Ten (Fairly) Detailed Steps to Glycolysis

Glycolysis is a process that cells use to convert glucose, with the aid of two molecules of ATP (adenosine triphosphate) to two molecules of NDAH (reduced nicotinamide dinucleotide amine), four new molecules of ATP and two molecules of pyruvate.

Step 1: Glucose is phosphorylated by ATP and the enzyme hexokinase, to form the sugar phosphate; glucose 6-phosphate with a negative charge, preventing it from travelling through the plasma membrane of the cell, stopping it from escaping. This step also produces one molecule of ATP and a proton. 

Step 2: Isomerization of glucose 6-phosphate occurs; switching the ring form of glucose to its open chain form. This initial part of step two is very reversible, however equilibrium lies to open chain side due to the negative charge on the phosphate (on carbon 6) and the aldehyde on the first carbon. Phosphoglucose isomerase then changes the structure of the sugar phosphate, making a ketone group on carbon 2, thus meaning carbon 1 is left as a hydroxyl group (CH2OH). The resulting molecule being fructose 6-phosphate.

Step 3: The new hydroxyl group is phosphorylated by the second ATP molecule. Phosphofructokinase binds the phosphate group from ATP to the fructose 9-phosphate, creating fructose 1,6-bisphosphate and ADP. The entry of sugars into glycolysis is controlled in this step, through the regulation of the enzyme phosphofructokinase.

Step 4: Next the fructose 1,6-bisphosphate is split up by the aldolase enzyme, making dihydroxyacetone phosphate and glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate. The glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate proceeds immediately through glycolysis.

Step 5: The other molecule made in step 4, dihydroxyacetone phosphate, is isomerized by triose phosphate isomerase in a reversible reaction to form another glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate molecule.

Step 6: A covalent bond is formed between glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate and the -SH side group of the enzyme  glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase, which binds ionically to NAD+. Oxidation of  glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate occurs as a hydride ion transfers to bound NAD+ forming NADH. Part of the energy released during this process goes towards turning the bond between the enzyme and  glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate into a high energy thioester bond. A molecule of inorganic phosphate displaces the high-energy bond to create 1,3-bisphosphoglycerate containing a high-energy acyl-anhydride bond. 

Step 7:  Next the high energy bond to the phosphate is transferred to ADP to form ATP. Leaving 3-phosphoglycerate.

Step 8: The phosphor ester linkage on 3-phosphoglycerate is moved from carbon 3 to carbon 2 by the enzyme phosphoglycerate mutase, forming 2-phosphoglycerate. 

Step 9: Removal of water from 2-phosphoglycerate with aid of the enzyme enolase creates a high energy enol phosphate linkage, creating phosphoenolpyruvate.

Step 10: Finally the high energy enol phosphate linkage created in step 9 binds to ADP creating ATP and completing glycolysis, and leaving two molecules of pyruvate. 

The result being that 4 molecules of ATP are formed, however the net result is that +2 molecules of of ATP is produces because of the process using up two in steps 1 and 3. Notice that this form of glycolysis is a anaerobic procedure with no mention of molecular oxygen. This has its advantages and disadvantages. Anaerobic glycolysis is a fast procedure, used when cells need to create quick release energy. For example when an athlete jumps the energy will come from glycolysis, and if they continue to perform quick movements anaerobically NADH will not be able to be oxidised to NAD+ (as usually is completed in the citric acid cycle and oxidative phosphorylation). In this instance NADH donates it's electrons to the molecules of pyruvate formed, this creates lactic acid, due to lactic acid being produced by the reduction of pyruvate. This unfortunately leads to the achy feeling after exorcise.

 Conversely glycolysis can not compete with the citric acid cycle, driving oxidative phosphorylation, for producing  ATP. The citric acid cycle provides the respiratory chain with high energy electrons that create a proton gradient supplying ATPase with energy to bond inorganic phosphate to ADP. This, in turn, creates up to 30 molecules of  ATP from just 2 pyruvic acid molecules that are reduced in the citric acid cycle. Showing that aerobic rules the animal world! Sorry homolactic fermentation :( 

Why Cyanide Kills You...

Cyanides (-C≡N) are often found in fruit stones, seeds and bitter almonds in small amounts, but also can be produced by some bacteria and fungi. It is commonly known that most cyanides are highly toxic, but why?


