Category Archives: Transhuman News

The gene encodes an enzyme which produces a lipid (a fatty molecule) that is used to build cell membranes in every cell of the body. The lipid produced by the enzyme is particularly abundant in brain cell membranes.

A team in Amsterdam was also able to identify abnormal biochemical signatures in the cells and blood of the patients who donated samples. It is hoped that these signatures could be used as markers to help diagnose patients with the condition.

Dr Banka runs a Clinical Genetics clinics at Saint Marys Hospital, which is part of MFT. His research group uses a combination of genomics, clinical and functional studies to identify the cause of disease in patient with unsolved genetic conditions.

Dr Banka said: Saint Marys Hospital is one of the leading NHS and internationally recognised large-scale providers of genomic services. Being able to combine my clinical role at the hospital, with my academic research at The University of Manchester, has been crucial to this outcome.

This link between academia and the NHS means we can translate research from the bench to the bedside, for the benefit of our patients.

The identification of more patients in future will help in better understanding of the effects of HSP.

It is thought that studying this crucial gene will help in understanding other types of HSP and other neurodegenerative diseases.

The paper was published in the neurological journal Brain.

See original here:
Researchers discover new genetic brain disease - The University of Manchester

More than 150 New Zealand scientists under 30 have signed a letter to the Green Party urging a rethink of its stance on the regulation of genetic modification. The full text of the letter follows.

To the members and supporters of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand and their representatives in government

Climate change is one of the greatest crises in human history, and our current law severely restricts the development of technologies that could make a vital difference. In 2003 the 1996 Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act was modified to tightly regulate research into genetic modification (GM). This legislation and the surrounding public debate was driven by uncertainty about the risks that these new technologies posed to biodiversity and human health, and resulted in creating one of the toughest regulatory environments in the world for this field of research.

We, an emerging generation of New Zealand scientists with expertise in and/or undertaking research in the biological sciences*, are writing to request that the Green Party reconsider its position on the regulation of these technologies. We are addressing this letter to the Greens because of a history of leading in science-based policy such as climate action, even when that path is difficult. We believe that GM based research could be decisive in our efforts to reduce New Zealand and global climate emissions as well as partially mitigating some of the impacts of climate change. At the same time, we emphasise that potential reduction of impact is not a substitute for emission reduction.

The period since the introduction of the 2003 legislation has seen important GM related research in the areas of agricultural efficiency, carbon sequestration, and alternative protein production. The existing regulation in New Zealand inhibits application of advances such as these, blocking not only the development of green technology, but the potential for a just transition away from extractive and polluting industries. New Zealand has the opportunity to be a world leader in such a transition: for example, the development and demonstration of effective technologies to reduce agricultural emissions could have an international impact and set an example for other countries.

While such a powerful technology as targeted genetic modification certainly requires controls, existing frameworks do not enable public and environmental benefits from these technologies to be realised. The gene editing expert advice panel supported by The Royal Society Te Aprangi, the Prime Ministers Chief Science Advisor, and the interim climate change committee have recently called for public discussion on potential reform of New Zealands laws around modern gene editing techniques.

As a confidence and supply member of the current government the Greens have the ability to drive this reform: the members can persuade the party to reconsider its policy position, and the Members of Parliament can influence the government it supports to revise the legislation. The Greens have been strong advocates of both climate action and evidence based policy informed by science. In this light we call upon its members, supporters, ministers, and MPs to add their voices to the cause of a science-based approach to climate, on behalf of the people and environment of both Aotearoa and the world.

Ng mihi

PhD

Kyle Webster, University of Auckland, Bio-nanotechnology

Luke Stevenson, Victoria University of Wellington, Biotechnology

Emilie Gios, University of Auckland, Microbial ecology

Morgane Merien, University of Auckland, Biological Sciences Entomology

Lucie Jiraska, University of Auckland, Environmental Microbiology

Victor Yim, University of Auckland, Peptide chemistry

Zach McLean, University of Auckland, Genetic engineering

Declan Lafferty, Plant and FoodResearch/University of Auckland, Genetics and Molecular Biology

