Category: Health

{President Barack Obama’s “Cancer Moonshot” now has a scientific flight plan. It calls for better cooperation among researchers and institutions, aggressive pursuit of immunotherapy and making better use of proven cancer prevention strategies. Called the Blue Ribbon Panel Report, the document was approved September 7 by the National Cancer Advisory Board, part of the National Cancer Institute.}

Five months in the making, the report’s 10 recommendations for research priorities was put together by a 28-member group of cancer experts appointed last April. It’s the most specific direction yet for the moonshot (SN: 4/2/16, p. 20), launched when Obama announced the intention to make the United States “the country that cures cancer once and for all” in his State of the Union address in January. Vice President Joe Biden, whose son Beau died in 2015 from brain cancer at age 46, has been leading the charge.

If the vice president formally adopts the recommendations, they could form the foundation for research grants awarded through the National Institutes of Health. But that depends largely on the U.S. Congress providing funding for the moonshot, which has not yet happened.

The report doesn’t contain dramatic surprises and doesn’t veer far off course from current cancer research. That’s largely by design. The goal of the panel was to come up with a plan to make “10 years of progress in five years” by hastening those areas with the most promise, which also stand to affect large numbers of patients. “We want it to be a pushy evolution, not a revolution,” says Stan Gerson, director of the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center in Cleveland, who was not on the panel. “There are some things here that are right on the money where we ought to be focused.”

If there is any underlying thread to the report, it is that progress depends on greater cooperation in research and improvements in patient engagement.

“There’s not a lot new under the sun in terms of the areas they have targeted. The most important concept here with the vice president’s efforts is that he can serve as an accelerant at a time when we’re at an inflection point in treating cancer,” says Gary Gilliland, president and director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. “Within 10 years if we don’t get to a place where we’ve got curative approaches to essentially all cancers then we’ve failed — and shame on us.”

For treatment, the report singles out immunotherapy, which harnesses a patient’s own immune system to fight cancer. The strategy is widely regarded as one of the most significant advances in cancer care, even though so far only 10 to 20 percent of patients receiving such treatments show long-term benefit. “When I speak to my patients, I tell them that the greatest risk is disappointment,” says medical oncologist David Gerber of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Nonetheless, he and others remain optimistic about immunotherapy’s potential, and he agrees with recommendations to speed up research. In proposing an immunotherapy clinical trials network, the report states that current treatments “represent only the tip of the iceberg of what is possible.”

Since the moonshot began, Biden has crisscrossed the country, touring cancer research centers, holding photo ops and meeting with doctors. In June, he presided over a cancer summit at Howard University in Washington, D.C.

One theme Biden has stressed at these events — and was reflected in the panel’s report — is the need for better data sharing. Traditionally, raw scientific data remains the property of the institutions and researchers who conduct studies. But this can impede collaboration — between institutions or across disciplines — and make it harder to find patterns within genetics and biology that might reveal how cancer appears and grows. The new report acknowledges the problem with research silos, stating that “our ability to accelerate progress against cancer demands that researchers, clinicians and patients across the country collaborate in sharing their collective data and knowledge about the disease.” Among the recommendations is the creation of a National Cancer Data Ecosystem, a one-stop, free collection of data that will allow patients to upload and receive data about their specific type of tumor.

While Obama heralded the moonshot as a cure for cancer, Gerson, from the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, would also like to see more scientists take on less flashy issues, finding better ways to save lives in known ways. Among them: “How do we get people to stop smoking?” he says. “We’re not doing it well.”

Tyler Jacks, the report cochair and director of the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT, said during a news conference that the panel recognizes that progress against cancer is about “emphasizing the use of known prevention strategies. It’s not just about treatment.” In discussing prevention, the report notes low rates of adoption for the human papillomavirus vaccine, which protects against the virus that causes cervical and other cancers, and for colorectal cancer, or CRC, screening. “If we understood better the reasons these proven cancer prevention strategies are not being widely used and how we could increase uptake of these strategies,” the report states, “we could reduce deaths due to cervical cancer by 90 percent, CRC by up to 70 percent and lung cancer by as much as 95 percent.” The authors also note that many people carry inherited genetic risks for cancer and don’t know it, and improved screening for genetic predisposition could save lives.