Hydrogen cyanide is an inhibitor of the enzyme cytochrome c oxidase in the fourth complex of the respiratory chain, found in the inner membrane of mitochondria. The binding of a cyanide ion (CN−) and cytochrome c oxidase, stops this enzyme from being able to bind electrons to molecular oxygen, to then bind with protons to make water. Normally the enzyme would translocate H+ ions across the inner membrane in this process, creating a H+ gradient to drive ATP synthase, but this can not be completed because of the presence of the (CN−) on cytochrome c oxidase. As I have described before; ATP synthase catalyses the combination of ADP with inorganic phosphate (like a molecular ferris wheel), creating ATP for molecular energy. Thus now, all aerobic cellular tasks, such as those required in the central nervous system and heart, can not be completed.


When hydrogen cyanide is inhaled, in under 10 minutes, your body will no longer be able to produce the vital energy for life. This will result in death.


Thanks for reading.

H5N1 - 5 mutations to pandemic

The H5N1 virus is deadly to humans, but so far has not gone pandemic, as New Scientist's latest issue explains. H5N1 kills over 60% of the people it infects, the fact is not new, however the potentially leathal concept that 'Five easy steps to bird flu pandemic' coveys is expressed in the title. Research has shown that just 5 mutations in 2 genes has allowed H5N1 to spread between mammals in the lab. Ron Fouchier explained his work at a recent scientific meeting describing that the H5N1 once mutated can "spread as efficiently as the flew". Surely this fact combined with the 60% mortality should strike fear into the public's heart?

Fouchier's research was conducted on ferrets. They first gave H5N1 3 mutations know to adapt the virus to mammals, on giving this to the ferrets they inevitably died, but didn't transfer it on to others. By the tenth time the virus from previous ferrets was given to new ferrets it had mutated many times, and now could spread between them, thus it was air-born. Two further genes were identified as causing H5N1 to spread. 

However Doubts have been expressed towards the validity of these results. It is questionable that we can immediately generalise results conducted on ferrets straight to humans, lessening the worry about the 5 mutation rule 'New Scientist' commits to. On the other hand, ferrets have been proven to have a similar reactions  to virus's that humans  may experience. Still this leaves the statement of 5 mutations unfalsifiable to humans, as the exact mutations needed for the virus to spread between humans would be different. The bottom line is; we have to stay vigilant to the very real threat posed, even if it can not be directly proved that only 5 mutations are needed to start a pandemic in humans, we have to do everything we can not to lose that 60% of the people infected.

Eukaryotic Development - "The Hydrogen Hypothesis"

As promised here is an explanation of the how of the development of eukaryotic cells.  As proposed by Martin and Muller the hydrogen hypothesis goes initially against logic by arguing that it is hydrogen that forced eukaryotes to develop and not oxygen (the bottle neck most commonly thought of as pushing for aerobic respiration and thus mitochondria). However the theory is broken down into very logical evolutionary steps that make a lot of sense.

The hypothesis starts with a methanogen (as discuses in previous posts) which thrives of carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas producing methane as its only form of energy. Now it is evident that the methanogen living in anaerobic conditions could not survive for too long in an oxygen rich environment, as oxygen would react with the hydrogen forming water, meaning the cell could not form glucose in its normal way. Now at the same time a bacterium is living in close proximity with the methanogen, benefiting the methanogen by releasing the carbon dioxide and hydrogen the methanogen loves. The bacterium has special genes to absorb glucose that the methanogen can only dream about at this point.

As the relationship between the methanogen and the bacterium is so beneficial to the methanogen, it is not surprising when the larger methanogen engulfs the bacterium and now becomes a part of the newly formed cell. Now this may appear to be irrelevant to how eukaryotes develop as we all know the modern mitochondria are aerobic and use oxygen. Additionally this seems strange because eukaryotes can also use phagocytosis to 'absorb' food stuff. The likeliest explanation of all is that some horizontal gene transfer occurred from bacterium to what now cant really be considered to be a methanogen, but eukaryote.

 Now the eukaryote has all of the full sections of coding genes to absorb glucose, just as the bacterium once did. The mitochondria (most likely to have once been alpha-proteobacteria) produce energy much more efficiently than the methanogen ever did by it's self (mentioned in previous posts). this combined with the abundance of oxygen in the new world. The eukaryotic cell is born. 

Abundant Evidence For Evolution

I recently took part in a scientific debate at a local college where, as usual, the casual conversation turned to over-zealous debate directed towards stem cell research. And then evolution Vs creation.

