Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Couch-Potato Gene Found In Mice 54

Posted by timothy from the in-tim-too dept.
syousef writes "Good news for those of us who are prone to putting on weight sitting in front of a computer screen. The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting on research which shows that changing a single gene in mice turns them from couch potatos into super-athlete mice that don't get fat and are able to run for hours. They believe this has the potential to lead to a pill to turn similar genes on in humans. From the article: '"It is a pill that, in part, mimics exercise. It mimics the metabolic activity associated with exercise," said Ronald Evans, of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, who led the study. Writing in the journal Public Library of Science Biology, Dr Evans and colleagues said they tweaked the PPAR-delta gene to stay in a permanently "on" position and then genetically engineered mice with it. They expected to see changes in metabolism but were surprised at how extensive they were.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Couch-Potato Gene Found In Mice More

Couch-Potato Gene Found In Mice

Comments Filter:

  • I didn't know they were looking for it. (Score:4, Funny)

    by keiferb ( 267153 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @07:39PM (#10074248) Homepage
    I've got it. I could've saved them a lot of time...

  • For how long... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Drunken_Jackass ( 325938 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @07:45PM (#10074294) Homepage
    I wonder what the new life expectancy of these super metabolizers is.

  • is this the same as (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ashot ( 599110 ) <ashot.molsoft@com> on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @07:46PM (#10074302) Homepage
    this [iht.com]?

    • Re:is this the same as (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jesrad ( 716567 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @02:44AM (#10076099) Journal
      Hmm, no. The link you provide talks about a way to deprive monkeys of the "satisfaction of work done", so they keep working and working because they never "feel" their work is done. It acts on the pleasure/reward circuit in the brain.

      The pill discussed in this here article, though, is about forcing the metabolical effects of exercise (developing of muscles, turning of fat into readily-usable energy, etc...) without exercising. It acts on the metabolism.

  • A pill can't replace real exercise (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Just like winning $100,000 at the lottery can't replace working hard to get those $100,000.
    • I would be inclined to agree with you but the thing is, if I don't have to spend say at least 8 hours/week in the gym and tire my muscles and my body to get the results I want, then I can spend that time/effort on something else which might be more interesting and rewarding.

    • Re:A pill can't replace real exercise (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PainKilleR-CE ( 597083 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @07:17AM (#10076766)
      Just like winning $100,000 at the lottery can't replace working hard to get those $100,000

      Yeah, but if I can get $100,000 for buying a $1 ticket instead of working a year or two, I'll take the lottery money and keep on working.

      Similarly, if I can turn my metabolism up a few notches without the months of working out 7-20 hrs/week that it normally takes me to do so, I'll gladly take the pill and reduce my work-out schedule to simply that which I need to gain the muscle mass I want. At the same time, if their research is correct, it would be much easier to actually put in that time in the gym.

  • Couch potato gene eh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by MarkGriz ( 520778 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @08:01PM (#10074394)
    Sounds interesting, but I'm too lazy to RTFA.

  • *twitch* *twitch* CHEESE! (Score:5, Funny)

    by kmahan ( 80459 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @08:06PM (#10074423)
    I'm sure my boss would like to see me spending my time running through the maze of the cube farm looking for cheese.

  • Fear (Score:4, Interesting)

    by oKtosiTe ( 793555 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @08:09PM (#10074443)
    This all sounds very promising, but if it would be all good and all, why didn't a mutation in the past turn this gene on? There must be a downside, because it seems to me the organisms with this gene haven't evolved the way it looks now.

    • Re:Fear (Score:5, Interesting)

      by spacecowboy420 ( 450426 ) * <rcasteen&gmail,com> on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @08:59PM (#10074776)
      We don't stop evolving, maybe it just hasn't been time yet. Maybe it wasn't neccessary for survival to be as pronounced.

      I for one welcome our synthetically buff overlords.

      • Re:Fear (Score:3, Interesting)

        by nine-times ( 778537 )
        We don't stop evolving, maybe it just hasn't been time yet. Maybe it wasn't neccessary for survival to be as pronounced.

        Well, with evolution, you kind of have to think of everything that exists as being "added in". What I mean is, this isn't a switch, always off, waiting for us to "evolve" to the point of switching it on. To think that way implies that we have some "superior human" in our genes, waiting around for "evolution" to flip some pre-existing switches. According to all theories of evolution tha

    • Re:Fear (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Wtcher ( 312395 ) <exa+slashdot@minishapes.com> on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @09:20PM (#10074881) Homepage
      Well, a being that's constantly spending energy would have to constantly restore its reserves of energy. That is, it would have to be scrounging around for food all the time, which could be dangerous to its health due to predators and other hazards. Also, you need to think about the environment in which the being would need to live - perhaps it is an environment that doesn't offer an abundance of food. At that time, staying still and conserving energy until it really does need replenish its energy stores (fat, etc) does make better sense.