Samarth Samarth, University of Canterbury, Plant Biology

Juliane Gaviraghi Mussoi, University of Auckland, Avian Behaviour

Alex Noble, University of Canterbury, Biology

Kelsey Burborough, University of Auckland, Genetics

Matthew Mayo-Smith, University of Auckland, Plant Molecular Biology

Moritz Miebach, University of Canterbury, Plant-microbe interactions

Olivia Ogilvie, University of Auckland, Food Biotech / Biochemistry

Rachel Bennie, University of Canterbury, Human Toxicology

Sean Mackay, University of Otago, Chemistry and Nanotechnology

Georgia Carson, Victoria University of Wellington, Cell and Molecular Biology

Ruby Roach, Massey University

Jeremy Stephens, Massey University, Biology

Zidong (Andy) Li, Massey University, Molecular Cancer Biology

Aqfan Jamaluddin, University of Auckland, Molecular Pharmacology

Michael Fairhurst, Victoria University of Wellington, Microbiology

Nikolai Kondratev, Massey University, Plant Biology

Mariana Tarallo, Massey University, Plant pathology

Ellie Bradley, Massey University, Plant pathology

Mercedes Rocafort Ferrer, Massey University, Plant pathology

Yi-Hsuan Tu, Massey University, Biochemistry & Microbiology

Sean Bisset, Massey University, Biochemistry

Patrick Main, Massey University, Biological sciences

Abigail Sharrock, Victoria University of Wellington, Biotechnology

Alvey Little, Victoria University of Wellington, Molecular Microbiology

William Odey, Victoria University of Wellington, Biotechnology

Gabrielle Greig, Victoria University of Wellington, Molecular Microbiology

Melanie Olds, Victoria University of Wellington, Biotechnology

Jennifer Soundy, Victoria University of Wellington, Biological Sciences

Matire Ward, Victoria University of Wellington, Cell and molecular bioscience

Tom Dawes, Victoria University of Wellington, Plant Ecology

Hamish Dunham, Victoria University of Wellington, Biomedical science

Amy Alder, Victoria University of Wellington, Neuroscience

Caitlin Harris, University of Otago, Plant genetics

Lucy Gorman, Victoria University of Wellington, Coral reef biology

Vincent Nowak, Victoria University of Wellington, Biotechnology

Brandon Wright, University of Otago, Biochemistry

Anna Tribe, Victoria University of Wellington, Cancer cell biology

Conor McGuinness, University of Otago, Breast Cancer

Genomics/Immunology Kelsi Hall, Victoria University of Wellington, Biotechnology

Andrew Howard, University of Waikato, Biochemistry

Mitch Ganley, Victoria University of Wellington, Biotechnology/vaccines

Matt Munro, Victoria University of Wellington, Biomedical Science

Prashath Karunaraj, University of Otago, Genetics

Pascale Lubbe, University of Otago, Evolutionary genetics

Mackenzie Lovegrove, University of Otago, Genetics, Insect evolution

Nicholas Foster, University of Otago, Ecology

Taylor Hamlin, University of Otago, Antarctic Marine Ecosystem & Movement Ecology