I am not one to argue that creation isn't true, because who am I to control what people believe. The only thing I can do is present facts and address floored counter arguments, that are always omitting a vital factor, or based on anti-truth.

The first argument the pro-creationist in this debate used was "Their are gaps in the fossil record therefore their is no proof for evolution". Firstly of course there are gaps, it is obvious that we do not posses every fossil on earth. But more importantly we do have intermediary species as examples in fossil records. Take for example the abundant examples of the creatures thought to be ancestors of the whale, with there ever obvious hind limbs at a almost totally fin-like stage of mutation, whereas there front legs are as any land mammals (especially similar to the joints of a cow or sheep). Additionally we can see there nostrils that are usually positioned at the front of a mammals snout, but it has shifted via mutation to a position we would expect to find a blow hole in. And these aren't the only example. There are hundreds. Take also the famous rapter/bird fossil: http://eternian.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/the-enotes-hoax/ The link I have used is not coincidental, It leads me onto my second point...

Creationist often say they conduct there own "creationism research". This immediately lacks objective intentions, as they are researching souly to prove evolution wrong. Thus making this "research" consist of only "research" into evolution and counter-statement's against it, with no evidence at all. A common counter-statement used in child-like arrogance and with the mentality that if I cant have cake no one can: is that evolution isn't a science at all. "What?" I hear Darwin say as he turns in his grave. This argument is based on the falsely assumed factor that evolution can not be empirically tested or seen (invented as this is true for creation). I have already shown the example of the intermediary fossils, but what about mutation it's self.

Pseudo-genes.
Or fossil genes if you like. By looking at the genome for any eukaryote we can see old, decaying genes that are no longer used or coded for. Genes with similar functions in other ancestor species, that were used before in the species but the function is no longer needed. Along with many other factors that I will add to this blog soon, this certainly proves micro-evolution to be true. But what about macro-evolution, the theory that huge changes occur in the genome, meaning that say the human species could have once been chimps or at least a common ancestor with them. As hard as it is to believe for real scientist this is what all the facts point to. The fossil of "ape-man" discovered, then "man-apes" to Neanderthals, are all a big pointer towards macro-evolution. Additionally the more scientific detail I will go into with my next post will display the mechanisms for mutation, and I will combine this with natural selection to show with more evidence that macro-evolution is very likely.

Finally I will finish with the quite offensive argument that evolutionists are atheists. And that all evolutionist are out to prove creationist wrong. This is ironic because I am sure this is exactly the motive of the "creationism researchers". Scientists try to understand the world using testable theories and facts, there is no conspiracy that all scientists are "out to get" creationists, and many scientists are religious and believe in God. We scientists just want the truth. We don't want to argue. I will end with a quote from a letter signed by 188 pastors from various religious denominations and churches, since agreed with by over 10,000 religious preachers from across the world and USA. "We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human achievement rest. To reject this truth or to treat is as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and to transmit such ignorance to our children."
In the words of Sean Carroll:
Amen.

The Evolution of Cells

The evolution of cells is a hot topic amongst biochemists as it answers the most fundamental question a biochemist can ask: How can a 'random' collisions of molecules bind together in such a way to create life?

Biochemists and biologists commonly believe that mitochondria (the little 'power houses' of cells that produce ATP through oxidative phosphorylation and the citric acid cycle) were once bacteria that lived independently of the eukaryotic cell. A cell is thought to have eaten the bacterial mitochondria through phagocytosis, a process on which a cell takes on an external body as shown in the YouTube animation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1xPpsxvhVA. After the mitochondria was taken on to the eukaryotic cell biologist conceive the cell and bacteria to have existed ever since in symbiosis.

Evidence shows that all know eukaryotes have or once have had mitochondria, suggesting that perhaps this symbiotic relationship and the uptake of mitochondria occurred several times in the evolution of eukaryotic cells. Yet the evidence for mitochondria once being bacteria is not certain. Mitochondria are the right size to be seen as bacteria and this may explain the initial assumption. However we would expect if mitochondria were once independent bacteria they would have an independent genome coding for all the proteins the mitochondria needs for its self. In fact the mitochondria only has 20 genes that code for proteins and the nucleus of the eukaryote coding for the masses. This may or may not support that the eukaryote may have constructed these little organelles its self, due to the paradoxical notion of when we look at the mutations in the mitochondria's genome compared to the cells. Research has proved that mitochondria have evolved far further than the cell, making growing mitochondria in a culture like we could easily with bacteria now, not impossible, but very hard.

