Hemoglobin is the oxygen carrying protein in our red blood cells (RBC), i.e., it is intracellular. What that means is, unlike our blood, the bobbit worm has free hemoglobin; just floating around. That might not seem amazing to you but here’s why it is amazing. In mammalian blood, hemoglobin is protected from oxidation inside the RBC by many other proteins You’ve seen iron rust. That’s oxidation and hemoglobin’s oxygen binding component has iron. When iron is oxidized it can generate free radicals which are toxic. That’s why you hear people recommending anti-oxidant rich fruits/vegetables. When iron is oxidized and creates free radicals it is called Fenton chemistry.
Additional interesting info on the bobbit worm from Wiki, which is where the image is from.
Armed with sharp teeth, it is known to attack with such speeds that its prey is sometimes sliced in half. Although the worm hunts for food, it is omnivorous. It is also covered in bristles that are capable of a sting that results in permanent numbness in humans.
Edit Many invertebrates have extracellular hemoglobin. I haven’t had time to find out what mechanism the bobbit worm uses to project its heme from oxidation.
No really it is. Jon Hiller and I are both in Chicago and both work with imaging but that’s not the point. The point is, you might not ever get a chance to see an electron microscope in action or see an experiment live at a National Lab. So mark your calendar for another #SSHOw
Originally shared by ScienceSunday
Join us for another Science HOA, brought to you by ScienceSunday as we talk to Dr Jon Hiller about electron microscopy! Jon is a electron microscopist in the Nanoscience & Technology Division at Argonne National Laboratory. Jon’s research includes the development of state-of-the-art electron and ion beam instrumentation for materials and nanoscale research. He is most well known for his work in 3 dimensional Focused Ion Beam (FIB) tomography and complex sample fabrication for electron microscopy. His characterization of diamond thin films has lead to the development of the artificial retina.
We will be discussing all this, along with a live on air demonstration of scanning electron microscopy! Jon has also kindly offered to allow you, the audience to choose any objects that you would like to see under the electron microscope! So if you have any questions for Jon, or suggestions for samples for imaging, please leave them on the Event page as always.
Buddhini Samarasinghe and Scott Lewis will be hosting this event.
I’m posting this Richard Feynman video because my brain is overwhelmed with the kindness from my friends and people I don’t even know on G+ and I couldn’t think of something clever. So thank you all who participated in #HappyBirthdayMrMRI . Thank you for the good wishes.
There were so many clever and cute posts. I’ll respond more later. I have to walk my dog and get some work done. So I leave you with the scientific method from Richard Feynman. h/t Jennifer Ouellette
In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.
Dr. Amanda Ellison at Durham University wrote a book, Getting your Head around the Brain.
Disclaimer, I don’t have access to the book so I’m quoting the Telegraph (eeks!).
…fluke of nature sees alcohol closing down the section of the mind that stops us acting on impulse long before it deadens the ‘reptilian’ part responsible for our sexual urges.
The area of the brain that makes us want to mate is the oldest part – and located so far down that it keeps functioning however much we drink – until we are ready to pass out.
An article from Slate, Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazinehttp://goo.gl/EYaFh is being re-shared and discussed quite a bit on G+. So h/t to Gaythia Weis Jennifer Ouellette Mary Mangan and Google Plus Science Lab
It’s a great article about chemophobia and discusses a story about a mother who would rather give her child some Chinese medicine rather than what the “Western doctor” prescribed. It points out that supplements are not heavily regulated and so the dose and composition of the supplements can vary wildly. So you actually don’t know what you are getting.
When I come across people who display signs of chemophobia or who try to promote only “natural” products, I try my best to politely remind them that snake bites are natural too. Arsenic, cyanide, carbon monoxide can be deadly and are very much natural. You can get any of those three chemicals, naturally from the environment. In fact you probably have traces of arsenic in your blood.
Here’s an old post about rhubarb, natural and delicious.
