CRISPR Cas-9

I learn in classes how genetic modification, specifically CRISPR-Cas9, is the future in the medical field.  The problem that I have had with this idea is that there is little testing and low success rates when it comes to genetically modifying genes.  CRISPR-Cas9 is a technology/protein that is able to cut out mutations, SNPs, or generally unwanted nucleotides and cut the DNA sequence.  Causing it to repair itself and translate to something other than, for example, a tumor cell.  This article has proved to me, that this technology is relevant today and is being used.  In this article they use CRISPR to cut out the migration and invasion enhancer (MIEN1), which is an oncogene, that codes specifically for breast cancer. They used CRISPR to produce specific genomic deletions in the MIEN1 gene which led to the silencing of its expression in breast cancer cells.  They claim that there were no off target effects and no deletion of any surrounding nucleotides.  This is one of the first times I have heard of this protein effectively working without any off target effects or anything like that. 

Van Treuren, T., & Vishwanatha, J. K. (2018). CRISPR deletion of MIEN1 in breast cancer cells. PLoS ONE, 13(10), 1–11. https://doi-org.dml.regis.edu/10.1371/journal.pone.0204976

Unexplained Diabetes-related Eyesight Improvement

A few years ago, my friend was diagnosed with diabetes. After she had gotten her blood pressure under control, she noticed that her eyesight was improving. In fact, she got to the point where she no longer needed to wear her glasses. Unfortunately, after about a month, her eyesight returned to what it was before diagnosis. This strange phenomenon that she experienced is not unique. A simple google search will lead to multiple diabetes discussion pages talking about people with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes experiencing an increase in eyesight immediately following diagnosis. They also talk about their eyesight returning to what it was before after a few months. (Facing it, 2010) Some people say their physicians were shocked by their eyesight change and others say their physician described it as a common occurrence. 

With so many people describing the same experience, you would expect some sort of research to have been conducted to describe what is causing this to happen. Surprisingly, there appears to be no literature explaining this occurrence  It is well known that people with diabetes are at risk of developing retinopathy which causes eyesight to worsen. Through our understanding of this condition, we know that an increase in blood sugar can cause swelling in the eye that causes a change in the shape of the eyes’ lenses that negatively impacts eyesight. (Willermain et al., 2018) This could explain a decrease in eyesight when the patient’s blood glucose is not under control, but it does not explain why eyesight would be improved for such long periods of time following diagnosis.

This appears to be a medical mystery at this point. However, research of this topic could be beneficial. It would increase our understanding of how eyesight works and show us how diabetes or its treatment has impacts in other parts of the body such as the eyes. One blog member said that if we had a better understanding of why this is occurring, we could find a way to improve eyesight for everyone. That is a very optimistic thought, but the idea that greater beneficence could be brought to patients through understanding of this occurrence is important. This is a very interesting occurrence that I believe is worth a closer look, and it would be interesting to hear any theories people have surrounding the temporary increase of eyesight following diabetes diagnosis.

References:

Facing it, Neanderthal, Zpeishan. (2010) Eyesight got better??? Retrieved from

     https://www.diabetesdaily.com/forum/eyes/41365-eyesight-got-better/

Willermain, F., Scifo, L., Wber, C., Caspers, L., Perret, J., & Delporte, C. (2018). Potential Interplay 

     between Hyperosmolarity and Inflammation of Retinal Pigmented Epithelium in Pathogenesis of

     Diabetic Retinopathy. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 19(4), 1-17. Https://doi

     org.dml.regis.edu/10.3390/ijms19041056

"I Just Feel Better When I exercise"

With grad school application deadlines right around the corner, stress levels have been at an ultimate high. On top of a full-time course load, a full-time job and multiple internships, applications would seem to be the tip of the iceberg. Often, I'm asked how I manage all that is going on. The answer is simple: exercise. Many people think that this answer is just something "health nuts" say too encourage other people to have a six pack but there is science behind why people feel less stress and anxiety after working out. 

The hippocampus, which is located in the medial temporal lobe of the brain, is a part of the limbic system which controls emotions. The hippocampus is associated largely with memory and in particular, long-term memory and spatial navigation. The hippocampus also becomes activated during stress. Stress can be defined as an organism's response to a stressor such as an environmental condition. Both exercise and what society often refer to as stress such as being overwhelmed with grad school applications, are both considered to be stress physiologically. This means that the brain reacts to both in the same way. Nerve cells in the hippocampus that become overstimulated during times of stress can be calmed almost immediately after exercise. Also, certain chemical signals in the brain inhibit nerve cell activity, and some of these signals are likely responsible for the observed reduction in stress and anxiety.

Next time you are stressed, consider putting your work on hold, grabbing a pair of running shoes and going to the gym. We always don’t get to control the different stressors in our lives, but we can control what we do with that stress. Choose to exercise, I promise, “you’ll just feel better.”  

Schoenfeld, T. J., Rada, P., Pieruzzini, P. R., Hsueh, B., & Gould, E. (2013). Physical Exercise Prevents Stress-Induced Activation of Granule Neurons and Enhances Local Inhibitory Mechanisms in the Dentate Gyrus. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(18), 7770-7777. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5352-12.2013

Resistance Training & Gains

Throughout the past few years, I have become a growing member of the world of CrossFit where I have been immersed into a community of avid athletes hungry to achieve their fitness goals and become stronger competitors in this sport. As I have become more engaged in athletic performance and discussed with many experienced and knowledgeable coaches, nutritionist s and athletic trainers, I have become aware of the delicateness and precision required when designing training programs for other athletes. Although nutrition, training frequency and many other factors are at play in muscle tissue anabolism, one of the most interesting factors to consider when designing workout programs are hormones and how such fluctuations differ with certain intensities in resistance training. So, which type of resistance training maximizes muscle gains? There is a great debate in the exercise science world about this topic and in exercise training protocols.

