Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Scientists Reverse Muscular Dystrophy In Dogs

Posted by Soulskill on Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:58 AM
from the barking-up-the-right-tree dept.
Al writes "Scientists have taken a step toward developing a cure for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) by successfully treating the condition in dogs using a novel genetic technique. The scientists used a method called exon skipping, which involves adding a genetic 'patch' to block transcription of a portion of the gene involved in DMD. This puts the remaining genetic sequence back in order, essentially creating a much less severe version of the condition. The scientists recorded some remarkable video footage showing the resulting improvements in several dogs with naturally-occurring DMD. More work is needed before the treatment can be given to humans, however, because DMD sufferers often have different genetic mutations."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Beware (Score:3, Informative)

    by dnormant (806535) on Monday March 23 2009, @12:09PM (#27300507)

    The video link is pop up hell in IE.

  • ...the end of Labor Day Weekend Telathons? What will Jerry Lewis do now? Guess my 25 cents in a fireman's boot actually worked.
  • Is it heritable? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PotatoFarmer (1250696) on Monday March 23 2009, @12:17PM (#27300665)
    I'd be interested to see whether or not the "patch" is heritable; the article doesn't mention it. In any case, it's really impressive work.
    • I doubt it, especially from women.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        I guess it would depend on the potential methods of inheritance. If, in addition to directly modifying the production of male sperm, the patch could be delivered through the placenta to a fetus similar to how antibodies are transferred then it could still be heritable through the female.

        That all being said, I'm not a biologist, so it's entirely possible that what I've described can't actually happen.
    • The patch will have to be in either the eggs of the female (very unlikely it will reach there) if it even COULD work at all because of the way eggs are special (giant, hard large shell) or in the site where male sperm does its meiosis; sperm cells are made by dividing like mitosis then dividing again to form 4 cells with half the DNA. It's possible in males, but very unlikely in females.

    • That's okay, just call Tank and he'll upload one! "Tank! I need a patch!"

      *goes back to bending spoons*

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      IANAG (IANA Geneticist), but from what little I know about genetics, I doubt it is heritable. The only way something can be heritable is if it modifies any of the germ cells (sperm or ova). In fact, some of the "junk" DNA that we have are actually inactive sequences of ancient retroviruses (ERVs - Endogenous retroviruses [wikipedia.org]) that infected the germ cells in our ancestors.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 23 2009, @12:27PM (#27300825)

    For some reason, I read the headline as "Scientists Reverse Muscular Dystrophy in Frogs". Reading that, I thought, "Well no wonder the French love Jerry Lewis".

  • Great News (Score:5, Informative)

    by Nos. (179609) <andrew&thekerrs,ca> on Monday March 23 2009, @12:31PM (#27300877) Homepage

    I just found out that two nephews of three are positive for DMD. This basically confirms that my sister-in-law is a carrier. We're in the middle of trying to determine if my wife is a carrier, and thus if our two sons are at risk. To say the least this is a very stressful time in our lives, and there are no quick answers. However, seeing a big jump like this in treatment is great news.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Pray to dieties, sacrifice every living animal you can get your hands on, and avoid every single bad luck superstition. My brother has DMD and at the age of 30, he can't even feed himself anymore. I sincerely hope for the best with your children.
    • Good news for humans. Great news for dogs.
  • Is there a way to get the original article published by the scientists who developed the technique? My mentorship is heavily rooted in genetic analysis, so I'm interested in these kinds of things.
  • by Rayban (13436) on Monday March 23 2009, @12:35PM (#27300957) Homepage

    # patch -p0 < cure-md.patch

    File to patch: chromosone/18
    patching file chromosone/18
    Hunk #1 FAILED at 47.
    Hunk #2 FAILED at 128.
    Hunk #3 FAILED at 308.
    Hunk #4 FAILED at 316.
    Hunk #5 FAILED at 328.
    Hunk #6 FAILED at 342.
    Hunk #7 FAILED at 397.
    Hunk #8 FAILED at 708.
    Hunk #9 FAILED at 1268.
    9 out of 9 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
    chromosone/18.rej

  • does these sort of medical tests on animals end up with better treatment of animals aswell by passing the info onto vets or is it generally not considered worth it for mans best friend.
    • In a substantial number of cases, human therapies do become available for animals. They even have vets that specialize by disease area instead of by animal type(ie. Veterinary Oncologists vs. Large animal or small animal vets). This is also why you can now get animal health insurance.
      • In a substantial number of cases, human therapies do become available for animals.

