Category Archives: Issues in Science

One time solution- Universal Flu Shot

Are you tired of getting vaccinated every flu season? Do you want to be protected but refuse to be poked? Fear no more, the universal flu shot is here (well not yet, but almost).

shots-shots-shotsCredit: WeKnowMemes

Every flu season millions flock to receive that seasons flu shot. Have you ever wondered why you can be vaccinated just once and be protected for life for diseases such as mumps and measles but not the flu?

This can be answered by the characteristics of the flu. There are 3 known types of flu viruses but only 2 types of flu viruses which cause the annual flu. The types that cause the flu are A and B. However, these have many subtypes which change every season because of the genetic changes undergone by the head region. So every season the World Health Organization is given predictions of the strain of flu that scientists believe is circulating that year. Using this information that seasons vaccine is chosen. However, the educated predictions made to create the flu shot fail to be completely effective as they can only protect up to 3-4 strains of that flu. Therefore, it is difficult to create a vaccine every year that is completely successful in protecting us against the annual flu. This is one of the main reasons why developing an all-in-one flu shot is of much interest.

There have been many attempts to try and create the all-in-one flu shot. The difficulty is creating one that can account for the different strains. A recent study, in Nature Science,  has came up with an innovative solution to creating a universal flu shot which may solve the issue that the flu changes every year.

In their approach they focus on the proteins on the outside of the antibody. These proteins are comprised of a head and a stem. The head, in flu vaccines being hemagglutinin (HA), can mutate and it is the reason for the various faces of the flu. However, the stem doesn’t mutate as easily as the HA. The new vaccine uses this information and focuses on the stem instead of the head. If our bodies can recognize the stem and create antibodies according to the stem, it would be able to create antibodies to protect one against all strains of the flu; this would account for all the changes in the HA.

The following video gives a brief overview of how the vaccines work and how this universal flu vaccine would work.

Credit: Discovery News

This study has been proven successful in rats and chimps, however it must be researched and perfected before it can be used in humans. The difficulties of creating an all-in-one shot is the ability of the flu to change itself. Focusing on the stem instead of the head may be the way to success. Thankfully, this innovation is on a uphill and our future for the all-in-one flu shot is looking bright!

-Vanessa

The Reality of Organic Food

We always see the sign in the produce section of our grocery stores: “organic”. Is it truly healthier than conventional produce? In recent years, the push to produce naturally grown foods has increased to boost the health of society as a whole. The term “organic” is thrown around to define foods grown with natural rather than synthetic pesticides and fertilizers but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a better alternative.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/enerva/482353822/in/photolist-JCbZd-or5MDX-9epP-cDqvGQ-7t29cE-FKEG4-axp2go-dtP6Gp-8c6xjg-prcsVW-kDZb92-dPH1Vy-cBbfoQ-faGYJF-afV9Ss-5t31X-8XXAMn-6cinXp-5h24Yo-i4QnyN-do5Y3U-eYts13-d39Sj-9xWLwf-acfK8D-7WPS1K-raEpZM-sH5w5x-7YSsux-ijrqPw-dkur6q-pj6oVJ-8G6kL7-rVXWy-k9ug69-faXdfb-oDokQi-t3nGqc-faH8rX-f4HeE7-kFDsDV-faH77K-faHhDR-dgt2x2-6URP9Q-495BkB-734KUo-ca2U9u-cLMhsu-7i7T3F

It is true that organic farms have 97% less synthetic pesticides than conventional farms, but that 3% is still there. This amount is brought to organic farms via wind transport and river runoff. Although synthetic pesticides are more spoken about, they aren’t the only potentially harmful compounds in our fruits and vegetables. Naturally, plants produce pesticides used to protect them from predators. These pesticides are found to be carcinogenic in rats and may be harmful to humans. Synthetic pesticides may actually reduce the production of the naturally occurring plant pesticides which leads to conventionally grown produce having lower levels of it than organic produce. Natural pesticides are found 10,000 times more than synthetic pesticides in both organic and inorganic foods. Moreover, the use of fertilizers in cultivation is essential in plant growth. Naturally occurring phosphate rock is used as a fertilizer in organic farming rather than synthetic fertilizers. The organic fertilizers actually contain more Cadmium, a known carcinogen, than synthetic fertilizers.

organic sticker

With all this research into how many synthetic vs organic compounds are used in the production of our food, it seems like either way, we re ingesting harmful chemicals every day.  Because the risks associated with synthetic pesticides have been more studied than organic pesticides, we are swayed into believing that organic foods are completely healthy. Without knowing the risks attached with organic pesticides and fertilizers, society does not know the full extent of the benefits and drawbacks of consuming organic foods. So before paying the extra couple of dollars for the foods with the organic label, it’s really worth your time to step back and think about what “organic” really means.

