Cell Metabolism Artificially Enhanced 97
NewScientist is reporting that Swiss researchers have shown that a cell's metabolism can be increased without altering the genetic makeup. Small plastic packages of enzymes have been successfully inserted into cells, increasing metabolism. "Meier and colleagues coated their polymer vesicles in a chemical that encouraged human white blood cells called macrophages to engulf them. The small capsules contained enzymes, just like natural organelles. The enzymes chosen produced fluorescent chemicals, signaling they were working without problems inside their new host."
Re: (Score:2)
"And I for one welcome our new florescent, metabolically enhanced overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted slashdot personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves."
(Cells use sugar for energy,... right?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
wonderful (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:wonderful (Score:5, Informative)
says that in the future, they may even be able to get human cells to produce energy through photosynthesis.
I don't think that photosynthesis is efficient enough to provide us with any significant amount of energy. Plants have to increase potentially energy-absorbing surface area by putting our branches to support many leaves. Even so, that still doesn't give them enough energy to even walk around the block, let alone commute to work. When is the last time you saw a plant walking by? Perhaps if you live a very sedentary life style - like maybe a programmer living in his mother's basement - but then again, this type rarely sees the sun anyhow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well of course. I was reading the other day that the body consumes up to a hundred watts at rest, and the brain - about 15% of that. While I appreciated the mods, I was really trying to be funny. Began the setup by stating the obvious, moved on to the ridiculous, then finished off with an easily identifiable Slashdot archetype. I guess my presentation was a little too dry for the humour to come across. I'll have to work on that :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Confuses them every time.
Next time, just go for the humor. You'll promptly get modded "Troll" most of the time, but just keep working at it.
You really don't need all those karma points. It's just a game.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
When is the last time you saw a plant walking by?
"The base of a triffid is a large muscle-like root mass comprising many thick tentacles. When dormant/docile, these tentacles are rooted into the ground and are used to draw nutrients, as with a normal plant. When active, triffids use these tentacles to propel themselves along at a moderate walking pace. They are capable of moving faster over open ground."
link [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mod parent up +5 Insightful! - and read his post. He has even properly linked his authoritative source.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:wonderful (Score:5, Funny)
So someday there will green skinned chicks sunbathing their way to ever better levels of physical fitness? The day I see that, I'm totally changing my name to James T. Kirk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What you're saying is (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Because if that miniature horse and wagon comes ripping through my place, I'll grab my shotgun, then chase it down...and kill it!
*grumble* Damn mini horse and wagon goes tearing through the place and jumps into the frikkin tv EVERY time I try to sit down and eat! Worse than those telemarketers! *grumble*
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't eat for pleasure, eat for performance! (Score:2)
Anyway I think one of the biggest problem are that people don't see and eat food for functionality, but rather for pleasure. They don't eat to get the nutrition and energy they need for the day, they eat because they like it, it tastes good and makes them feel good.
But to
Re: (Score:2)
I got fired from my last job for doing that. And it's kinda' messy.
Re: (Score:1)
BTW: I'm fit, so I'm not trying to justify my overweight status.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But those are just guesses. Who knows, maybe I'm being optimistic
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Still valid points thought.
I know how I still feel if I have chocolate nearby, I could easily eat the whole bar but I don't because I know it's a bad idea. Some people don't think so it seems. Most of my food is very boring and I don't feel an urge to eat lots of it,
Re: (Score:2)
Holy unstable tense/perspective/conjugation, Batman!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Metabolism is more than just eating food. Increased metabolism could result in increased energy in the cells, used for, oh lets say athletes? It would be virtually impossible to detect using normal meassures. I can certainly see a benefit for some people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But if it raises mitochondia activity they will burn more fuel, but that will probably end up with more free radicals, more oxidizing damage and eventually earlier cell/person death. So this drug may eventually kill you prematurely.
May help them, may not. For explosive work you use ATP and not carbohydrates, for less explosive work the acidity may stop you instead, depen
Re:What a stupid anti-fat drug this can become (Score:5, Insightful)
What's funny is that there's plenty of food, the shortfall is mostly due to diverting the food to ethanol and feeding livestock. The biggest obstacle to feeding the poor (arguably the only obstacle) is politics and other, non-food-related problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Extra fat weight don't use much extra energy at all, even extra muscle doesn't use that much extra energy while resting. The fat will be like say 1-2 kcal / kg or something, it won't help you in a way which matters in rest. Sure it will use more energy to move all that weight, so if the fat person starts moving it will makes a difference, but then really f
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately, very little of it is produced in the places where people are starving, there's a lot of wastage, and there are people who eat many times more food than they need to.
The solution: Round up obese people and feed them to the third world. Soylent Green for all!
Re:What a stupid anti-fat drug this can become (Score:5, Informative)
Here's some conditions that occur to me that might be improved by suddenly raising metabolism:
1) depression
2) help cure (or recover from) diseases for which the body has an autoimmune response
3) Rapid weight loss (if, for example, you'll be dead within 10 days if you don't lose 30 pounds within 5 days, which I've heard can come up)
4) Blood loss recovery
It should also be noted that pretty much everything that raises metabolism also does something else. Is that something else medically beneficial to someone? Maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
1) how?
3) I doubt it will make such a difference, 13.6 kg of body fat would hold approximately 95.200 kcal, so you would need to raise your metabolism by 20.000 kcal / day to reach that goal
Re: (Score:2)
3) Yeah...but sometimes every calorie counts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Raising your metabolism by 20,000 kcal/day would likely cause you to consume your fat, muscles, and die of starvation within a fortnight.
