Resveratrol is a compound produced by certain plants in response to stress, injury, or fungal infection. Its natural function is to ensure the survival of the plant under these harsh conditions, and it has been used as an oriental medicine to treat diseases related to blood vessels and the liver. However, some studies have failed to observe the same “elixir” function. Because of the lack of enough human clinical data and a lack of understanding of how exactly resveratrol might work, the jury has remained out on whether this compound actually does lead to health benefits.
Now, Sajish Matthew and Paul Schimmel at the Scripps Research Institute have taken a key step in addressing this. In a study published in Nature, they explain the mechanism through which resveratrol does have anti-cancer, anti-diabetic and cardio-protective effects. And their findings open up avenues for its use in therapeutics.
Cheese?
Cells – the building blocks of our bodies – function properly because a large number of proteins inside them do specific jobs like enabling a cell to move from one place to another. These proteins interact or bind with partner proteins to carry out many functions, and how they partner up is dictated by their 3D structures – so proteins with similar structures often bind to each other and have similar functions.
Matthew and Schimmel became interested in resveratrol when they realised that the stress-response compound they were initially looking into, called tyrosyl tRNA synthetase, had a similar 3D structure to resveratrol. Excited by this similarity, they found that resveratrol interacted with the tRNA synthetase and that this interaction was critical to whether resveratrol exhibited a stress response – which would give red wine some of those health benefits. But if for some reason this particular interaction was prevented from happening, the red wine compound would lose them.
After finding the key partner for resveratrol, the authors focused on understanding how this interaction modulated the levels of a number of other molecules that govern how a cell copes with different stresses. Three of these molecules are called p53, AMPK and SIRT6.
Using a mouse study, the scientists showed that resveratrol can increase levels of p53, AMPK and SIRT6 in cells. This is important because p53 is regarded as the most potent brake on tumour formation, and increased levels can explain why red wine can reduce tumour occurrence. Similarly, increased amounts of SIRT6 can lower the glucose levels seen in diabetic patients. Grapes are another major source of resveratol and this might explain why grapes are recommended to diabetics. Increased levels of AMPK cause cells to respond to stress more effectively by promoting cell survival.
So the Nature study explains a new fundamental mechanism that mediates the multiple health benefits ascribed to the red wine compound. The hope would be, then, that the key partner for resveratrol – tyrosyl tRNA synthetase – could also be used alongside it for therapeutic purposes. But before we get too optimistic, a crucial step will be to validate these studies in human clinical trials.
And before you jump on to your next glass of red wine, it’s worth noting that resveratrol is also found in adequate amounts in eucalyptus, lily, peanuts, mulberries and, of course, grapes. So any health benefits that there are can be had from alternative sources and very much open to teetotallers out there deprived of the elegant taste of a glass of red wine.
By Mohit Kumar Jolly, Rice University
This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.
Resveratrol is a compound produced by certain plants in response to stress, injury, or fungal infection. Its natural function is to ensure the survival of the plant under these harsh conditions, and it has been used as an oriental medicine to treat diseases related to blood vessels and the liver. However, some studies have failed to observe the same “elixir” function. Because of the lack of enough human clinical data and a lack of understanding of how exactly resveratrol might work, the jury has remained out on whether this compound actually does lead to health benefits.
Now, Sajish Matthew and Paul Schimmel at the Scripps Research Institute have taken a key step in addressing this. In a study published in Nature, they explain the mechanism through which resveratrol does have anti-cancer, anti-diabetic and cardio-protective effects. And their findings open up avenues for its use in therapeutics.
Cheese?
Cells – the building blocks of our bodies – function properly because a large number of proteins inside them do specific jobs like enabling a cell to move from one place to another. These proteins interact or bind with partner proteins to carry out many functions, and how they partner up is dictated by their 3D structures – so proteins with similar structures often bind to each other and have similar functions.
Matthew and Schimmel became interested in resveratrol when they realised that the stress-response compound they were initially looking into, called tyrosyl tRNA synthetase, had a similar 3D structure to resveratrol. Excited by this similarity, they found that resveratrol interacted with the tRNA synthetase and that this interaction was critical to whether resveratrol exhibited a stress response – which would give red wine some of those health benefits. But if for some reason this particular interaction was prevented from happening, the red wine compound would lose them.
After finding the key partner for resveratrol, the authors focused on understanding how this interaction modulated the levels of a number of other molecules that govern how a cell copes with different stresses. Three of these molecules are called p53, AMPK and SIRT6.
