Archive for the 'Genetics' Category

The Seminal Work on DNA

Biochemistry, Genetics No Comments »

DNA HelixDNA, and its oxidized counterpart, RNA, are the fundamental molecules of all living organisms. The fascinating thing about life is that, elementally, it is almost all identical; the same 6 elements (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulfur — CHNOPS) comprise over 99% of the weight of living matter. Indeed, the only reason that a lizard is a lizard and a human, a human is due to the different instruction set coded into DNA. James Watson and Francis Crick, two young molecular biologists at the time, published their seminal findings on the structure of DNA in the journal Nature in 1953. The piece was entitled, “A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid.” The article was a mere 3 pages long, but it was undoubtedly one of the most significant scientific advances of the 20th century, as it would change the way we understood how living creatures procreate and differentiate, at both the cellular and organismal levels.

While the paper dealt uniquely with proposing a structure for the molecule, Watson and Crick subtlety hint at the obvious magnitude of their discovery in one of the concluding paragraphs:

It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material.

The “pairing” they refer to is the central dogma of the nitrogenous base hydrogen-bonding preferences: adenine bonds to thymine, and guanine to cytosine. Within that simple code of A-T|C-G arise the instructions for the arrangement of every organ, tissue, cell and molecule in complex lifeforms, similar to the way computers use a binary of 1s and 0s to perform exceedingly complex tasks. Watson and Crick had peered into the biological foundation of life, and the rest is history. I highly encourage you to read their original article.

Shedding a Little Light on Metastatic Catalysts

Disease, Genetics No Comments »

Cancer progressionCancer. The very word evokes an uneasiness in our health-obsessed culture … and, unfortunately, for good reason: malignant neoplasms (cancers) are responsible for more than 1 in every 5 deaths in the United States.1

First, a little background on cancer (skip to next paragraph for the news). Cancer is basically the proliferation of cells that shouldn’t proliferate. However, a ‘malignant’ neoplasm is additionally defined by proliferating cells that invade the surrounding tissue, causing an indistinct margin between normal cells and the neoplasm. Malignant tumors are contrasted by their benign counterparts, called ‘in situ’ tumors. In situ literally means ‘in place,’ and indicates a well-behaved neoplasm that sticks to itself. In situ tumors can, however, be precursors to malignant behavior. Malignant cancer cells, in addition to encroaching on the immediate surrounding tissue, may enter the blood vessels and lymphatics of the tissue and travel to other parts of the body like the liver, lungs and bone, where they will implant and seed a new colony of cancer cells (however, the colony is made up of the same tissue type as the primary tumor). This event is named metastasis.

The diagram on the right illustrates the accepted progression of healthy cells into cancer. A most interesting aspect to the process is that, while we understand how cancer cells arise — inactivation of tumor suppressor genes, DNA repair mechanisms going haywire, etc. — there is little consensus on why they arise. Many scientists believe that genetic mutations occur at random in some tumor cells, which then father a line of more “rare variant clones,”2 leading to observable metastases. Everyone agrees that genetic mutation is the root, but the reason for the genetic mutation is the subject of much debate and extensive research.

Fortunately, new findings help to shed a little light on possible sources of the genetic anomalies. This week’s Nature journal hosted an article that identifies the nuclear protein SATB1, a genomic organizer, as one likely cause of the upregulation of oncogenes and the downregulation of tumor suppressor genes in breast carcinoma. Likely, as in P<0.0001 for prognostic ability, likely.

[The SATB1 protein works] by recruiting chromatin remodelling/modifying enzymes and transcription factors13, 14 to genomic DNA, which it tethers via specialized DNA sequences highly potentiated for unpairing (base unpairing regions, or BURs). … In breast cancer cells, we find that once SATB1 is expressed, it coordinates expression of a large number of genes to induce metastasis.2

The SATB1 protein affects the regulation of over 1000 genes, making it a major player in the pathway to metastatic disease. The researchers also discovered that removing SATB1, “not only reverses metastatic phenotypes but also inhibits tumour growth”2 in aggressive breast cancers. The study comprised tests for the presence of SATB1 in human breast carcinoma, among other in vivo trials in mice and in vitro assays.

This discovery is novel because most cancer therapies attempt to combat the disease by minimizing the proliferation of the cancer cells. If a drug were made that targets the SATB1 protein for destruction, it could prevent the cells from developing into cancer at all. Of course, those are BIG “ifs,” and the next obvious question is, what leads to expression of SATB1? And down the carcinogenic rabbit hole we will continue.3

References:
(1) Final Draft of National Vital Statistics Report for 2004. CDC. 2007.
(2) SATB1 reprogrammes gene expression to promote breast tumour growth and metastasis. Nature. 2008.
(3) The proverbial ‘rabbit hole’ is not, itself, a carcinogen; that wouldn’t make any sense. It was just a metaphor for the limitless depth of cancer understanding that we will pursue for the sake of saving lives. Ok, you know what, just forget I mentioned the rabbit hole.

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing

Disease, Genetics, Public Policy No Comments »

Today I attended a forum on genetic testing for the Massachusetts General Hospital’s weekly Breast Rounds (I do research in breast oncology at the MGH). This week’s lecture, presented by Joseph D. McInerney, the Director of the National Coalition for Health Professional Education in Genetics, considered various aspects of the new wave of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Genetic testing for specific gene markers1 has been available for many years, and the results are primarily used by doctors and genetic counselors to determine the relative risks of disease onset and/or recurrence. This information allows the healthcare team to plan a course of treatment or preventative measures for a patient under supervised, knowledgeable care.

However, unlike “traditional” genetic testing, the professional health world does not filter this new era of direct-to-consumer genetic testing before it reaches the “consumers” (read: patients). Sites such as 23andMe.com and Navigenics.com advertise that anyone can obtain a complete genetic profile for as little as $999, which will outline propensity for certain diseases, among other recreational identifiers, like food preference. A most important note about these sorts of health-related tests: the FDA … (Read the rest of this article »)