What happens to the moonshot after this year depends largely on Congress. The report will eventually be forwarded to the vice president and the moonshot task force he oversees. The panel did not say how much the recommendations would cost. But in his budget request for fiscal year 2017, Obama asked for $680 million for additional funding to pay for the moonshot.

The panel members confined themselves to scientific matters but noted that barriers to cancer progress are not just about research. Disparities keep many patients from getting treatments today, much less improvements coming tomorrow. “The one concern I have is that they put off the side policy issues as being out of scope for the Blue Ribbon Panel. I think it’s appropriate, but in the end it’s the policy issues that are going to determine the success of the entire program,” says Gilliland. “How do you get coverage and reimbursement? How do you ensure privacy if you’re sequencing everybody’s genome? How do you address access to clinical trials? Those are some of the very hardest problems, and if we don’t solve them it’s not going to matter how clever we are in the laboratory or how sensitive our techniques are for early detection.”

{The body needs water to function effectively but that isn’t good enough reason for you to drink too much water because it’s as dangerous as drinking too little water. This was revealed in a study published in the Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine.
}
“Our major goal was to re-educate the public on the hazards of drinking beyond thirst during exercise,” study lead author Dr Tamara Hew-Butler, an exercise science professor at Oakland University said.

“Every single EAH (exercise-associated hyponatremia) death is tragic and preventable, if we just listen to our bodies and let go of the pervasive advice that if a little is good, then more must be better.”

According to the researchers, drinking too much water or sports drink during a physical activity can lead to death, a condition known as exercise-associated hyponatremia.

Exercise-associated hyponatremia is a condition that occurs when the kidneys become overwhelmed by the large quantity of liquid it’s forced to process. The body’s naturally occurring sodium can’t keep up with the amount of water, leading to swelling in the cells and in severe cases, death.

Some common symptoms of EAH include lightheadedness, dizziness, nausea, puffiness and weight gain during a physical activity. Vomiting, headaches, confusion, agitation, delirium, seizures and comas can occur in severe cases and this can be life-threatening, according to Medical Daily.

People who are in physically challenging events like marathons, triathlons, military exercises, hiking, football, and yoga.

{Sometimes bacteria transfer in less than a second.}

Turns out bacteria may transfer to candy that has fallen on the floor no matter how fast you pick it up.

Rutgers researchers have disproven the widely accepted notion that it’s OK to scoop up food and eat it within a “safe” five-second window. Donald Schaffner, professor and extension specialist in food science, found that moisture, type of surface and contact time all contribute to cross-contamination. In some instances, the transfer begins in less than one second. Their findings appear online in the American Society for Microbiology’s journal, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

“The popular notion of the ‘five-second rule’ is that food dropped on the floor, but picked up quickly, is safe to eat because bacteria need time to transfer,” Schaffner said, adding that while the pop culture “rule” has been featured by at least two TV programs, research in peer-reviewed journals is limited.

“We decided to look into this because the practice is so widespread. The topic might appear ‘light’ but we wanted our results backed by solid science,” said Schaffner, who conducted research with Robyn Miranda, a graduate student in his laboratory at the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers University-New Brunswick.

The researchers tested four surfaces — stainless steel, ceramic tile, wood and carpet — and four different foods (watermelon, bread, bread and butter, and gummy candy). They also looked at four different contact times — less than one second, five, 30 and 300 seconds. They used two media — tryptic soy broth or peptone buffer — to grow Enterobacter aerogenes, a nonpathogenic “cousin” of Salmonella naturally occurring in the human digestive system.

Transfer scenarios were evaluated for each surface type, food type, contact time and bacterial prep; surfaces were inoculated with bacteria and allowed to completely dry before food samples were dropped and left to remain for specified periods. All totaled 128 scenarios were replicated 20 times each, yielding 2,560 measurements. Post-transfer surface and food samples were analyzed for contamination.

Not surprisingly, watermelon had the most contamination, gummy candy the least. “Transfer of bacteria from surfaces to food appears to be affected most by moisture,” Schaffner said. “Bacteria don’t have legs, they move with the moisture, and the wetter the food, the higher the risk of transfer. Also, longer food contact times usually result in the transfer of more bacteria from each surface to food.”