I think you underestimate the power of the processes that we use internally.
Re: (Score:2)
And I didn't said 20.000 kcal was a good idea, but it is what is needed to lose all that fat.
Re: (Score:2)
increasing the metabolism of a single cell could save lives and reverse the effects of some diseases. Thankfully, at least for most of us, we are made up of more than one cell.
Re: (Score:2)
Second paragraph: Clearly you don't unsderstand eating and food availability.
"Simply useless, not to say really stupid!"
Great arguement, it doesn't even knock over your strawman!
"What are needed aren't more stimulants or excuses, eat for performance not for pleasure and lift your fucking ass!"
Yeah....exept you are over looking the fact that going on a diet with will take years to loose weight, this could make it a shorter time.
You should check into reality once is
Re: (Score:2)
Intresting that my post have fallen from +4 insightful to 0 flamebait.
Re: (Score:1)
So? It will raise peoples metabolism? For what purpose? To waste even more resources on producing food? Waste more land area, water, energy, artificial fertilizers, greenhouse gases, kill more oceans? Yeah, great! And in the end that will probably mean less food for the poor and higher food prices aswell.
I take it you believe in the butterfly effect? THe way I see it this may even itself out. Turn up the metabolish and the cells die faster which means you die faster. You may use up the same amount of resources but just faster. The only issue is how to replenish resources faster than we do now and fast enough on a mass scale if this is applied to humans.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if it's 100% proved and fact to say that raised metabolism makes the cells die faster, but looking at free radicals and what happens to rats if you starve them it seems likely.
But then people do die for other reasons when cells not being able to split any more aswell. (Thought cancer risks may raise aswell I guess.)
The question is if exercise makes you live longer or not, I guess it depends on the intensity and volume (and drugs
Re: (Score:1)
To waste even more resources on producing food? Waste more land area, water, energy, artificial fertilizers, greenhouse gases, kill more oceans?
I don't know what the butterfly effect is.
You listed all the effects that increasing cell metabolism would do with one of them being killing more oceans. It isn't quite the butterfly effect which says that a single butterfly flapping wings in one part of the world can cause a hurrican in another part. With your theory multiple cells (in one body with multiple bodies having this done) having their metabolism increased would eventually kill oceans. I find it far fetched just as I do the butterfly effect.
Re: (Score:2)
The steps from butterfly to hurricane are probably bigger
Waste of energy... (Score:3, Interesting)
The fundamental basis of this idea is flawed. I personally don't get it.
However, it is certainly marketable and will cause someone to be filthy rich if they can really force humans to expend more energy without doing anything that actually requires the energy (such as exercise).
But I digress, all that aside, the pure discovery is interesting.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, a bicycle could get us from point A to B. A Geo Metro could too. But we have SUV's and Sports car's because we want them, not because we need them.
A fundamental part of living, is enjoying life.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pretty bold statement for someone who doesn't get it.
Re: (Score:1)
I think what the GP was trying to relay is the inherent irrationality of the research.
If you think of the human body as a machine that obeys the laws of thermodynamics, a "good" (as in high) metabolism is just the subject using more energy than is needed. Being efficient is a good thing for everyone. Decrease in human used energy == less food eaten == less food grown/transported == less time used growing/transport == more time to do something else.
Frankly attac
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You know what to do...
...fluorescent chemicals? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Fake bake orange is out.
Other Uses (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm... (Score:2)
What the paper really claims (Score:5, Informative)
The original paper did not increase the metabolism of the macrophage. What the original paper did was encage an enzyme, trypsin, in a "nanometer-sized polymer vesicle". This vesicle was coated with a protein that induce macrophages to engulf the vesicle (which is what macrophages do - they phagocytose). The authors then incubated macrophages which contained the vesicles with a dye (BZiPAR) that fluoresces (emits a wavelength of light - in this case green) when treated with trypsin (trypsin cuts of parts of the BZiPAR that suppress fluorescence).
We already know how to non-genetically introduce proteins to cells, for example using liposomes or the tat-peptide approach. What makes this work interesting is that the polymer vesicle is more stable than liposomes and, unlike the other methods, the vesicles don't release their content into the cell. Instead, the cell's components have to enter into the polymer vesicle.
This is an interesting technical development. It is not, however, everything that Mr. Osborne makes it out to be.
Mod parent up! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm a bit confused by the conflation of "organelles" and "vesicles" in the original article though, I assume they're only producing artificial polymer vesicles and not making entire Golgi apparatus or endoplasmic reticulum or something like that.
I have two questions:
Would it be correct to assume that this sort of trea
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting Development (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, I find this interesting. While restricted to situations where you could physically make the delivery, it raises the possibility of obtaining (temporarily) effects similar to those of gene-therapy without the gene. By producing your target protein ex vivo you eliminate an entire class of problems revolving around how to introduce and express foreign DNA.
Stimulant? (Score:1)
Higher metabolism! (Score:1)
Cancer by the way is when a cell begins growing and dividing uncontrollably. Such cells have a higher metabolism.
Funding (Score:3, Funny)
I've seen this one already (Score:2)
Ob. Blade Runner quote (Score:2)
Brought to you by..... (Score:1)
the Umbrella Corporation.
Serious sounds like a great idea. What could possibly go wrong?
Movement in cells (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)