The evidence is inconclusive to the 'how' of the evolution of mitochondria in eukaryote cells but the 'why' is apparent; giving cells energy and intern fuelling life. And the answer the the question of how cells developed in the first place is not a mystery when we consider the time frame they evolved from atoms to molecules to life in: 1000's of millions of years. Long enough for a few convenient coincidences to occur in.

'Glowing Genes' - Book Review

Marc Zimmer's book 'Glowing Genes' was published in 2005 and I believe still holds relevance for biochemical science today.

The book starts of describing various types of green florescent proteins (GFP) such as firefly's luciferase, and the most common and popular GFP Aequorea victoria from jellyfish. But also details the array of luminescent bacteria that can be used in biochemical research.

The main purpose of Zimmer's book is to convey the huge impact of the GFP revolution in biochemistry. One example of the use of GFP is in cancer research (a subject which I am very passionate about). Scientist have managed to couple a luciferase protein onto cancer cells in a mouse. Although luciferase requires ATP to fluoresce work effectively the cancerous cells could be tracked efficiently with the help of a CCD camera  (aequorea studies with cancer have been more successful in recent years)  . The CCD camera was a huge advance in this study as before the CCD, the mice had to be killed to see the GFP attached to the metastasising cells, but now the cancerous spread of cells could be viewed in real time. The research has enabled a new range of therapies for cancer by helping the researchers understand metastasic pathways that are analogous to human cells.

Overall 'Glowing Genes'  is a relevant and enlightening book which I would recommend to any up and coming biochemist. Along with the hard core science this book has relevant applications and provides a concise yet detailed overview of the use of GFP in biochemical research.   

A Brief Summery of the Evolution of Medical Therapy for HIV/AIDS

Medical therapy for HIV/AIDS has evolved staggeringly since HIV's first appearance in the 1930's when HIV is thought to have developed from SIV in primates. Reverse transcriptase inhibitors are an effective treatment, as reverse transcriptase (RT) (enzyme carried by the virus that makes DNA copies of HIV's RNA genes) blocks this process by impersonating a chemical RT needs to use. Additionally protease inhibitors can be used as agents to block the virus's enzyme that cuts other protein's in HIV that are needed to assemble more copies of its self.

In a previous blog I mentioned the CD4 receptors that HIV binds to for entry (using endocytosis) into the host cell. But there are other surface receptors that can inhibit HIV. The CD8 receptor secretes chemokines, and research suggests that HIV has to bind to another receptor (CCR5) to stop this secretion process. It is fascinating to know that people with a deficient ccr5 gene are resistant to the HIV-1 virus, and this excites scientists with hope of taking advantage of this pathway, for future therapies. All though it is unlikely that a cure will come from this past advance alone, any advance in terms of understanding in science is always a positive.

Thank you for reading.

 I will be posting blogs more regularly throughout the summer.



    

Comments and explanations for the BMJ's article on 'Discontinuation of aspirin for secondary prevention' (July 2011)

Aspirin, or acetylsalicylic acid is a commonly used drug for a wide range of conditions requiring prevention of clotting, analgesia and the reduction of inflammation. These effects are mainly due to aspirin's ability to inactivate irreversibly the COX (cylooxygenase) enzyme which is partly responsible for the production of thromboxanes.  Thromboxanes are a lipid and a vasoconstrictor, responsible for action in the clotting process. Thus by reducing this clotting agent aspirin can prevent such conditions as venous thromboembolism, colorectal cancer and  myocardial infarction (heart attack).

The BMJ article expressed concern and evidence to explain the negative effects of patients that do not take there medication. Evidence from Garcia Rodriguez's study showed that patients with non-fatal myocardial infarction that have had aspirin discontinued are have significantly increased risk of future myocardial infarction. Whereas there was no significant difference found when coronary heart disease patients stopped taking aspirin.

Conversely aspirin has the drawbacks of varying greatly from individual to individual, mainly because of the way the mechanism of aspirin that I outlined above works. Furthermore the use of aspirin is more difficult to medicate with patients with diabetes and some other subsets of conditions.

Conclusively  Rodriguez's research is so vital to patients, doctors and the general understanding of science: outlining that thrombotic  events can occur just 11-15 days after stopping the medication. Additionally from a drug design point of view aspirin is such a cheap, effective and safe drug to use that with the additional high risk to benefit ratio of the drug, making aspirin such a success in the pharma industry.

