Thursday, May 31, 2007

How does our body manage to make a vast array of diverse anitibodies?

Antibodies are proteins, which are encoded by genes; one gene one protein.  The human genome contains fewer than 50,000 genes, and yet we seem to have capability to make unlimited diverse antibodies as the need arises.  This puzzle was solved by Susumu Tonegawa who was awarded a Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1987.

Our immune system has evolved a unique genetic mechanism that enables it to generate virtually unlimited number of different antibodies by joining separate gene segments together before the codes (nucleotides sequence) are transcribed into messenger RNA, which are then translated into a different language—sequence of amino acids of a protein, or antibody in this case.

We all know it was Salvador Luria who sent James Watson to to meet with Crick.  It is less well known that both Luria and Renato Dulbecco had a strong impact on Tonegawa’s career.  In his autobiography (A Slot Machine, A Broken Test Tube), Luria wrote about his stay at Indiana University,
And my very first graduate student in Bloomington, in 1947, was a thin young man named Jim Watson, of twice double-helix fame—for his discovery of DNA structure (for which he shared a Nobel Prize with Francis Crick) and for the excellent book he wrote about that discovery.  With me Jim worked on the reactivation [of killed bacteriophage] phenomenon.  My role in arranging Watson’s fateful move from Copenhagen to Cambridge has been recounted many times in books on the DNA story.  That I arranged the move is true; that it was arranged when I met the British spectroscopist John Kendrew, and that John and I were congenial because we both were socialists is also true.
When the U.S. Immigration wouldn’t extend his stay in the States, it was Dulbecco sent him to to work with Niels Jerne.  On his Nobel Lecture in 1987, Tonegawa began with
One day in the fall of 1970, I received an airmail letter from Renato Dulbecco who was travelling in Europe. At that time I was a postdoctoral fellow in his laboratory at the Salk Institute. The letter, written on stationery of the Hotel Hassler in Rome said:
“Dear Susumu,
I don’t know what arrangements you have made for after your departure from La Jolla [where Salk Institute is] at the end of the year but I would like to mention to you another possibility. The Institute of  Immunology in Basel, Switzerland will start operating in a month. They already have an excellent collection of immunologists, but have not yet built an adequate background in molecular biology. I talked about you to Niels Jerne, the Director, and they are interested in having you there …
Thanks partly to this remarkably prophetic letter and partly to the immigration law that prevented me from remaining in the U.S.A., in February 1971 I found myself in this cozy Swiss town almost completely surrounded by immunologists.

Luria later recruited Tonegawa to MIT where he was at the time of his Nobel Prize award.  Tonegawa also bridged the molecular biology to immunology.

Antibody doesn’t always confer immunity or protection: even a Nobel laureate had a misconception about it

The invention of polymerase chain reaction or PCR by Karis Mullis (see photo) propelled the genetic science to a higher level—a quantum leap.  Mullis has been ‘carried away’ after he was awarded a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993.  He has since made outrageous anti-science statements, saying things without merit and without taste.  I honored him sarcastically with a ‘Flamboyant Flame’ Intellectual Cologne (see the article of ‘Intellectual Cologne’)

Ted Koppel on ABC’s ‘Nightline,’ once said, rightly so.
Take all MVPs from professional baseball, basketball, and football.  Throw in a dozen favorite movie stars and a half dozen rock stars for good measure, add all the television anchor people now on the air, and collectively, we have not affected the current good or the future welfare of mankind as much as Kary Mullis.
In his Dancing Naked in the Mind Field (published 1998), questioning HIV causes AIDS, Mullis wrote,
I read the Papers in Science for which they had become well known as the AIDS doctors, but all they had said there was that they had found evidence of a past infection by something which was probably HIV in some AIDS patients.  They found antibodies.  Antibodies to viruses had always been considered evidence of past disease, not present disease.  Antibodies signaled that the virus had been defeated.  The patient had saved himself.  There was no indication in these papers that this virus caused a disease.  They didn't show that everybody with the antibodies had the disease.  In fact, they found some healthy people with antibodies.
His writing (as late as 1998) revealed he had misconception of antibody.  He only knew “Antibodies to viruses had always been considered evidence of past disease, not present disease.”  Little did he know that some viruses are smarter than he is (or all of us) and can master their genetic know-how to evade our immune system.