Author: Parvin Pabla

 

 

Sewage Sludge, A Potential New Fertilizer?

THE PROBLEM

The world’s population increases annually. With urban communities adapting to a more meat-based diet and competing for food supplies, agricultural demands are increasing exponentially. Rising agricultural demand results in the necessity for increased amount of high-quality fertilizers. Unfortunately, the main component of agricultural fertilizer is phosphorus: a dwindling non-renewable resource.

Red Phosphorus

Phosphorus, Source:Wikimedia Commons

If phosphorus was to deplete on a global basis (predicted to occur within the next 100 years), nations may succumb to pressure and resort to violence or isolationism to protect their own supply.

WHAT TO DO?

Before global conflict occurs, the world needs to find a new source of phosphorus that is both sustainable and renewable. Luckily, researchers believe they may have found a new source of phosphorus in sewage sludge.

WHAT IS SEWAGE SLUDGE?

SEWAGE_SLUDGE_SETTLES_ON_BOTTOM_OF_BEAKER._SEWAGE_TREATMENT_PLANT_-_NARA_-_543811[1]

Sewage Sludge, Source:Wikimedia Commons

Sewage sludge is the by-product of urban sewage waste produced after an incineration or combustion process. When dissolved in water, sewage sludge is a murky viscous material with floating small particles. Interestingly, sewage sludge has a diverse variety of micro-components where oxidized metals and semi-metals make up majority of the composition. The key fact to note is the high amount of oxidized Phosphorous contained within this substance.

HOW CAN SEWAGE SLUDGE HELP US

In the past, sewage sludge has been dumped into the ocean, leaked into agricultural lands before proper processing or used in construction process such as the formation of concrete. However, a new study conducted by researcher Hannes Herzel on January 15, 2016 has shown a potential recovery of over 19, 000 tons of phosphorus annually within sewage sludge that is commercially and agriculturally reusable. But, it appears that researchers do not yet have an efficient way of extracting phosphorus from sewage sludge due to limited bio-availability. Furthermore, it is not cost efficient in a lab setting to completely remove all other heavy metals and contaminants inside of sewage sludge in order to isolate phosphorus. Coincidentally, a Russian waste purification company seems to have found the solution.

The following is a YouTube demonstration of contemporary Sewage Sludge treatment in Rusecotech kindly provided by: Daniil Andreev

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdrAO6plWOQ

After this treatment, the sewage sludge will be essentially free of dangerous heavy metals such Arsenic (As), Copper (Cu) and Zinc (Zn) and will also be detoxified. The resulting mixture will be safe to use as a fertilizer after further processing. In the words of Hannes Herzel, the treated product, “thus fulfill(s) the quality parameter for a P-fertilizer“.

Although the concept of reusing sewage sludge is still under development, the future of this technology is definitely promising in securing a reusable phosphorous source.

Posted By Ming Lun (Allan) Zhu

There is Hope: Body Fat Transplant May Be Effective in Treating Rare Metabolic Diseases?

People who have rare metabolic diseases, such as Maple syrup urine disease depend highly on donor transplantation. But is there an alternative treatment if donors are low? Not to mention the high expenses of a transplant?

But… you might be wondering… what exactly is maple syrup urine disease and where does it get its name?

Maple syrup urine disease (MSUD) is a rare disease because it follows an autosomal recessive mode of inheritance, one of the ways a disease can be passed down through families. This means patients inherit MSUD if both their parents have an abnormal gene.  MSUD  causes a defect in the way our body breaks down the three essential amino acids: leucine, isoleucine, and valine.