Using a mouse study, the scientists showed that resveratrol can increase levels of p53, AMPK and SIRT6 in cells. This is important because p53 is regarded as the most potent brake on tumour formation, and increased levels can explain why red wine can reduce tumour occurrence. Similarly, increased amounts of SIRT6 can lower the glucose levels seen in diabetic patients. Grapes are another major source of resveratol and this might explain why grapes are recommended to diabetics. Increased levels of AMPK cause cells to respond to stress more effectively by promoting cell survival.
So the Nature study explains a new fundamental mechanism that mediates the multiple health benefits ascribed to the red wine compound. The hope would be, then, that the key partner for resveratrol – tyrosyl tRNA synthetase – could also be used alongside it for therapeutic purposes. But before we get too optimistic, a crucial step will be to validate these studies in human clinical trials.
And before you jump on to your next glass of red wine, it’s worth noting that resveratrol is also found in adequate amounts in eucalyptus, lily, peanuts, mulberries and, of course, grapes. So any health benefits that there are can be had from alternative sources and very much open to teetotallers out there deprived of the elegant taste of a glass of red wine.
By Mohit Kumar Jolly, Rice University
This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.
We need to look no further than the Ebola crisis to appreciate the importance of science literacy. A recently elected senator has linked sealing the US-Mexican border with keeping Ebola out of the US, even though the disease is nonexistent in Mexico. Four out of 10 Americans believe there will be a large scale Ebola epidemic here, even though there have been just four cases in the US and only one fatality. Flu, on the other hand, which killed over 100 children here last winter, barely registers in the public consciousness.
Increasingly we must grapple with highly-charged and politicized science-based issues ranging from infectious diseases and human cloning to reproductive choices and climate change. Yet many – perhaps even the majority – of Americans aren’t sufficiently scientifically literate to make sense of these complicated issues. For instance, on one recent survey of public attitudes and understanding of science and technology, Americans barely got a passing grade, answering only 5.8 out of 9 factual knowledge questions correctly.
Without a solid understanding of the underlying science and its implications for our daily lives, we can neither respond intelligently on a personal level nor hold our public officials accountable for sound policy decisions. Moreover, we risk falling prey to the tremendous power of fear and partisan political rhetoric. By grounding our understanding of issues in knowledge, we can gain the confidence to participate in the science conversation in a thoughtful way. Science literacy is a path to that knowledge.
Science literacy is a foundational knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes. For example, scientifically literate people should know that science is reproducible, evidence-based information that is fact and not opinion. They should have a working knowledge of the basic terminology needed to interpret the processes and outcomes of science. With this vocabulary in hand, they can engage in the critical thinking needed to apply healthy skepticism and to discern the grey areas and uncertainties inherent in science-based information.
As a stem cell scientist, I have spent my life tackling elusive questions such as “what is personhood” or “when does life begin.” Recently, my interest has shifted to helping the public engage in open-minded discussions about these types of questions.
The goal isn’t to move public opinion towards one side or another of the stem cell or any other debate, but rather to create a forum in which all sides are armed with basic scientific knowledge and have a legitimate voice in the conversation.
Get your head around some science basics and you’re ready for the big questions.
I teach a freshman seminar class at Tufts University called “Science and the Human Experience” that is largely populated with students whose interests are in the humanities and social sciences. The curriculum encourages these not-necessarily-science-lovers to explore the ways science affects their everyday lives. We talk about stem cells and abortion, right-to-die and drug treatment. We question when does life begin? What can our genome tell us? How do we experience pain? What does it mean to grow old? Students confront the emotional and personal consequences of science and its relationship to their lives.
Grappling with these issues is empowering. One student understood, for the first time, that her personal investment in science was connected to a loved one’s struggle with addiction. Another freshman planning on an English major discovered that she was, to her own surprise, “just as capable as anyone else of understanding and applying scientific material to my life.” Students uncover their own, personal rationales for engaging in these issues and then, most importantly, ask themselves, “Why does this matter to me?” They report that to learn the value of science, and to engage deeply in it, is to learn what it means to be human.
While knowledge is fundamental to addressing civic, science-based questions, our beliefs and values play an equally important role. As Yale law professor Dan Kahan, who studies science and civic engagement, says “What people ‘believe’ about global warming doesn’t reflect what they know; it expresses who they are.” In fact, understanding the science is perhaps the easier part of the equation. The greater struggle is for people with diverse views on science-related issues to wrestle with these conflicting values. This is a messy but necessary part of a healthy civic dialogue. Therefore, any program to increase science literacy must equally embrace the goals of promoting a respectful, civic conversation that will work towards shared understanding.