He wrote, “they found some healthy people with antibodies.”  It has been a common knowledge that HIV patients with antibody may remain ‘healthy’ until they fell ill with AIDS (after CD4 count drops to certain level).  And yet Mullis used this phenomenon refuting HIV as the cause of AIDS.  Ironically PCR (Mullis’ great invention) greatly helps the advancement of HIV research.

He did admit that “It was a little out of my field of biochemistry, and these men were specialists in retroviruses [HIV]”  This turned out to be his only correct statement.

Wearing a Nobel laurel, Mullis’s words carry weight and general readers would believe in every word he utters.  Thus he is recklessly irresponsible.  Reading may be hazardous to your mind or health.

Monday, April 9, 2007

Comparing with Young Abe Lincoln: a grandiose delusion of mine?

Thursday, March 8, 2007

Love in Space and in Shakespeare's Works

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

From the evolutionary gene change to my childhood story

After reading the article about the genes regulating metabolism, Janice wrote, “Now that food is abundant, we’d have to override those formerly rational evolutionary impulses and tell ourselves not to eat all available food.  So restricting our diets is rational and irrational.”  I think she got my points.
We often lament how difficult it is to shed a pound or two, some, pointing to food, even said, “I put on 2 pounds just look at it!”  Each gene may have several alleles all with same function but some variation.  The process of burning glucose to yield energy (ATP) is quite complex with numerous steps, thereby involving many enzymes and genes.  Let me take you back to millions of years ago when cave was still our home.  Let assume there were 4 sets of alleles in the gene pools, each set of alleles (of genes) produces enzymes with different proficiency—judged by how many ATP produced upon burning of one molecule glucose.

Those with alleles 1 will have to burn twice as much glucose to yield the same amount of energy as those with allele 4.  Natural selection is about the ‘survival of the fittest,’ when food was scarce; the allele 4 is the fittest; and they survive to reproduce.

During my talk at Bible Class, I used an example comparing mom and me with those living in the cave.  There are two persons and 4 refrigerators / freezers in this house, not counting the small refrigerator.  Provided there is a big storm, we can survive for months without leaving the house, those living in the cave wouldn’t be so lucky; and only those evolved efficient and proficient genes survived over the eons.

Millions of people are still starving around the world. So the genes we developed over the long evolutionary history to make the storage of energy expedient and efficient and the expenditure of it economical are still favorable to them or even to me.  Let me tell my childhood story.

I really do not have to go far to use the un-developed or war-torn countries as an example.  I can simply use my own childhood story (This is something Jo wanted me to write; this was when I grew up in that village that Jo and Sean once visited. Janice and Joy never had the good fortune to do so.)  I vividly recall that all children in every household were excited for a feast, which is defined as ‘having a chicken on the table' on certain religious days; anticipation was on the air.  In those days all meats (pork or poultry) were so scarce and expensive; having meats on the table often signifies special occasions.  On special religious days all these ‘sacrifices’ had to be dedicated to Buddha or many generations of ancestors before we could enjoy it.

The eldest son of my eldest sister is only 5-6 years my junior and we all lived in that village and my sister’s family might join us for the ‘feast.’  Unfortunately a chicken only has two legs, so my mother often had to hide at least one leg for me and one for my younger brother, lest my sister’s son, Ming Hong, grabbed it.  My sister told this story saying how much my mother loved me!  And she didn't have the luxury to show her affection to her own son!

You can never imagine that there was much more love than protein in that little chicken leg.  Chickens were also lean and mean without much food available in those days