Perhaps unexpectedly, carpet has very low transfer rates compared with those of tile and stainless steel, whereas transfer from wood is more variable. “The topography of the surface and food seem to play an important role in bacterial transfer,” Schaffner said.

So while the researchers demonstrate that the five-second rule is “real” in the sense that longer contact time results in more bacterial transfer, it also shows other factors, including the nature of the food and the surface it falls on, are of equal or greater importance.

“The five-second rule is a significant oversimplification of what actually happens when bacteria transfer from a surface to food,” Schaffner said. “Bacteria can contaminate instantaneously.”

{New approaches that could spur the human body to produce HIV-blocking antibodies have been successful in mice mimicking the human immune system, according to five studies published today in the research journals Cell, Immunity and Science.}

The results were produced by scientists affiliated with the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI); The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI); U.S National Institute of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID); Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI); The Rockefeller University; Ragon Institute of Massachusetts General Hospital, MIT and Harvard; Boston Children’s Hospital; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); Harvard Medical School (HMS); Vanderbilt University; Columbia University; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC); Duke University School of Medicine and Kymab Ltd.

“It’s early work, but we’re trying to rewrite some rules of vaccine development to overcome the extraordinary challenges of HIV,” says William Schief, TSRI Professor and Director of Vaccine Design for IAVI’s Neutralizing Antibody Center (NAC) at TSRI. “In a collaborative effort we have reached critical milestones, including the first proof ever that immunization with designer proteins can produce broadly neutralizing antibodies against HIV. The new results strongly support further developing these approaches toward testing in clinical studies.”

{{Do better than nature}}

HIV circulates in a person’s body in many variants that mutate rapidly and escape defensive immune responses. Since the virus attacks the very immune cells that are supposed to fight it, and it hides in persistently infected cells, capable of re-emerging and striking at any time, traditional vaccine strategies have failed to work against HIV. New approaches are needed to develop a broadly effective AIDS vaccine.

In laboratory and animal testing, broadly neutralizing antibodies (bNAbs) have been shown to prevent or control infection from a wide range of HIV variants. Many researchers believe bNAbs are a critical component of future broadly effective AIDS vaccination. However, developing these vaccines will require scientists to do better than nature as only 10% to 20% of people living with HIV develop bNAbs, and such a process can take years to happen. Expanding on earlier work, the new studies have taken further critical steps to show that it could be possible to actually coax the human immune system to create bNAbs against HIV.

{{Innovative immune system training
}}

The researchers tested the efficacy of immune system training that combines a prime shot with an immunogen (the active ingredient of a vaccine) to activate bNAb precursor cells (germline B cells) with booster shots of other immunogens that trigger mutations in the antibodies until they mature into bNAbs. They did this in mice whose immune systems mimicked components of the human immune system, testing for different challenges that immunogens would have to overcome. They aimed at generating two classes of bNAbs (VRC01 and PGT121) as it is believed that neutralizing a wide range of HIV variants will require more than one type of bNAb.

A study published in Science expanded earlier results achieved with a promising prime immunogen (eOD-GT8 60mer, a nanoparticle composed of 60 units of an engineered version of the HIV envelope protein’s outer domain) in a more human-like and challenging mouse model. Dennis Burton, Scientific Director of IAVI’s NAC at TSRI and Chair of TSRI’s Department of Immunology and Microbial Science, Schief and colleagues at TSRI, Ragon Institute, MIT, HMS and Kymab Ltd, administered the immunogen to mice (Kymouse™) engineered to express human antibodies, but to express precursor B cells for the VRC01 bNAB in a much lower concentration than found in humans. Nonetheless, the mice were successfully primed to have the type of immune response a vaccine should induce in humans, demonstrating the immunogen’s strong priming effectiveness.