Fionnuala Murphy, Massey University, Proteomics

Amanda Board, University of Canterbury, Protein Biochemistry

Esther Onguta, Massey University, Food Technology

Nomie Petit, University of Auckland, Proteins

Liam Le Lievre, University of Otago, Plant Reproduction

James Hunter, University of Otago, Ecology

Samarth Kulshrestha, University of Canterbury,

Rebecca Clarke, University of Otago, Whole body regeneration

Sarah Killick, University of Auckland, Environmental Science

Stephanie Workman, University of Otago, Developmental Genetics

Erik Johnson, University of Otago, Oceanography

Declan Lafferty, University of Auckland, Molecular Biology

Laurine van Haastrecht, Victoria University of Wellington, Glaciology

Leo Mercer, Victoria University of Wellington, Environmental Studies

Aidan Joblin-Mills, Victoria University of Wellington, Chemical Genetics

Gabrielle Keeler-May, University of Otago, Marine Science

Aqfan Jamaluddin, University of Auckland, Pharmacology

Spencer McIntyre, University of Auckland, Biological Sciences

Sarah Inwood, University of Otago, Genetics

Isabelle Barrett, University of Canterbury, Freshwater ecology

Olivia Angelin-Bonnet, Massey University, Biostatistics

Hannah McCarthy, Massey University, Plant Pathology

Sofie Pearson, Massey University, Plant Science

Zac Beechey-Gradwell, Lincoln University, Plant physiology

Hannah Lee-Harwood, Victoria University of Wellington, Biotechnology

Euan Russell, University of Otago, Microbiology

Masters

Kelly Styles, University of Auckland, Biological Sciences

Merlyn Robson, University of Auckland, Virology

Andra Popa, University of Auckland

James Love, University of Auckland, Bioinformatics

Evie Mansfield, University of Auckland, Molecular Microbiology

Ash Sargent, University of Auckland, Immunology

Sabrina Cuellar, University of Auckland, Plant Genetics

Renji Jiang, University of Canterbury, Plant pathology

Morgan Tracy, University of Canterbury, Ecology

Read more:
GM could be decisive: An open letter to the Green Party from young NZ scientists - The Spinoff

LEHI If given a chance, who wouldnt want to spend a few bucks to find out if theyre at heightened risk for one day having to confront some life-changing or life-ending medical malady?

Thats the concept fueling an explosion in direct-to-consumer genetic testing and one thats also elevating ethical debates about how this most personal of information should be interpreted and protected.

Utah-born Ancestry.com is the latest entry into a growing list of companies offering health-focused genetic testing an industry expected to grow to $20 billion annually in the next few years.

While best known and an industry leader for its expertise in providing answers to the Where am I from? question, Ancestry will now expand its genetic testing resources to help people anticipate future health issues and help address, Whats going to make me sick?

Last week, the company that launched more than 30 years ago as a family history search service, later adding DNA testing to help customers identify their geographic ancestral roots, announced its new, health-focused genetic testing service.

AncestryHealth will offer two levels of genetic testing that the company said will deliver actionable insights that can empower people to take proactive steps in collaboration with their health care provider to address potential health risks identified in their genes and family health history.

Ancestry CEO Margo Georgiadis said the new genetic tests will help clients proactively manage their health care needs, armed with new insight on what conditions they may be predisposed for, based on genetic evidence.

Your genes dont need to be your destiny, Georgiadis said in a statement. Understanding your familial and inherited health risks can help you take action with your doctor to improve your chances of better health outcomes.

For more than three decades, Ancestry has empowered journeys of personal discovery to enrich lives. In the same way that knowledge of your family and ethnicity helps you understand your past to inspire your future, knowledge of your genetic health profile and any associated risks can help you be proactive in managing the future for you and your family.

The two testing products, according to the company, include AncestryHealth Core, which uses the companys current genotype genetic assessment technique to detect genetic differences and deliver personalized reports related to health conditions such as heart disease, hereditary cancers, blood-related disorders, and risks for carrier status of health conditions, such as Tay-Sachs disease. The one-time test costs $149 and also includes the companys family history report. Those who have already submitted a biologic sample to the company can get the new genetic report for $49.

While likely not available until sometime in 2020, the AncestryHealth Plus will use more current, genetic sequencing technology that will provide greater coverage of DNA differences for each condition and more risk categories such as those related to potentially developing heart disease, cancers, and disorders related to blood, the nervous system and connective tissues. The sequencing test will require a $199 activation fee, which the company said includes the first six months of membership and an additional $49 membership fee every six months. Existing Ancestry customers will be able to upgrade to AncestryHealth Plus for an initial payment of $49.

Ancestrys testing regimen will assess genetic samples and indicate predispositions for high cholesterol and cardiomyopathy, which can lead to heart disease; hereditary indicators for breast, ovarian, colon and uterine cancers; and blood disorders including abnormal clotting and iron overload. The testing can also determine if the sample donor is a gene carrier for cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs disease, a fatal nervous system disorder that most commonly occurs in children.

Unlike its competitor, 23andMe, which has earned U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for providing genetic test results directly to customers without a physicians participation, Ancestrys genetic testing service requires a physicians order to conduct the tests and the company says it has contracted with a private network of independent physicians and genetic counselors who participate in the process. Ancestrys health testing service also connects customers to educational information, including access to genetic counseling resources and provides printable and consumer and physician-ready reports that provide guidance for next steps an individual and their health care provider can take together.