Simplified explanation of the cause of HIV/AIDS

It is estimated the 40 million people world wide are infected with HIV, this is a unimaginable amount of people who have no choice but to live with this Acquired Immunodeficiency. Simply because of the huge impact this virus has on the whole word, especially sub-Saharan African's, I have chosen to study and explain the cause in a simplified fashion:

HIV-1 is a lentivirus. A lentivirus is a slow acting virus meaning it has a long incubation period, and usually delivers a lot of genetic material into the DNA of the host cell. The HIV-1 virus consist of an RNA genome wrapped in a viral protein and a cellular membrane. HIV-1 along with other leniviruses, infects cells carrying the surface protein CD4 (using this CD4 molecule as a receptor). CD4 lymphocytes are part of the immune system that support other tasks, however CD4 receptors are found on a large range of cells, from the immune system to the brain. This is one example of the servility of HIV.

Once the virus is inside a cell with the CD4 receptor the virus then transcribes its genes from RNA to DNA, which is then slotted into the cell's genetic structure. The virus now has the power to make copies of its own genes, and order the cell it has infected to make proteins the virus needs. And that is how the lentivirus can reproduce its self.

In my next blog I will discuss relevant medical theories for HIV. Thank you for reading.

Abundant Evidence For Evolution

 I recently took part in a scientific debate at a local college where, as usual, the casual conversation turned to over-zealous debate directed towards stem cell research. And then evolution Vs creation.

I am not one to argue that creation isn't true, because who am I to control what people believe. The only thing I can do is present facts and address floored counter arguments, that are always omitting a vital factor, or based on anti-truth.

The first argument the pro-creationist in this debate used was "There are gaps in the fossil record therefore there is no proof for evolution". Firstly of course there are gaps, it is obvious that we do not posses every fossil on earth. But more importantly we do have intermediary species as examples in fossil records. Take for example the abundant examples of the creatures thought to be ancestors of the whale, with there ever obvious hind limbs at a almost totally fin-like stage of mutation, whereas there front legs are as any land mammals (especially similar to the joints of a cow or sheep). Additionally we can see there nostrils that are usually positioned at the front of a mammals snout, but it has shifted via mutation to a position we would expect to find a blow hole in. And these aren't the only example. There are hundreds. Take also the famous rapter/bird fossil: http://eternian.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/the-enotes-hoax/ The link I have used is not coincidental, It leads me onto my second point...

Creationist often say they conduct there own "creationism research". This immediately lacks objective intentions, as they are researching souly to prove evolution wrong. Thus making this "research" consist of only "research" into evolution and counter-statement's against it, with no evidence at all. A common counter-statement used in child-like arrogance and with the mentality that if I cant have cake no one can: is that evolution isn't a science at all. "What?" I hear Darwin say as he turns in his grave. This argument is based on the falsely assumed factor that evolution can not be empirically tested or seen (invented as this is true for creation). I have already shown the example of the intermediary fossils, but what about mutation it's self.

Pseudo-genes.
Or fossil genes if you like. By looking at the genome for any eukaryote we can see old, decaying genes that are no longer used or coded for. Genes with similar functions in other ancestor species, that were used before in the species but the function is no longer needed. Along with many other factors that I will add to this blog soon, this certainly proves micro-evolution to be true. But what about macro-evolution, the theory that huge changes occur in the genome, meaning that say the human species could have once been chimps or at least a common ancestor with them. As hard as it is to believe for real scientist this is what all the facts point to. The fossil of "ape-man" discovered, then "man-apes" to Neanderthals, are all a big pointer towards macro-evolution. Additionally the more scientific detail I will go into with my next post will display the mechanisms for mutation, and I will combine this with natural selection to show with more evidence that macro-evolution is very likely.

Finally I will finish with the quite offensive argument that evolutionists are atheists. And that all evolutionist are out to prove creationist wrong. This is ironic because I am sure this is exactly the motive of the "creationism researchers". Scientist try to understand the world using testable theory's and facts, there is no conspiracy that all scientists are "out to get" creationist, and many scientists are religious and believe in God. We scientists just want the truth. We don't want to argue. I will end with a quote from a letter signed by 188 pastors from various religious denominations and churches, since agreed with by over 10,000 religious preachers from across the world and USA. "We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human achievement rest. To reject this truth or to treat is as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and to transmit such ignorance to our children."
In the words of Sean Carroll:
Amen.