Note that atropine is derived from belladonna and it can be used medicinally (Western medicine) for bradycardia (low heart rate) and ironically to counteract organophosphate poisoning (it’s not an antidote, it blocks the action of acetylcholine). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atropine
Which brings me to another one of my favorite comments when it comes to chemophobia.
Alle Ding’ sind Gift, und nichts ohn’ Gift; allein die Dosis macht, daß ein Ding kein Gift ist.
“All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.” Paracelsus
The only real difference between medicine and poison is the dose….and intent. Oscar G. Hernandez, MD
Here’s another good article about chemophobia.
The best antidote for this irrational plague of fear is the same as it usually is: good science, clearly understood, and openly available to all. Seymour Garte, Ph.D.
Ultimately, this is a problem of psychology. In the age of high-investment parenting, threats to our children can overrun any rational defense a parent might be able to construct… As a chemist, I find chemophobia pretty ridiculous. As a parent, I’m in sympathy — we all fear unknown threats to our kids. I merely ask that parents step back from genuine fear-mongering that we get from Environmental Working Group and the like and try to gain a rational, risk-based perspective on chemicals in the home.
Finally, here is another article that made the rounds on G+.
Dr. Wafik S. El-Deiry and colleagues at Penn State University developed a new drug, TRAIL-inducing compound 10 (TIC10). What is TRAIL and what’s the big deal?
TRAIL is tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand. It’s a protein in our immune system that induces apoptosis (programmed cell death) in tumors. The problem with recombinant versions, i.e., man-made versions intended to be given as an anti-tumor drug, is that TRAIL has a short half-life in serum and it has poor biodistribution (it doesn’t readily cross the blood-brain barrier). So TIC10 induces TRAIL and because TIC10 can cross the blood-brain barrier, it appears to be more efficacious than trying to administer TRAIL directly. Since TRAIL is part of the immune system, boosting it with TIC10 is thought to be less toxic than traditional chemotherapy. It remains to be seen what side effects there are from TIC10 itself.
What is FOXO and what does it have to do with this story? The TRAIL gene is transcriptionally regulated by Foxo3a. The FOXO3, also called, Forkhead box 03, is characterized by a distinct fork head DNA-binding domain and is likely a trigger for apoptosis.
Before you get too excited, the paper notes that the TIC10 group only had a 6% increase in survival compared to a more traditional anti-vascular drug, in a mouse model.
News blurb from Nature.com
Small-molecule drug drives cancer cells to suicide
I ♥ science and debunking myths. OK, I’m not doing the actual debunking but I really enjoyed this article.
In a conversation on Linda Hedrick’s post (http://goo.gl/GLpKF) Kirk Teetzel had the right answer as to why the McDonalds burger doesn’t rot, i.e., why it is a myth. I had the same gut feeling so here is the link. http://goo.gl/9qyUj
From the article:
Now don’t get me wrong—I don’t have a dog in this fight either way. I really couldn’t care less whether or not the McDonald’s burger rotted or didn’t. I don’t often eat their burgers, and will continue to not often eat their burgers. My problem is not with McDonald’s. My problem is with bad science.
For all of you McDonald’s haters out there: Don’t worry. There are still plenty of reasons to dislike the company! But for now, I hope you’ll have it my way and put aside your beef with their beef.
Don’t take this the wrong way because I’m a scientist that does cancer research. I was driving home today and I was captivated by this story on NPR So crazy it might workhttp://goo.gl/cAGXf
Dr. John Brody (http://goo.gl/Djbb5), an expert in pancreatic cancer, goes home to give a speech at his alma mater about thinking outside the box. After his talk, his old music teacher, Anthony Holland, approaches him about an idea. Anthony had been working in his garage on an idea from Royal Rife to use electromagnetic waves to make cells burst like a wine glass when the resonant frequency is used. What really captivated me is when Dr. Brody tried to explain to his friend that his results were meaningless without proper controls. He also tried to explain that when Mr. Holland got support from other scientists, it was also tainted because he had not explained that the control experiments had failed so far.