Maple syrup urine disease (MSUD) follows a autosomal recessive mode of inheritance. Source: Wikipedia Commons

Maple syrup urine disease (MSUD) follows a autosomal recessive mode of inheritance. Source: Wikipedia Commons

It is characterized by the distinctive maple-syrup scent found early on in urine samples of infants. They are important because essential amino acids cannot be made from the body, so they must come directly from our diet. The defect causes these three amino acids and their by-products to build up in the body. As a result, MSUD patients need precisely monitored diets (measured to the very milligram!) to avoid consumption of these amino acids, while still obtaining the other essential amino acids the body needs.

If MSUD conditions are left untreated, they can lead to coma, seizures and even death before reaching three months in age.

Liver transplantation is shown to be effective in treating MSUD because the liver is composed of an abundance of enzymes which appear to normalize amino acid levels, sometimes even allowing patients to fully adopt their normal diets again.

So organ transplantation is usually the solution to metabolic diseases but because of the high demand, is there a more accessible alternative?

Noting the high activity of fat tissue relative to muscle tissue in the body, researchers from Penn State College of Medicine tested the effect of body fat transplantation with genetically engineered mice with MSUD. They transplanted two grams of fat into the mices’ back or abdomen and found that when they implanted fat into the mices’ back, the amino acid levels dropped greatly in the transplanted MSUD mice compared to non-transplanted MSUD mice.

Transplanting fat into the abdomen of the mice did more harm than good and caused inflammation in the process. The results of this study were recently published in the journal Molecular Genetics and Metabolism.

Their study concluded that the amount of fat injected had no effect on the results. So this must mean that there will be further experimentation with fat transplantation. Fat transplant can be an alternative to liver transplant because it may be a more efficient approach as it is relatively inexpensive and it may be easier to find donors.

Wayne and Chad’s personal account on their child living with MSUD: YouTube Preview Image
Posted on January 25, 2016 By Jenny U

Zero-Calories, is that even possible?

Do you prefer drinking “diet” Coke or regular Coke?

Nowadays, we have all sorts of products with an option of ‘diet’, ‘zero’, ‘sugar free’ or ‘light’. As the trend of the grocery market is focusing on “well-being”, more people are starting to choose healthier and non-fattening foods. But let’s think about it,  Coke Zero literally has zero calories (cal) but it tastes almost the same as the regular coke with 154 cal. Well, how could this be possible when zero products taste similar or the same in sweetness but have absolutely zero calories? Are they really a better option for our health and weight?

Image from Flickr

Image from Flickr

In diet soda, artificial sweeteners are added instead of natural sugars. Thus, diet drinks could be a better option if you want to prevent bacteria growing in your mouth due to natural sugars. Inside our mouth, plaque resides on our teeth and propagate in presence of sugar. Since diet soda has sugar that is artificial, it will not affect the growth of plaque. However, according to D. Aune, the artificial sweetener, aspartame, increases the risk of higher chances of getting cancers including lymphomas and leukemias and type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or metabolic syndrome with diet soft drinks.

Moreover, Medical Daily explains how diet products, in fact, contribute to weight gain because when human bodies crave for natural sugars, these diet products do not suffice the same way as natural sugar but rather confuse our bodies and trigger insulin, which signals our body to store more fat. Thus, the higher chance to eat in addition to the drink could eventually cause weight gain.

Lastly, according to the research done by D.A. Booth, there is no significant weight change between a person who drinks regular products and person who drinks diet products. He also noted the only effective set of the only dietary strategies effective at reducing weight are increased exercise and the reduction in consumption of fats.

As a regular soda drinker, I believe there is no significant difference drinking diet sodas especially for weight loss purpose. If you still choose to drink diet drinks, you should not expect it to be like water. Rather, your decision between diet and regular drinks should simply be choosing between natural and artificial sweetener regardless of calories because the only best way to loose weight and be healthy we know for sure is a healthy diet of balanced nutrition with constant exercise.

Here is a YouTube video discussing about dangers of diet soda by Dr. Group and Global Healing Center

YouTube Preview Image

 

Sung Eun Kim

Can adding native pollinators increase small-farm yields in under-developed countries?

Small-farms in developing countries from Africa, Asian and Latin America that are struggling with their amount of crop production need a little boost to help get them back to their normal yield. Could the addition of native pollinators be what small-farms need to increase their yield gap?