In another study, published in Cell, and conducted by Schief, Burton, TSRI Professor David Nemazee and their colleagues at IAVI’s NAC, TSRI, Ragon Institute, MIT and HMS, mice engineered to make precursors of VRC01 bNAbs were primed with the eOD-GT8 60mer and boosted with two other immunogens. The elicited antibodies shared many genetic features with mature bnAbs and had the ability to neutralize one native HIV isolate as well as multiple slightly modified HIV isolates. The boosters seem to have guided the antibody-producing B cells to mutate in the right direction. The researchers now think that additional boosters are needed to complete the bNAb maturation.

A second study published in Cell succeeded with a similar approach. They showed that a series of priming with the eOD-GT6 60mer immunogen (an earlier version of the eOD-GT8 60mer) and boosting with different modified HIV envelope proteins could induce antibodies with properties of partially mature bNAbs in mouse models with immune systems that can create an even wider range of antibodies. This study was conducted by John Mascola at the NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center and Frederick Alt, a HHMI researcher at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, along with colleagues at IAVI’s NAC at TSRI, TSRI, Vanderbilt University, Columbia University, Ragon Institute, FHCRC and Duke University School of Medicine.

With a third study published in Cell and another published in Immunity, Schief, Michel Nussenzweig and teams at IAVI’s NAC, TSRI, HHMI, The Rockefeller University and Ragon Institute demonstrated the ability of different prime and booster immunogens to induce the generation and full maturation of a PGT121 bNAb that neutralized diverse HIV isolates in another mouse model. This is the first proof ever that immunization with a series of prime and booster shots using designer proteins can produce bNAbs against HIV. This work is also novel in that it suggests a way to induce bNAbs that bind sugar molecules that shield HIV from antibody attack. Many bNAbs that develop during natural infection bind at least in part to the sugar coating, but it has not been known until now how to develop immunogens to induce this kind of response through vaccination.

Taken together, these results offer encouraging insights and proof points for a planned Phase I clinical trial by IAVI to test the eOD-GT8 60mer prime and to further develop booster immunogens and test their ability to elicit bNAbs in humans in future trials. And, the work on PGT121 vaccine development and testing in a mouse model has encouraged the researchers to further develop their approach to get it ready for clinical studies.

{{Earlier ground work}}

In June 2015, scientists from TSRI, IAVI and The Rockefeller University described in Cell and Science the design of the eOD-GT8 60mer and reported that the immunogen induced antibody responses in mice that showed some of the traits necessary to neutralize HIV. Studies published in Science by IAVI and TSRI researchers in March 2016 showed that the precursor B cells for one kind of HIV bNAb seem to be present in most people. In August 2016, the researchers described in PLOS Pathogens the minimal set of mutations needed for one type of antibody to develop into a bNAb and proposed the structures of priming and boosting immunogens needed in a vaccine to induce those mutations.

{Kissing is fun and sweet when you do it with the right person and at the right time; however, if done with the wrong person or without proper discretion, it can create more problems than expected.}

There are a number of diseases one can contract from kissing, and I’ve got 8 of them lined up below…

{{1. Tooth decay}}

Tooth decay is a condition caused by dangerous bacteria, and it can be passed on from one person to another through kissing. This is no surprise, since kissing involves a lot of saliva movement and exchange.

{{2. Hepatitis B }}

Hepatitis B is a disease caused by a virus. The virus attacks the liver and can lead to death and other dangerous conditions. It can be passed through blood and other bodily fluids… including saliva.

{{3. Strep throat }}

Also known as ‘Sore throat’ is a condition caused by streptococcal bacteria. It is characterised by the inability to swallow saliva, pains in the throat, fever, etc. It can also be shared via kissing.

{{4. Influenza (flu) }}

This is a common respiratory illness caused by an influenza virus. Like the aforementioned, it can be contracted through kissing an infected person.

{{5. Viral meningitis}}

As the name suggests, this is a disease caused by a virus which results in an inflammation of the tissue covering the brain and spinal chord. It is also transmissible through kissing.

{{6. Herpes simplex 1}}

Commonly referred to as ‘oral herpes’, this disease can be contracted when you lock lips with an infected person.

{{7. Gum disease}}

You probably didn’t know that you can catch gum disease by kissing an infected person.

{{8. Mononucleosis }}

This disease isn’t called ‘the kissing disease’ for nothing; it can actually be passed through kissing. It is caused by a virus, the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), and is characterised by fever, sore throat, etc.