Kraemer and Ratamess (2005), suggest that during high volume, high intensity resistance training such as a high rep count of front squats with minimal resting, there is an elevation post-exercise in testosterone, growth hormones (GH), both anabolic hormones as well as cortisol (a catabolic hormone) compared to when a person performs low-volume, high-intensity resistance exercises with lots of rest in between intervals. Additional anabolic hormones, insulin and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), were also found to be elevated during resistance training. Interestingly, IGF-1 was found to be upregulated in response to GH hepatic secretions which also promotes muscle tissue anabolism.

A 2010 study by West and Phillips, however, contradicts these assumptions that testosterone and GH facilitate anabolic processes to promote skeletal muscle hypertrophy. In fact, they argue that neither of these hormones is really necessary nor do they play a significant role to enhance muscle hypertrophy, but rather that local mechanisms within the skeletal muscle tissue involved in the resistance training are what is responsible for stimulating anabolism.

The lack of clarity between the role hormones play in regulating muscle mass and the physiological adaptations of skeletal muscle to resistance training pose a challenge when trying to support a certain exercise prescription to making those, “gains.” Continuous research on this topic would be integral in enhancing athletic performance and provide evidenced-based training to all exercisers from the competitive CrossFit Games athlete to the everyday, average exerciser at your local gym.

References:

Kraemer, W. J., & Ratamess, N. A. (2005). Hormonal Responses and Adaptations to Resistance Exercise and Training. Sports Medicine,35(4), 339-361. doi:10.2165/00007256-200535040-00004

West, D. W., & Phillips, S. M. (2010). Anabolic Processes in Human Skeletal Muscle: Restoring the Identities of Growth Hormone and Testosterone. The Physician and Sportsmedicine,38(3), 97-104. doi:10.3810/psm.2010.10.1814

Women in the Military: Baggage or Benefit?

For years it has been a huge debate whether women should be allowed in the military. While women are allowed to be in the military, there are still far less women than men. Moreover, there are practically no women in special forces or special operations positions. However, in 2017, two women became candidates for special operations in the Navy. One of these women was even a candidate for the NAVY Seals (Buncombe, 2017). Furthermore, in 2017, one woman was able to join the 75th Ranger Regiment (Buncombe, 2017). With more females becoming candidates for these specialized roles in the military, it has become a greater point of controversy whether they should be allowed in these positions or not. Specifically, should women be allowed in combat roles?

In 2015, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter made an announcement that all combat positions would be open to women (Baldor). However, there was a lot of backlash from this announcement. 85% of men in the military believe that women should not be allowed to work in special operations and 80% believe women do not have the strength to be able to meet the standards of the job (Baldor). At first this seems ridiculous. Women are just as capable as men. However, there may be some merit in the claims that women are not fit for combat roles specifically special operations.

"Combat Fitness" or "Military Readiness" is the ability to perform a specific military related task efficiently without injury (Epstein et al., 2013, 2015). According to these standards, women can not be integrated into combat roles. Women are more prone to have overuse injuries than men. According to Epstein et al., in order to perform at the same standards of men in the military, women over exert themselves leaving themselves open for injury (Epstein et al., 2015). Overuse injuries happen when the body cannot adapt to repeated overloading forces (Epstein et al., 2015). Women have a smaller body frame meaning their bodies are under more stress when carrying the same load as men. Furthermore, they have a lower ratio of fast-twitch to slow-twitch muscles, lower lean body mass, and lower bone strength density which leads to a lower load carrying index (Epstein et al., 2015). Also, due to the lower load carrying index, women may not be able to carry the weight of a fallen soldier if necessary putting their own life and fellow soldiers life more at risk.

Due to these physiological limitations, women are more likely to obtain injuries and be unable to perform the job demands. Therefore, they do not meet the qualifications of Combat Fitness and should not be allowed to perform in combat related jobs. Allowing women into combat could compromise the mission and the lives of the others on their team. However, in other roles in the military women can perform just as well as men if not better. Therefore, women should be allowed in the military but not in combat related jobs. However, banning women from combat related roles could be discriminatory and gender bias. The military is already known for showing gender bias including equipment generally made for males and not females. Therefore, is it ethical to not allow women in combat roles, especially if they can prove they are just as fit as men of the same level? However, the opposite question could be posed as well: is it ethical to allow them into combat roles? Allowing women into combat roles could compromise missions if they are more prone to injury or could even risk someone's life if they cannot carry a fallen soldier. However, their are men in the military who have a smaller body frame and therefore a smaller load carrying index as well. Therefore, maybe those men are not military ready either, yet they are allowed in these combat roles.

Other noteworthy factors of women being integrated into the military include high rates of sexual assault and sexual harassment, potentially being a distraction in a male dominated field as well as in a combat environment, and military standards and equipment that are made for males instead of females.

Baldor, L.C. US Special Operators Say No to Women in Special Operations Jobs.

Epstein, Y., Yanovich, R., Moran, D.S., and Heled, Y. (2013). Physiological employment standards IV: integration of women in combat units physiological and medical considerations. Eur J Appl Physiol 113, 2673–2690.

Epstein, Y., Fleischmann, C., Yanovich, R., and Heled, Y. (2015). Physiological and Medical Aspects That Put Women Soldiers at Increased Risk for Overuse Injuries: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 29, S107–S110.

Buncombe, Andrew(2017). Woman becomes US Navy’s first female SEAL candidate.
No Turning Back? First Woman Makes Army’s Elite 75th Ranger Regiment, Big Step For Women in Combat.