Before I get into this, let’s refresh our knowledge about pollination.

Pollinators such as honey bees, beetles, and wasps help plants reproduce, which means they play a crucial role in agriculture.

How do they do this?

The main function of pollen is to produce male sperm cells. Pollination basically occurs when pollen is transferred to female reproductive organs of plants which allows fertilization and reproduction to occur. Native pollinators such as the few listed above are able to enhance pollination which helps out farmers with their crops.

"Meliponin bee, covered with pollen, visiting a flower of the Vegetable Sponge Gourd" By Leonardo Ré-Jorge.

“Honey bee, covered with pollen, visiting a flower of the Vegetable Sponge Gourd” By Leonardo Ré-Jorge.

Here is a video by Laura Klahre on TEDx Talks that discusses the different types of bees that are effective pollinators.

If pollinators are able to do this, then could these native pollinators effectively help struggling farmers with their yield?

A recent study discusses the effectiveness of implementing new pollinators to help small-farms that are struggling with crop production. It was done on “344 fields from 33 pollinator-dependant crop systems in small and large farms from Africa, Asia, and Latin America”. This study greatly affects under-developed countries that are reliant on their small-farms for food.

The study found that incorporating the new pollinators could potentially close the yield gap of farms by about a quarter; the yield gap being closed by a quarter was found on small fields that were less than 2 hectares.

The study suggests that ecological intensification or a “biodiversity of pollinators” will improve yield outcomes for the farms of these under-developed countries. Biodiversity of pollinators are just means to incorporate a diversity of different pollinators into the farms.

Introducing pollinators has shown to have a positive effect on these farms. It could be the method that struggling small-farms use to help get their farms a higher yield, so why not give it a chance?

Post by Karanvir Gill.

Melting Icebergs may be Helping to Counter the Effects of Climate Change

When most people think of melting icebergs, they think of it as a negative effect of climate change, either because of the decrease of the albedo effect, the loss of habitat for animals such as polar bears, or the increase in sea level. As it turns out, a recent study suggests that the melting of icebergs may actually be countering the negative effects of climate change.

A press release published in the online magazine Science on January 11, 2016 describes the results determined from the study. It was found that icebergs contain bedrock from when they were once glaciers on land, and when these giant icebergs melt, they release nutrients such as iron into the nutrient-poor oceans of Antarctica, which causes massive phytoplankton blooms.

Phytoplankton blooms form around icebergs similar to this one that is forming around Greenland. Source: wikimedia

Phytoplankton blooms form around icebergs similar to this one that is forming around Greenland. Source: wikimedia

Phytoplankton, which are photosynthetic microorganisms at the base of the ocean’s food chain, have a positive impact on climate change because they take up the greenhouse gas CO2 in the atmosphere in order to grow. Satellite data collected from 2003 to 2013 show that these phytoplankton blooms occur up to hundreds of kilometers away from the icebergs, and can last up to a month after the iceberg passes.

A video released by Stanford University explains how these Antarctic phytoplankton blooms form:

YouTube Preview Image

The results from this study predict that the nutrients and minerals released by giant Antarctic icebergs (over 18 kilometers long) will absorb as much as 20% of atmospheric CO2 absorbed by all marine life in the southern seas. That amount is equal to between 44-146 million metric tons of CO2, which reduces a small amount of the 35.3 billion metric tons of CO2 burned by fossil fuels in 2013.

This press release presents important scientific research that could affect the way scientists view climate change. Melting icebergs will no longer be viewed in a strictly negative light, as the phytoplankton blooms surrounding melting icebergs absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, and are acting as a negative feedback on the CO2 humans are releasing into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. These blooms can also have a positive impact on the many species that feed off of phytoplankton.

According to the article summarized in the press release, these phytoplankton blooms absorb only a very small amount of the total atmospheric CO2. Is it enough to substantially offset the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by fossil fuels? No predictions are offered in either the press release or in the article itself. As this is currently the only study being done on the beneficial effects of melting icebergs, we will need to stay tuned for further research in order to see if there truly are positive impacts on climate change from melting icebergs in the Antarctic.

– Emma Peachey, January 18, 2016