So those were some of the diseases you can contract via kissing, but don’t let it deter you from kissing, after all, the act isn’t a bad thing, just make sure you don’t do it with the wrong person, and at the wrong time.

{Many people drink water; they know it is important and they drink it when they’re thirsty. But not many people know the reasons why water is so important to the health.
}
First, you should know that water makes up 60 percent of your total body weight and 90 percent of brain weight.

These are some importance of the world’s most important liquid you should know.

{{1. Water aids digestion}}

Water is important for digestion; it aids in constipation and other abdominal issues. Water helps to move the digestive process along and through the system.

{{2. Water helps flush out waste and bacteria }}

Minus helping our digestive system to function properly, water also helps to flush out waste in the form of urine and sweat. Water also optimises kidney function.

{{3. Water boosts energy }}

Water boosts energy by delivering important nutrients to all of our cells, especially muscle cells, thereby pushing off fatigue.

You should know that water composes 75% of our muscle tissue. Dehydration can lead to weakness, fatigue, dizziness, and electrolyte imbalance.

{{4. Water makes the skin glow }}

Regular water consumption can help improve the color and texture of your skin by building new cells properly. Drinking water also helps the skin regulate the body’s temperature through sweating.

Water is the best defense against ageing and wrinkles in the skin.

{{5. Nutrient circulation }}

Water serves as the body’s transportation system. It is essential for the proper circulation of nutrients in the body.

{{6. Prevent headaches }}

Headaches can be caused by dehydration, so drinking water can help prevent or alleviate that feeling of headache.

{{7. Weight loss }}

Water is also effective for weight loss. Being hydrated can serve as an appetite suppressant and help with weight loss.

{{8. Boost mood }}

According to researchers, dehydration can affect your mood negatively. Drinking water will help make you happier, think clearly and elevate your mood.

Did someone just grab a glass of water?

{Some foods are good for the brain and help us focus better.}

Here are 5 foods that help you concentrate

{{1. Fish }}

Fish is good for the brain because it is rich in omega-3 fatty acids that are important for brain health. Your brain definitely loves it when you eat fish.

{{2. Blueberries }}

Studies have shown a diet rich in blueberries protects the brain from damage caused by free radicals and help you feel alert and younger mentally.

{{3. Avocados}}

The brain need a good flow of blood to function properly and avocados reduce your risk of plaque buildup and enhances blood flow. Just the food you need if you want to focus better.

{{4. Coffee }}

Coffee is rich in caffeine which helps energise us and also help us concentrate. If you want to be alert, a cup of coffee would do just fine. Avoid taking excess coffee as too much caffeine can make you jittery and uncomfortable.

{{5. Citrus juice }}

The juice of citrus fruits are rich in glucose which helps fuel the brain. Taking a glass of citrus juice would offer a short-term boost to memory, thinking and mental ability. Avoid having too much of it because too much glucose can also impair your memory.

{Research presented today yesterday at this year’s European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress in London, UK shows that exposure to antibiotics early in life is related to increased risk of developing allergies later in life. The research is by Dr Fariba Ahmadizar, Utrecht University, Netherlands and colleagues.}

Some previous research has suggested that early life exposure to antibiotics is associated with an increased risk of developing allergies later in life, but results are inconsistent. In this new research, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for observational studies published from January 1966 through November 11, 2015. Studies were included that assessed the association between antibiotic consumption during the first 2 years of life and the risk of eczema or hay fever later in life.

A total of 22 studies (including 394,517 patients) were selected to study the risk of eczema and 22 studies (including 256,609 patients) to study the risk of hay fever, with some of these being the same (12 studies including 64,638 patients) studies for both conditions. The increased risk of eczema due to early life use of antibiotics varied from 15% to 41% depending on the type of study analysed. Use of antibiotics in early life also increased the risk of hay fever in later life by 14% to 56% again dependent on the type of study analysed.

Furthermore, the association was stronger if patients had been treated with 2 courses compared with one course of antibiotics both for eczema and for hay fever.