Lynn Jorde, chairman of the University of Utahs Department of Human Genetics and executive director of the Utah Genome Project, said while labs are now capable of sequencing the entirety of the human genome some 3 billion genetic basis pairs the microarray technique currently used by Ancestry evaluates a small window of genes that, if a variation is found, have a viable medical response.

What theyre looking at is specific changes in the DNA that we know about in specific instances ... and are often called actionable genes, Jorde explained. If you have a disease causing variant here, there is actually something we can do about it.

Jorde said while some genetic markers, like those for cystic fibrosis, indicate a high probability that you have or will develop that condition, many more are merely suggestive.

The predictive power of genetic testing is getting better and better, but it will never be perfect, Jorde said. For many of these conditions, there are nongenetic components that impact risk.

Jorde said things like environment, diet and exercise/activity level can play a significant role in an individuals risk of developing an illness or disease.

Teneille Brown is a professor at the University of Utahs S.J. Quinney College of Law and an expert in health law and medical ethics. In an interview, she noted direct-to-consumer genetic testing services, now being offered by dozens of companies according to the National Institute of Health, are occupying a space thats in between current regulatory boundaries aimed at protecting individuals privacy rights.

In the research realm, any federally funded projects are subject to stringent privacy rules, Brown said. That is also the case for health care institutions that handle genetic material, under (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) rules.

But the big databases being built by testing companies are outside of the federal funding process and are not health care providers, so the HIPAA rules dont apply, Brown said.

Ancestry appears to underscore this by noting, in its user agreement, that it is not a covered entity under HIPAA rules.

Brown noted that in addition to unanswered questions about privacy protections, genetic test results can lead to deep emotional impacts for tested individuals, either through the discovery of gene markers that are suggestive of some future medical challenge or, less obviously, when a clean test is returned, which may provide an inaccurate suggestion that theres nothing to worry about.

Theres a huge problem when it comes to understanding what these risk scores mean, Brown said. The predictive values of these results is widely variable, including what is, or is not, implied by failure to find a specific marker.

Brown said genetic testing companies have wide-ranging policies regarding sharing an individuals genetic test results or stored biologic samples with third-party researchers. Ancestry, for example, says it will only share your information if youve given them specific permission to do so, through its informed consent agreement.

While the regulatory world is lagging behind the fast-moving development of genetic testing technology, Brown said she believes the bigger companies, including Ancestry, are working to create appropriate protections for their customers. And, she added, the growing body of knowledge being accumulated by this work could lead to groundbreaking advancements in treatments for serious diseases.

These companies might play a role in developing amazing drugs and therapies, Brown said. Collectively, they are adding all of this amazing content, providing pedigrees and information and incredibly powerful databases ... and a lot of good can come of it.

Its not at all sinister, but we need consumers to know what theyre submitting and being diligent about potential secondary uses of that data. More robust consent requirements for users and strict limitations for secondary uses are certainly in order.

More here:
Genetic testing could keep you healthy. But what about personal info? - Deseret News

Anatomically modern humans (AMH) first walked on Earth roughly 200,000 years ago, in Africa. The abbreviation is a phrase used to distinguish Homo sapiens from other extinct hominins such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. The exact location of the first evolved AMH has been unclear for years and now, scientists have resolved it using a genetic analysis.

SEE ALSO: Scientists Piece Together A Skeleton Sketch Of An Ancient Human Relative Using DNA

In the study published in Nature, a group of Australian, Namibian, South African and South Korean researchers found out that northern Botswana, specifically the region south of the Zambezi river, is most likely the ancestral homeland of all humans. Combining multiple fields of anthropology, such as ethno-linguistics, genetics and climate reconstructions, the researchers were able to arrive to a conclusion that our first Homo sapien ancestors emerged from Makgadikgadi-Okavango, the palaeo-wetland of southern Africa.