      Keep in mind I'm not a biologist or anything fancy like that.

      • Re:Fear (Score:3, Interesting)

        by nine-times ( 778537 )
        ...a being that's constantly spending energy would have to constantly restore its reserves of energy....Keep in mind I'm not a biologist or anything fancy like that.

        Well, it's a good theory anyway. Scientists have speculated that our energy conservation and fat stores have evolved into us. Perhaps as we were travelling around (you know, spreading out all over the globe, you never know what you're in for) or perhaps through surviving periods of famine, we developed the tendancy to pack on the fat as a mea

    • Probably because in the Good Olde Days(TM) energy was hard to come. Cave men more frequently died of starvation than obesity :P
    • Changing environment. The downside was probably that it wasted energy, which is a very bad thing if you're fighting for your survival in the wild. But if you have an overabundance of food, like those of us in developed countries do, which only happened in the past few hundred years, it may be a good thing.
      • Actually more like the last few decades for most of the population. Up until WWII a large percentage of the population of the planet still did a lot of physical labor. Getting fat was for the rich.
        Evolution has not had anywhere near the time to catch up with the modern diet.
  • Sounds great but I cbf'd going to get the pill. Can't they put it in the water or something?

  • dupe. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by numbski ( 515011 ) * <numbski@hksPASCA ... t minus language> on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @08:41PM (#10074662) Homepage Journal
    I couldn't find it, but I know I read this here last week. The article stated that by switching the gene they went from procrastinators to workaholics.

    Unless they're different genes, in which case we could go from being procrastinating couch potatoes to workaholic super-athletes.

    Yikes.

    • Re:dupe. (Score:1, Troll)

      by pipingguy ( 566974 )

      You are of course aware of the fact that most jobs are "busywork" and depend largely on buddy networks and who you know.

    • Wrong (Score:2)

      by be951 ( 772934 )
      Two different studies, stories, genes, even animals. The first related to recognizing satisfaction from completing work. When the gene is turned off, the satisfaction is not felt, so the monkeys continued to work and work and work.

      The current one involves mice that, with the gene in question turn on, were able to run much longer and farther than normal mice despite having the same activity level prior to the test (i.e. they didn't develop better athletic performance with extensive training). Also, they d

    • Unless they're different genes, in which case we could go from being procrastinating couch potatoes to workaholic super-athletes.

      "Two different genes" also means that we could go from being procrastinating super-athletes to workaholic couch-potatoes.

    • That releases more dopamine in the brain when we resist reposting stories.
      http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/1 2/1249240&tid=134
  • I've been wondering about the outstanding swimming and cycling results the Aussies are having/had at the Olympics..

    If we (Australia) beat the French it will be all worth it.

  • Wait a minute... (Score:3, Funny)

    by databoing ( 259158 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @09:57PM (#10075083)
    Isn't that just what the mice want us to think? I mean, after all, this planet is THEIR experiment.
  • changing a single gene in mice turns them from couch potatos into super-athlete mice that don't get fat and are able to run for hours

    Read: ADD/ADHD

  • They believe this has the potential to lead to a pill to turn similar genes on in humans

    Always wondering, in genetic marketing speeches, how they can pretend that a pill or any process can change genetic code in an already grown being. To change a gene in my body, they'd have to reprogram billions of cells, one by one. Even cancer, which is a mutated DNA, can't propagate fast enough to replace all my cells (and god knows cancer cells reproduces quickly) in a few years. Maybe they have truck-stop stale e [geocities.com]

    • Re:How can a pill? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Icarus1919 ( 802533 )
      They're not saying they're changing the genetic code, they're saying they want to activate the gene. Big difference. Changes in body chemistry activate and deactivate genes in our cells all the time, and while not a simply matter, it is quite possible to invent a pill that would turn the gene into the on position while the drug is in out body. We'd have to keep taking the pill, though, as the change wouldn't be permanent.

    • Re:How can a pill? (Score:3, Informative)

      by cft_128 ( 650084 )
      Always wondering, in genetic marketing speeches, how they can pretend that a pill or any process can change genetic code in an already grown being. To change a gene in my body, they'd have to reprogram billions of cells, one by one

      Check out in vivo gene therapy [wikipedia.org]. One approach is to use viruses to do the work, many of which already insert new DNA into our cells (HIV, chicken pox, herpes, etc). It's still in its infant stages but is very interesting.

  • One thing here (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:45AM (#10075791)
    I'd like to bust a move into this debate which is sometimes assumed and rarely taken.

    Evolution is not "progress" it is adaptation. This is such a key concept that many of people miss. Things evolve back and forth according to their environment.