Preventing HIV transmission during breastfeeding (Sourced from Cambridge)

Scientists at Cambridge university are trying to combat HIV in a unique and inspiring way as the following link and video show. http://bit.ly/ktKmcM.



The scientist modify nipple shields to accommodate a replaceable insert that contains the magic ingredient of an anti-viral agent that is passed on to the baby whilst the mother is breast feeding. This prevents a HIV infection if a mother is HIV positive. 



 As breast feeding makes up for one third of mother to child transmission of the virus approximately 200,000 babies lives could be changed for ever if this kind of Biotechnology was readily available to Sub-Saharan African's. 



HIV has a lot of negative stipulations in the UK and USA but the figures are staggering for Africans, 22,500,000 Sub-Saharan Africans are estimated to currently be HIV positive and the number only grows and grows. The sad fact about HIV and any other sexually transmitted infection is that without a cure the spread and growth of the virus is expotentional. It is simple the more people in a community which are HIV+ the higher the chances of contracting it per individual, and this trend only ends two ways, either a vaccination is found and HIV dies out completely, or just more and more people become HIV+ until populations in the world have higher % of people with HIV than without. This only begins to express the importance of any development in the flight against HIV. And cures are not the only way to suppress the virus as the scientists at Cambridge show. 



The exciting feat with the development of the nipple shield and insert is that, numerous vaccinations could be delivered in the same way to the infants. It is staggering image the amount of lives simple price of Biotechnology worth less that 1p an insert can achieve. 



The future looks promising for advances in the health care of the masses in 3rd world countries and with many dedicated researchers and altruistic professionals trying to combat illness and disease in places where there is simply not the money for the countries to do this themselves. I will finish on the note that complex Biotechnology is not the only way 3rd world healthcare can be improved, simply education, is the best way to immediately effect peoples lives. For example mothers breast feeding their children may simply be oblivious to that fact that there baby could too contract HIV. Education is the mother of all development. 

RNA Nanoparticles Constructed to Safely Deliver Long-Lasting Therapy to Cells (Sourced From Science Daily)

RNA is a vital part in the process of changing DNA to different proteins which can act as enzymes (catalyst for chemical reactions inside our bodies) and many other important functions in the body. In fact almost everything you look at when you see another person is protein (except the clothes!), their skin is protein, even their eyes are protein just arranged in a special way to allow light to pass through.



RNA plays the important role of taking the DNA's codes out of the nucleus of the cell (mRNA) and attaching it to tRNA via codons and anti-codons on the mRNA and tRNA respectively. The tRNA has a single protein attached to one end, while the mRNA attaches to the other. Then the mRNA and tRNA enter a organelle of the cell called a ribosome. The ribosome is responsible for separating the protein form the RNA's in an order so that the original DNA's code is preserved and as if by magic you have got proteins originating from you DNA's code that ultimately make up you, and control the processes that keep you going!



Anyway, RNA therapy can be very helpful in the process of altering damaged cells (especially cancer cells). The damaged cells can be targeted by using pRNA (packages of RNA) at a Nano-size scale. Basically, cancer cells are multiplying out of control because there DNA code has mutated or been damaged eg. by the effects of smoking (See videos above), so therefore it is imperative that if we want to stop the cancer cells spreading so fast, or just kill them, we must first target the cells and then alter there replicating structure (in the form of DNA makes RNA makes Proteins) which is what the  research is trying to achieve, see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110421091125.htm  


 "The researchers detail multiple approaches for the construction of a functional 117-base pRNA molecule containing small interfering RNA (siRNA)." The siRNA is used as a way of making genes in cells ineffective, but siRNA has only been produced so that it would only last for around 30mins in the body and often caused unwanted immune responses. 



Research will continue to be conducted by Professor Peixuan Guo (University of Cincinnati) into this cell therapy, and I will keep all followers up to date with any more advances made.



I will be happy to take any questions about any of the topic areas I have covered.

Can an unexplained DVT be a early warning sign of cancer?

As my first blog post I will try to address a very personal problem relating to the death of my own farther from cancer in 2005. 


My Dad died aged 47 of esophagus cancer, but 9 months earlier he had an unexplained DVT which doctors and surgeons were never sure if this could have been a direct cause and ultimately an early warning sign for his later developed cancer. 

I plan to conduct research through the medium of a questionnaire to a variety of cancer sufferers to try and make a link, or not, between DVT's and the changed coagulation of the blood and cancer. Therefore alerting doctors to the possible complications of a unexplained DVT.

I will keep updating my blog as my research and findings continues.