        It is easier and cheaper for these therapies to become available for animals because of less regulation. For example, you can clone animals today, but cloning people is illegal...

  • by Naked Jaybird (1190469) on Monday March 23 2009, @12:56PM (#27301259)
    As one diagnosed with Becker's MD, a milder form of DMD, I, for one, welcome my new exon-skipping overlords. For those of you who are wondering if you should go to the gym, run, jog, shoot hoops, or play soccer today. I give you the same advice that I give to my three boys: Run, because you can.
    • That, Naked Jaybird is an EXCELLENT comment. I copied it down and put it next to my 'work out plans' that I've been neglecting.

    • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Monday March 23 2009, @12:22PM (#27300741)

      Ok, seriously. What could possibly go wrong?

      We're talking treating people who are almost certainly going to die anyway with a genetic approach that doesn't have even a theoretical way to spread to other people. The absolute worst thing that could go wrong is that the people being treated die from the treatment. The second worst thing that could happen is that we don't do the treatment and they die anyway; though maybe a bit later.

      I'm seriously asking, what do you think could actually go wrong?

      • by Mordaximus (566304) on Monday March 23 2009, @12:36PM (#27300959)
        We're talking treating people who are almost certainly going to die anyway with a genetic approach that doesn't have even a theoretical way to spread to other people. The absolute worst thing that could go wrong is that the people being treated die from the treatment. The second worst thing that could happen is that we don't do the treatment and they die anyway; though maybe a bit later.

        Really? If I were the betting type, I'd say just about everyone is almost certainly going to die, not just those afflicted with MD. The most important thing anyone can ask for isn't longevity, it's quality of life. Your list of outcomes is incomplete - I'd at the very least put "the treatment leads them to suffer more than they already do" far ahead of any others.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Your list of outcomes is incomplete - I'd at the very least put "the treatment leads them to suffer more than they already do" far ahead of any others.

          Yes for cosmetic genetic engineering stuff like changing eye color or womens chest size I'd agree, the possible downsides could be pretty icky.

          But, MD is not exactly a joyous party... Even if you intentionally tried, how do you suggest you'd make it even worse? You'd have to do some pretty ridiculous scaremongering like claiming they "could" get something like rabies or ebola, or "could" become lycanthropes. But that doesn't sound very responsible in their situation.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Why don't we rejoice that this gives patients a CHOICE in the matter. Let people make up their own minds about the risk.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              Massive immune system response to the gene tinkering leading to immediate death.

              To quote the OP (MozeeToby):
              The absolute worst thing that could go wrong is that the people being treated die from the treatment.

              Some gene gets tinkered in the wrong spot and you get cancer too.

              Cancer isn't the death sentence it once was.

              Go through a costly and/or miserable treatment with no effect.

              Baseball analogy: If you don't swing, you will be in for somewhere between 3 and 6 pitches and might get on base if the pitcher sucks (he doesn't, in this case). If you swing at every pitch, you might strike out after 3 pitches. Or you might keep fouling out indefinitely, and get much more than 6 pitches. Or you might get a base hit.

        • Really? If I were the betting type, I'd say just about everyone is almost certainly going to die

          "Just about" everyone is "almost certainly" going to die? Last time I checked, I'd say EVERYONE is going to die. The only questions are "when", and "by what". Of course, I could be wrong, there are ALWAYS statistical outliers...

      • by DanTheStone (1212500) on Monday March 23 2009, @12:43PM (#27301055)
        Since the fix isn't inherited, this could increase the rate of this disorder in the whole human race. If genetic disorders never select out, a lot more people would become dependent on the treatment in the future. There's a reason why natural selection is important to the survival of a species. In a nutshell: More people who have this disorder will be able to have children and pass it on.
        • by h4rr4r (612664) on Monday March 23 2009, @01:01PM (#27301315)

          How is this different from eyeglasses/contacts?

          If we can fix it, why should it be selected against?

