its site of synthesis and that regulates gene expression as a function of its concentration.
Wing formation in flies expressing a form of Wg that is tethered to the cell membrane, in place of the secreted protein. Normal wing morphology, although development is delayed and the final wings are smaller than those of normal flies. Morphogen regulation of target genes depends on the physical distance from the morphogen-secreting cell population, such that the levels of this molecule provide a genetic reading of position, a key issue in morphogenesis. The best examples of morphogens come from Drosophila: the secreted molecules Hedgehog, Decapentaplegic (Dpp) and Wingless (Wg) have been identified as morphogens, and for Dpp and Wg there is compelling evidence that they act at long range. It follows from the very definition of a morphogen that the spread of the molecule is an essential component of its function. (Nature 505, 162–163 (09 January 2014) doi:10.1038/nature12848)
Mitochondrial form and function
Mitochondria are one of the major ancient endomembrane systems in eukaryotic cells. Owing to their ability to produce ATP through respiration, they became a driving force in evolution. As an essential step in the process of eukaryotic evolution, the size of the mitochondrial chromosome was drastically reduced, and the behaviour of mitochondria within eukaryotic cells radically changed.
Recent advances have revealed how the organelle’s behaviour has evolved to allow the accurate transmission of its genome and to become responsive to the needs of the cell and its own dysfunction.
Mitochondria arose around two billion years ago from the engulfment of an α-proteobacterium by a precursor of the modern eukaryotic cell. Although mitochondria have maintained the double membrane character of their ancestors and the core of ATP production, their overall form and composition have been drastically altered, and they have acquired myriad additional functions within the cell.
As part of the process of acquiring new functions during evolution, most of the genomic material of the α-proteobacterium progenitor was rapidly lost or transferred to the nuclear genome. What remains in human cells is a small, approximately 16 kilobase, circular genome, which is present in cells in a vast excess of copies relative to nuclear chromosomes. The human mitochondrial genome contains genetic coding information for 13 proteins, which are core constituents of the mitochondrial respiratory complexes I–IV that are embedded in the inner membrane.
Functioning together with the Krebs’ cycle in the matrix, the respiratory chain creates an electrochemical gradient through the coupled transfer of electrons to oxygen and the transport of protons from the matrix across the inner membrane into the intermembrane space. The electrochemical gradient powers the terminal complex V of the chain, ATP synthase, which is an ancient rotary turbine machine that catalyses the synthesis of most cellular ATP.
The electrochemical potential is harnessed for additional crucial mitochondrial functions, such as buffering the signalling ion Ca2+ through uptake by a uniporter in the inner membrane. A reduction in the electrochemical potential of mitochondria in cells has evolved as a read-out for mitochondrial functional status, which, as discussed later, creates signals to activate pathways that repair and/or eliminate defective mitochondria. (Nature 505, 335–343 (16 January 2014) doi:10.1038/nature12985)
Competing endogenous RNAs
Recent reports have described an intricate interplay among diverse RNA species, including protein-coding messenger RNAs and non-coding RNAs such as long non-coding RNAs, pseudogenes and circular RNAs. These RNA transcripts act as competing endogenous RNAs (ceRNAs) or natural microRNA sponges — they communicate with and co-regulate each other by competing for binding to shared microRNAs, a family of small non-coding RNAs that are important post-transcriptional regulators of gene expression.
Understanding this novel RNA crosstalk will lead to significant insight into gene regulatory networks and have implications in human development and disease. Aside from around 21,000 protein-coding genes (less than 2% of the total genome), the human transcriptome includes about 9,000 small RNAs, about 10,000–32,000 long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) and around 11,000 pseudogenes.
Non-coding transcripts can generally be divided into two major classes on the basis of their size. Small non-coding RNAs have been relatively well characterized, and include transfer RNAs, which are involved in translation of messenger RNAs; microRNAs (miRNAs) and small-interfering RNAs, which are implicated in post-transcriptional RNA silencing; small nuclear RNAs, which are involved in splicing; small nucleolar RNAs, which are implicated in ribosomal RNA modification; PIWI-interacting RNAs, which are involved in transposon repression; and transcription initiation RNAs, promoter upstream transcripts and promoter-associated small RNAs, which may be involved in transcription regulation. lncRNAs can vary in length from 200 nucleotides to 100 kilobases, and have been implicated in a diverse range of biological processes from pluripotency to immune responses.