You deserve to contribute meaningfully to debate about important issues.
So what’s a responsible citizen to do? First, become sufficiently science literate to understand the nuances of the important science-based issues of our day. Next, be prepared to engage in difficult conversations with fellow citizens with different opinions so that dialogue is valued over doctrine, as we work together to balance self-interest with compassion.
If everyone comes to the table with a base level of information and a willingness to listen to each other’s concerns, we can replace the polarization of our current public discourse with productive public problem solving. We can then approach each other with a genuine curiosity to build a science conversation that is enlivened by a search for mutual understanding regardless of a position held on an issue. We need not hold the same beliefs or values to find common ground on the important science-based issues that face us today and will only become more urgent in the years ahead.
By Jonathan Garlick, Tufts University
This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.
So if cameras don’t deter violence by the public, why would we expect that passively monitoring police-citizen encounters will cause behavior change? CCTV tells us part of this story, but dashboard mounted cameras, already widely used by police forces, and smart-phone films of police by members of the public, are much more informative.
The most salient example is the Eric Garner homicide. A bystander filmed the whole episode but this did not stop the events that led to his untimely and tragic death. There is also the recent example of a South Carolina state trooper who opened fire on an unarmed man at a gas station following a seat-belt law violation. The whole encounter was filmed on a police dashboard camera, but did not prevent the shooting (Thankfully for the man involved the officer was a terrible shot. One also has to wonder about the wisdom of opening fire in a gas station.)
Some have argued that Eric Garner’s death effectively sank any suggestion that police cameras should be used more widely. But other cases –- notably the death of Missouri teenager Michael Brown –- lead us to ask: could cameras ever reduce police violence? The truthful answer is: “maybe”.
In a recent study in Rialto California my colleagues and I studied the effect of body-worn video (BWV) on police use-of-force and citizens’ complaints against the police. The study randomly assigned officer shifts to wearing cameras or not. We found that both police use-of-force and complaints were reduced during shifts where cameras were used and more widely across the police force during the experimental period.
That’s a “no brainer” as the saying goes. Experimental evidence has told us the answer: introduce cameras and, magically, use-of-force and complaints are reduced, right? Not quite. A point frequently overlooked in the commentary on the issue of BWV is that the “treatment” in our study was not just the camera:
“every crime type and virtually all encounters between the police and the public were assigned to recording as well as to a verbal notification by officers that the encounter is videotaped.” (emphasis added)
If cameras are mandatory will protests like this one be history
That is, each and every time police were wearing a camera they were supposed to inform the citizen that they were doing so and that their encounter was being recorded. We haven’t yet reviewed the thousands of hours of footage recorded as part of this experiment to assess compliance with this element. But if we assume that this was true most of the time, then excitable discussions about the effectiveness of cameras (or otherwise) are missing an important point. Namely, both officer and citizen are being reminded about the monitoring of their behavior prior to their interaction starting.
This verbal warning could sensitize people leading them to modify their behavior. It could also serve to remind people of the rules that are in play –- politeness being the bare minimum –- but other rules such as laws. Similarly, the verbal prompt may jolt individuals into thinking a little more before they act, becoming more deliberative and reflecting on future consequences. In short, there could be lots of mechanisms that account for changes in behavior when camera and verbal warning are used together.
The other limitation of our study, and one that has thus far been universally overlooked, is that the results we found may have been a fluke. In statistical terms we have only a single study showing an effect. It might be that this was a chance or even a so-called false discovery (i.e. we would expect to find a statistically significant effect some of the time). This is why Dr. Barak Ariel is undertaking a multi-country replication study: before claims of effectiveness can be made, we need to reduce the chance that the Rialto finding was the statistical equivalent of “luck.”
But all that work might come too late. President Obama recently requested US$263 million from Congress to buy 50,000 police cameras, help train police officers, and (apparently) restore trust in police.
Leaving aside the fact that trust cannot be bought and sold (it has to be earned as everyone’s grandmother tells them) what should that money be spent on? We would argue that if US$50 million is going to be spent on cameras, there is an ethical imperative to ensure that each time cameras are put in use somewhere new they are rigorously evaluated, as was the case in Rialto. Once these trials are completed and the evidence is in, we can add together all the grains of sand and draw firmer conclusions about whether cameras can be effective in reducing police use-of-force, but without verbal warning, we would argue that this is unlikely.
By Alex Sutherland, University of Cambridge and Barak Ariel, University of Cambridge
This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.