The authors suggest the mechanism behind this effect is the immunomodulatory effect of antibiotics, and the disruption of the microorganisms (microbiome) in the gut caused by antibiotics which can lead to reduce immune responses.

Dr Ahmadizar concludes: “Early life exposure to antibiotics is related to an increased risk of both eczema and hay fever later in life.”

{Researchers have found that Zika virus can live in eyes and have identified genetic material from the virus in tears, according to a study from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. The study, in mice, helps explain why some Zika patients develop eye disease including a condition known as uveitis which can lead to permanent vision loss.}

The study, published Sept. 6 in Cell Reports, describes the effect of Zika virus infection in the eyes of mouse fetuses, newborns and adults. The researchers now are planning complementary studies in human patients infected with the virus.

“Our study suggests that the eye could be a reservoir for Zika virus,” said Michael S. Diamond, MD, PhD, the Herbert S. Gasser Professor of Medicine and one of the study’s senior authors. “We need to consider whether people with Zika have infectious virus in their eyes and how long it actually persists.”

Zika virus causes mild disease in most adults but can cause brain damage and death in fetuses. About a third of all babies infected in utero with Zika show eye disease such as inflammation of the optic nerve, retinal damage or blindness after birth. In adults, Zika can cause conjunctivitis — redness and itchiness of the eyes — and, in rare cases, uveitis.

To determine what effect Zika infection has on the eye, the researchers infected adult mice under the skin — similar to the way humans are infected by mosquitoes — and found live virus in the eyes seven days later. These observations confirm that Zika is able to travel to the eye. It is not yet known whether the virus typically makes that trip by crossing the blood-retina barrier that separates the eye from the bloodstream, traveling along the optic nerve that connects the brain and the eye, or some other route.

Eye infection raises the possibility that people could acquire Zika infection through contact with tears from infected people. The researchers found that the tears of infected mice contained Zika’s RNA — the genetic material from the virus — but not infectious virus when tested 28 days after infection.

“Even though we didn’t find live virus in mouse tears, that doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be infectious in humans,” said Jonathan J. Miner, MD, PhD, an instructor in medicine and the study’s lead author. “There could be a window of time when tears are highly infectious and people are coming in contact with it and able to spread it.”

The eye is an immune privileged site, meaning the immune system is less active there, to avoid accidentally damaging sensitive tissues responsible for vision in the process of fighting infection. Consequently, infections sometimes persist in the eye after they have been cleared from the rest of the body.

“We are planning studies in people to find out whether infectious virus persists in the cornea or other compartments of the eye, because that would have implications for corneal transplantation,” said Rajendra S. Apte, MD, PhD, the Paul A. Cibis Distinguished Professor of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, and the study’s other senior author. Other blood-borne viruses such as herpes simplex virus have been transmitted accidentally through corneal transplants.

Zika researchers are increasingly considering alternative routes of transmission because the virus is spreading more quickly than would be expected by mosquito-borne transmission alone. Epidemiologists can predict the spread of a disease based on known rates of transmission for related viruses and the viral level in the bloodstreams of infected people. By those calculations, Zika is moving unusually fast.

“The Zika epidemic has been very explosive, more explosive than we can account for by just mosquitoes and the level of Zika virus in human blood. Some other factor may be at play,” said Diamond, who is also a professor of molecular microbiology, and of pathology and immunology. “Sexual transmission is probably not playing a major role, but it could be some other bodily fluid — saliva, or urine or tears.”

Even if human tears do not turn out to be infectious, the researchers’ detection of live virus in the eye and viral RNA in tears still has practical benefits. Human tears potentially could be tested for viral RNA or antibodies, a less painful way to diagnose recent Zika infection than drawing blood. The mouse eye could be used to test anti-Zika drugs.

“The advantage to using the eye is that your dosing requirements are very small, and you don’t have to worry as much about effects of larger dosages of therapeutic agents on the rest of the body such as liver toxicity,” said Apte, who is also a professor of developmental biology and of medicine. “If you know you have virus replicating in the eye, you can just give the drug locally and measure any change in viral replication. If you use the eye as a model to study drug delivery or drug efficacy, you could then use the knowledge you gain to treat viral infection in other places.”