    Humans, as a cognative creature, subvert this partially - in that physical evolution is trumped by cognative evolution. But even cognative evolution is trumped by social evolution. You can be much more stupid, but if your society (a meta-organism if you will) has better schools/educative practices you will pwn the smarter ones. Some of the debates about us pwning the neanderthals go into this - us using our social power to beat them.

    But returning to the point, there are many scientists and activists who believe that there is some predetermined greatness we are heading towards and that genetic engineering allows us to press fast forward on so to speak. This tripe. We aren't "heading" anywhere, we are adapting to environments. So anyone who uses this technique to justify what they want to do to humans, is using a bs argument.

    This makes people like advocate aborting disabled babies (like the philosopher singer) true monsters as they are saying that the natural randomness of evolution (which may or may not give the defect holder an advantage and take over the gene pool) is wrong and that there is a "true" course to our travels - which there simply is not.

    Anyway, the "laziness" gene is there in some people for a reason, it's there because it is part of a process of adaptation. When we turn it off we are not "doing what is natural and taking away a "defect"" we are subverting people's natural states. This is dangerous to do without thinking about it. What happens when certain political ideologies become "defects" - anything to do with behaviour/mind and genetics over mere survival (I don't oppose fixing people with genetically busted livers etc.) is a dangerous propsition.

    I am not opposing it outright, but it needs to be thought through carefully with a mind to what evolution really means (adaptation) rather than falling in with the cheerleaders of "progress" and starting to modify everything.

    Anway, a word of caution - as it is our generation who will set the playing field for the future on this one. And jokes and such that take these issues lightly are ok, but being entirely conservative (in the sense that humour always pulls us back to, or away from, a "norm") ties us to the discourse of "progress" - which is simply not the reality of evolution. Anyone who says otherwise is making a loaded truth claim as to what "normal" is.

    • Re:One thing here (Score:3, Informative)

      by HalfFlat ( 121672 )
      Just on one point: I think you are seriously misrepresenting Singer's position.

      His argument is not at all based on considerations of directing evolution or eugenics, despite some strange arguments to the contrary [1]. On the contrary, it follows logically from two propositions: firstly that we should minimize suffering, all other things being equal; and secondly, that a foetus is not a person in the sense of a it being a rational self-conscious being, and so questions of its abortion do not infringe upon o
    • Evolution is not "progress" it is adaptation. This is such a key concept that many of people miss. Things evolve back and forth according to their environment.

      Who told you that? I would say its both, but that depends on how you define progress, therefore no opinion matters on this subject as people can understand it many different ways. There is a lot of stuff (the majority) that we do that has nothing to do with adapting to our environment - most people are further away from being "one with their envir
    • How can you be that insightful and yet not know how to spell cognitive?

      The mind boggles.
  • "Yeah Dorris!"

    "Then whys you still a-watching the tell-eey? Like one o dem couch pa-ta-toes"

    "Dorris, I a-said don't talk to folks whom watching game, Dorris, get me another beer!"

    "Yes Earl"

    ----

    From: M1chURFr1end@wanadoo.fr
    Subject: L3gal Super P1lls Onl!ne Ordr. n.ow car bucket boat jam

    Buy you super pills online now at our f@mous legal pills site, 3 in 1 pill:

    Loose weight
    Grow a bigger p3nis
    Please you woman for longer!

    Buy now buy now buy now! TESTED ON MICE!!1 100% SAFE!!11111111 (sic)
    ----

    Yes, thank

  • No laziness no perl no progress (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mattr ( 78516 ) <mattr @ t e l e b o d y . com> on Thursday August 26, 2004 @07:58AM (#10077015) Homepage Journal
    Obviously this is anti-evolutionary dehumanizing stuff. It is human to want to sit back and tell other people to do the work, this would mean you work your ass off forever. You burn more calories, and just work work work. Whereas laziness is a virtue for perl programmers (and maybe many other pursuits) that is, the point is not to do nothing but to use the minimum amount of time needed and just focus on the fun part.

    I first thought maybe I should sign up for this gene thing but now I think it is scary. It is the kind of thing a future corporate suit collective could easily launch in a closed environment.. just making sure the managers don't get dosed. Presumably current outsourcing is based on a gradient in standard of living but when everyone is at the same standard then what? Will outsourcing contracts require genetic testing in the future? I'd rather have the switch to turn something like that on and off myself, or have no such gene at all and just hypnotize myself to clean the house and love it periodically. I think getting married probably would do that too.. not?
    • While the two may be connected, the gene in question seems to affect metabolism, not cognative laziness. So people who are mentally 'lazy' (that is, believe that work should only need to be done once) will probably still be able to come up with nifty perl scripts. The only difference is, they'll burn fat and lose pounds doing it! (Call to order now for only...)
  • Changing a single gene in mice turns them from couch potatos into super-athlete mice. Sounds like logitech marketing chit-chat to me...

Slashdot Top Deals

Swap read error. You lose your mind.

Close