          Natural selection is not a force for the survival of a species, it is not some artist or designer. It is merely the natural tendency for some traits to be selected against from environmental pressure. If there is no environmental pressure against the traits they do not get selected against. This is no different than taller growing trees, lack of food at one height, making an incredibly long neck no longer a hindrance. If a cure was invented that means the environment changed and there is no longer a selection pressure against this trait.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            I'm not totally cruel, but:

            If we can fix it, why should it be selected against?

            Because it's expensive to fix it, and letting it propagate in the gene pool means we'll have to pay to fix it in a higher and higher proportion of the populace.

            From an economic perspective, the miraculous state of modern medicine will bankrupt us. From a moral perspective, it's a hard choice to make, about whether we can afford to cure everyone of everything curable.

            But I think the simple truth is that the cost/benefit ratio o

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              We are not bankrupting anyone, look at doctor in a box places and what nurses can do these days. Health care is just stating to be commoditized, once that really gets going prices will fall dramatically. There is little need for our current see the MD when you feel ill system. Seeing a nurse, having some tests and letting the doctor review that information is much cheaper and will make healthcare accessible to more and more people.

              Conserving healthcare is as dumb as pretending that conservation of electrici

            • Without even getting into a cost-benefit analysis of *any* form of medical care - it's astonishing how many people die from diseases that can be treated with substances like... food, clean water, even clean air.

              Yes, that's right - every Flintstones chewable you give your kid *could* have been money spent on iodine which saves some other kid from life long brain damage.

              So let's not kid ourselves into thinking that "survival of the fittest" is a primarily a biological test for mankind anymore. It's an economi

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Eyeglasses don't fix poor vision. They compensate for it.

            Why would you want to deslect for it? Because a population that needs braces, eyeglasses, custom shoes, and a pace-maker at birth is not a laudable goal. In addition to the clear inferiority of "overcoming problems" to "never having problems", there's the issue of what happens if the technology infrastructure breaks down.

            On the other hand: the beauty of gene-therepy is that it should be applicable to reproductive cells. Alter the MD gene in an egg or

        • It is not clear however if an increased rate of a treatable disorder is such a bad thing - if everyone needs to wear eyeglasses to see (for example) that is not such a bad thing - particularly if those with the disorder are contributing to the group as a whole. Natural selection will ALWAYS have an effect, but all organisms change their environment in feedback loops - if MD is no longer a serious problem due to treatment, it does not spell our doom as a species.

          Granted, the carriers of this gene might not

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          Since the fix isn't inherited, this could increase the rate of this disorder in the whole human race. If genetic disorders never select out, a lot more people would become dependent on the treatment in the future. There's a reason why natural selection is important to the survival of a species. In a nutshell: More people who have this disorder will be able to have children and pass it on.

          That's a good reason not to give kids eyeglasses or braces or, hell, lets not give any medical care to kids at all. And, maybe if you get beat up in the schoolyard, you should be left to die because, well, "survival of the fittest" and all that... You need to explain why Muscular Dystrophy should be singled out for non-treatment, or if not singled out, where you draw the line. Is it because its a genetic treatment? How is that worse than injecting yourself with insulin the rest of your life to keep you

      • by vishbar (862440) on Monday March 23 2009, @01:08PM (#27301411)

        The absolute worst thing that could go wrong is that the people being treated die from the treatment

        Nuh-uh. Did you ever see 28 Days Later?

        Zombies. The worst thing that could go wrong are zombies.

      • I'm seriously asking, what do you think could actually go wrong?

        Sometimes the worst side-effects of our actions are those that we hadn't even imagined before it happened. Thalidomide [wikipedia.org] is one example from the medical field-- as far as I know, nobody had an indication that it was dangerous when they first started using it.

        Now, I'm not saying that something horrible will go wrong, but I am in favor of extensive testing and forethought into consequences of our medical technologies, particularly when dealing with genetics. Some of the dangers may be overblown by Hollywood,

      • Like domestic oil?

        I was making a play on words with Exon/Exxon. Clearly, my attempt at humor this morning has flown way over the head of the moderators..

    • According to Battlestar Galactica, its those damn Japanese robots that should worry us. Leave the Roomba behind when you go.