4 ms·

This is a wise move. Let me suggest the mitochondrion as the main target to explore: - In a very simple but accurate analogy, a computer will not work properl

by fasteo 13y ago

This is a wise move. Let me suggest the mitochondrion as the main target to explore: - In a very simple but accurate analogy, a computer will not work properly - if at all - if the power is not coming. You can have the best hardware; you can put endless hours to develop the best possible software, but nothing matters if the power is not coming. - Mitochondria produce 90% of the energy - ATP - we need to function. - Mitochondria are a relatively simple structures. Its DNA is way smaller and simpler than the nuclear - double helix - DNA. - Many health issues seems to be the result of a primary mitochondrial dysfunction, or - Many health issues will result in a secondary mitochondrial dysfunction. I do have a mutation in my mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA), so - I know what I am talking about and - Yes, I am very biased; my life depends on this.

dnautics 13y ago
The guy who postulated and validated the way that the mitochondrion operates was very much a scientific outsider and had to secure funding and run his lab outside the traditional scientific apparatus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_D._Mitchell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_D._Mitchell
- pvnick 13y ago
  Everybody: "All these ATPs must be coming from something very similar to glycolysis." Peter Mitchell: "Guys, I think the concentration gradient is responsible" Everyone: "Shut up Peter" Later, as Peter was accepting his Nobel prize for discovering one of the most most important biochemical processes, he got to say "I told you so." I didn't realize he had to secure funding from an outside institution though, that's really interesting. Thanks for that TIL moment.
  - dekhn 13y ago
    To be honest I doubt I would have believed him at the time given the context. It's a pretty complicated theory that requires a subtle understanding of biophysics. Remember the reception to the Avery/McCloud experiment- people still insisted protein was the heritable molecule. People simply couldn't understand how a "simple" polymer like DNA could encode information. it was a real mind-bender because (AFAICT) nobody really appreciated how nonuniform polymers could code for information. Or the reception to the discovery of enzymatic RNA. How could RNA possibly be enzymatic? Well, now we know that RNA runs the game and protein is just muscle.
daughart 13y ago
Mitochondrial diseases don't seem like an easy target because they are really metabolic and homeostatic disorders, which are very complex. If the main failure of mitochondrial disorders were a lack of energy production, how could cancer cells grow faster than regular cells, yet turn off mitochondrial energy production in favor of anaerobic glycolysis and lactic acid fermentation (which is much less efficient)? Mitochondria have an under appreciated role in ion homeostasis, intermediary metabolism, and biosynthesis that seems to be the cause of many mitochondrial diseases. The mitochondrial genome only codes for a few proteins, but relies heavily on the nuclear genome for proteins. In other words, the mitochondria isn't just an isolated power plant; it's an integrated system that provides power in addition to logic, material processing, signaling, etc. Sorry to hear about your disorder, fortunately there are people researching these diseases.
- henryaj 13y ago
  Mitochondrial diseases are also very rare -- so that particular domain may not be the lowest-hanging of fruits to go for initially.
  - fasteo 13y ago
    Not so, numbers are being revised from 1:10.000 to as low as 1:1.000 Then, we have anti-aging. Big business here. Mitochondria is key. Then, we have diseases with secondary mitochondrial dysfunction. Again, big business (Alzheimer, Type 2 diabetes, statin-induced myopathy, etc)
    - dekhn 13y ago
      Could you point at a high quality reputable paper saying "as low as 1:1,000"? Did you mean 1 in 1000 people with disease have a mitochondrial cause, or 1 in 1000 people have a mitochondrially caused disease?
      - fasteo 13y ago
        I meant "1 in 1000 people with disease have a mitochondrial cause". There are many diferrent figures as "mitochondrial disease" is a broad term, but check these out: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/1/177.long http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/1/177.long http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18674747?dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18674747?dopt=Abstract

by fasteo 13y ago

dnautics 13y ago

The guy who postulated and validated the way that the mitochondrion operates was very much a scientific outsider and had to secure funding and run his lab outside the traditional scientific apparatus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_D._Mitchell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_D._Mitchell

pvnick 13y ago
Everybody: "All these ATPs must be coming from something very similar to glycolysis." Peter Mitchell: "Guys, I think the concentration gradient is responsible" Everyone: "Shut up Peter" Later, as Peter was accepting his Nobel prize for discovering one of the most most important biochemical processes, he got to say "I told you so." I didn't realize he had to secure funding from an outside institution though, that's really interesting. Thanks for that TIL moment.
- dekhn 13y ago
  To be honest I doubt I would have believed him at the time given the context. It's a pretty complicated theory that requires a subtle understanding of biophysics. Remember the reception to the Avery/McCloud experiment- people still insisted protein was the heritable molecule. People simply couldn't understand how a "simple" polymer like DNA could encode information. it was a real mind-bender because (AFAICT) nobody really appreciated how nonuniform polymers could code for information. Or the reception to the discovery of enzymatic RNA. How could RNA possibly be enzymatic? Well, now we know that RNA runs the game and protein is just muscle.

daughart 13y ago

Mitochondrial diseases don't seem like an easy target because they are really metabolic and homeostatic disorders, which are very complex. If the main failure of mitochondrial disorders were a lack of energy production, how could cancer cells grow faster than regular cells, yet turn off mitochondrial energy production in favor of anaerobic glycolysis and lactic acid fermentation (which is much less efficient)? Mitochondria have an under appreciated role in ion homeostasis, intermediary metabolism, and biosynthesis that seems to be the cause of many mitochondrial diseases. The mitochondrial genome only codes for a few proteins, but relies heavily on the nuclear genome for proteins. In other words, the mitochondria isn't just an isolated power plant; it's an integrated system that provides power in addition to logic, material processing, signaling, etc. Sorry to hear about your disorder, fortunately there are people researching these diseases.

henryaj 13y ago
Mitochondrial diseases are also very rare -- so that particular domain may not be the lowest-hanging of fruits to go for initially.
- fasteo 13y ago
  Not so, numbers are being revised from 1:10.000 to as low as 1:1.000 Then, we have anti-aging. Big business here. Mitochondria is key. Then, we have diseases with secondary mitochondrial dysfunction. Again, big business (Alzheimer, Type 2 diabetes, statin-induced myopathy, etc)
  - dekhn 13y ago
    Could you point at a high quality reputable paper saying "as low as 1:1,000"? Did you mean 1 in 1000 people with disease have a mitochondrial cause, or 1 in 1000 people have a mitochondrially caused disease?
    - fasteo 13y ago
      I meant "1 in 1000 people with disease have a mitochondrial cause". There are many diferrent figures as "mitochondrial disease" is a broad term, but check these out: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/1/177.long http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/1/177.long http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18674747?dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18674747?dopt=Abstract