Prior to the current study, fossil records seemed to indicate it was eastern Africa where the AMHs actually originated. However, now, genetic analysis suggests the location was southern Africa. The study strongly focused on mitochondrial DNA called mitogenomes, sequencing 198 southern Africans and a total of 1217 mitogenomes. These were, then, ethno-linguistically classified as either KhoeSan (those who practice foraging and have a click in their languages) or non-KhoeSan.

SEE ALSO: This Is What People From The Indus Valley Civilization May Have Looked Like

The researchers used phylogenetic analysis (studying the genes to determine genetic evolution) along with language families to reconstruct geographical population dispersals and their common ancestry. This determined that the first genetic lineage settled in the southwest region of the Zambezi river and diverged from here just 60,000 to 70,000 years ago. The paper also states that the Kalahari region in the greater Zambezi river basin had a crucial role in shaping the emergence and pre-history of AMHs.

The methodology of analysis itself has been criticized with many pointing out that mitogenomes are not entirely representative of a humans genetic makeup. There could also be multiple ancestral homelands if the fact that Homo sapiens could have evolved independently in multiple places is taken into consideration. The study authors accept this in the paper.

SEE ALSO: DNA shows humans first mated with Neanderthals 60,000 years ago

More here:
Botswana Was The Ancestral Homeland Of All Humans, Claims Study - Mashable India

SALT LAKE CITY Mental health is blamed for a lot of issues plaguing society these days, but scientists and biologists still know very little about whats happening inside the brain that brings on problems in certain people.

A group of researchers at the University of Utah, however, may now have a clue.

Theyve identified a link between a group of specialized brain cells, called Hoxb8-lineage microglia, and obsessive compulsive disorder and anxiety in mice.

Similar to humans, female mice are more susceptible to the anxiety-related diseases, though symptoms were observed in male mice, too. The discovery could lead to the development of drugs better suited to treat and/or prevent anxiety and OCD.

It opens up a new avenue for thinking about anxiety, said Dimitri Trnkner, a lead author of the study and assistant biology professor at the U. Since we have this model, we have a way to test new drugs to help these mice and hopefully at some point, this will help people.

The findings suggest a link between biological sex hormones (estrogen and progesterone) and genetics, two major risk factors for anxiety-related disorders in humans, according to the study published this week in Cell Reports.

Until now, it was unknown whether this subset of microglia, which play a crucial role in brain development in the womb, had any other function at all. The new findings build upon previous mice studies conducted by Nobel laureate Mario Capecchi, also a lead author in the new research.

Capecchi had long suspected this subset of microglia was special in some way, but researchers didnt pick up on certain behaviors related to anxiety, such as overgrooming, until this time around its the first study to describe the role of microglia in OCD and anxiety in this way.

We didnt really know what to make of the fact that mice without Hoxb8 appear so normal, until we noticed that they groom significantly more and longer than what would be considered healthy, said Capecchi, a distinguished professor of human genetics at the U.

To test whether sex hormones drove OCD and anxiety symptoms, Trnkner and his colleagues manipulated estrogen and progesterone levels in the mice. They found that at male-levels, the OCD and anxiety behaviors in female mice resembled the male response, and at female hormone levels, the OCD behaviors in male mice looked more like the females severe symptoms, and showed signs of anxiety.

Scientists want to help these people to get their lives back.Dimitri Trnkner

We have a good understanding of how anxiety is produced in people, but cannot do experiments in people, Trnkner said. Of all models, I have great faith that mice are one of the best models, as they are so similar to people.

He said some of the mice had significant hair loss, were more easily stressed out, or lost their natural fight-or-flight response mechanisms without the protective presence of the microglia in their brains.

It shows that the two phenomena are related.

Researchers have long suspected that microglia have a role in anxiety and other neuropsychological disorders in humans because this type of cell can also release substances to harm neurons.

Its surprising to see that (the microglia) are not causing it, but they can protect from it, Trnkner said, adding that researchers and biologists now have an explanation as to why anxiety-related diseases are more common in women.

This news should give hope ... for many reasons, he said.

Science has long tried to find solutions for people who deal with the life-altering mental illnesses, and Trnkner said this puts everyone that much closer to new drugs to treat them, particularly anxiety.

Scientists want to help these people to get their lives back, he said.

Continued here:
Utah researchers discover link between certain brain cells and anxiety, OCD - KSL.com