Although thousands of lncRNAs have been identified in the past decade (one of the best-studied and most dramatic examples is XIST which can recruit chromatin-modifying complexes to inactivate an entire chromosome during dosage compensation), only a small number have been functionally characterized.
Genome utilization among species is substatntially different (for example, the protein-coding genome constitutes almost the entire genome of unicellular yeast, but only 2% of mammalian genomes). The non-coding transcriptome is often dysregulated in cancer. These observations suggest that the non-coding transcriptome is of crucial importance in determining the greater complexity of higher eukaryotes and in disease pathogenesis. (Nature 505, 344–352 (16 January 2014) doi:10.1038/nature12986)
A niche for haematopoietic stem cells
Niches are local tissue microenvironments that maintain and regulate stem cells. Haematopoiesis provides a model for understanding mammalian stem cells and their niches, but the haematopoietic stem cell (HSC) niche remains incompletely defined.
Outstanding questions concern the cellular complexity of the niche, the role of the endosteum and functional heterogeneity among perivascular microenvironments. Haematopoietic stem cell (HSC) niches are present in diverse tissues throughout development, beginning in the aorta–gonad–mesonephros (AGM) region and the yolk sac, followed by the placenta, fetal liver, spleen and bone marrow.
Postnatally, the bone marrow is the primary site of HSC maintenance and haematopoiesis, but in response to haematopoietic stress the niche can shift to extramedullary sites. Defining niche components and how they work in concert to regulate haematopoiesis provides the opportunity to improve regeneration following injury or HSC transplantation and to understand how disordered niche function could contribute to disease. (Nature 505, 327–334 (16 January 2014) doi:10.1038/nature12984)
Cancer predisposition genes
Genes in which germline mutations confer highly or moderately increased risks of cancer are called cancer predisposition genes. More than 100 of these genes have been identified, providing important scientific insights in many areas, particularly the mechanisms of cancer causation. Moreover, clinical utilization of cancer predisposition genes has had a substantial impact on diagnosis, optimized management and prevention of cancer.
The recent transformative advances in DNA sequencing hold the promise of many more cancer predisposition gene discoveries, and greater and broader clinical applications. However, there is also considerable potential for incorrect inferences and inappropriate clinical applications. Realizing the promise of cancer predisposition genes for science and medicine will thus require careful navigation. (Nature 505, 302–308 (16 January 2014) doi:10.1038/nature12981)
Selectivity of a voltage-gated calcium channel
Voltage-gated calcium (CaV) channels catalyse rapid, highly selective influx of Ca2+ into cells despite a 70-fold higher extracellular concentration of Na+. How CaV channels solve this fundamental biophysical problem remains unclear.
Ca2+ ions flow through CaV channels at a rate of ~1 million ions per second, yet Na+ conductance is >500-fold lower. Such high-fidelity, high-throughput CaV channel performance is important in regulating intracellular processes such as contraction, secretion, neurotransmission and gene expression in many different cell types. Because the extracellular concentration of Na+ is 70-fold higher than Ca2+, these essential biological functions require CaV channels to be highly selective for Ca2+ in preference to Na+, even though Ca2+ and Na+ have nearly identical diameters (~2 Å). (Nature 505, 56–61 (02 January 2014) doi:10.1038/nature12775)
DNA repair
UvrD helicase is required for nucleotide excision repair, although its role in this process is not well defined.By inducing backtracking, UvrD exposes DNA lesions shielded by blocked RNA polymerase, allowing nucleotide excision repair enzymes to gain access to sites of damage. UvrD is a bona fide transcription elongation factor that contributes to genomic integrity by resolving conflicts between transcription and DNA repair complexes.
Nucleotide excision repair (NER) is the most versatile and evolutionarily conserved mechanism used by prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells to repair diverse types of DNA lesions. In bacteria, the general NER pathway commences when UvrA and UvrB proteins bind damaged DNA and recruit UvrC to cleave the impaired strand on both sides of the lesion. The resulting oligonucleotide is displaced by UvrD and/or DNA polymerase I, which fills the gap using the complementary strand as a template. (Nature 505, 372–377 (16 January 2014) doi:10.1038/nature12928)