We still have a long way to go

We still have a long way to go

Professor Rajini Rao is a tremendous role model along with Dr. Anandabi Joshee, Dr. Kei Okami, and Dr. Tabat M. Islambooly. If you don’t have Rajini circled, you are missing a lot.

Rajini’s post is very timely as I’ve been meaning to re-share Giselle Minoli’s post:

Open letter to men on G+

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+GiselleMinoli/posts/JVZ4LJ65Ffa

I think it’s best to visit the OP because the discussion is excellent and has many points that, unfortunately, don’t follow the re-share.

I think Dr.s Joshee, Okami, and Islambooly would be disappointed to find that, female physicians (after correcting for differences in specialties) make about $12,000 less than their male counterparts. As I said, we still have a ways to go.

Gender Differences in the Salaries of Physician Researchers posted by Adrienne Roehrich

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1182859

While searching for the above reference for the discussion in Giselle’s post, I stumbled onto this.

Hiring bias via Mark Brandt

https://plus.google.com/u/0/101829990343558867698/posts/aP3f3VuAe4V

Even in science, we have work to do. The study from PNAS reports that men and women scientist are biased towards hiring men and paying them more.

What can we do? For me, I strongly support programs that foster women in STEM such as Girlstart. I support equality at work and online. I support STEM Women on G+. Do you have other suggestions?

I’m pleased that G+ is, in general, very supportive of women in science and I have the pleasure of working with Rajini Rao Allison Sekuler Buddhini Samarasinghe Carissa Braun and Aubrey Francisco on ScienceSunday 

Originally shared by Rajini Rao

On The Shoulders of Giants

♀ A sepia print of an Indian woman, a Japanese woman and a woman from Syria, dated 1885. What do they have in common? Extraordinarily, each was the first licensed female medical doctor in their country of origin. They were trained at the Women’s Medical College in Pennsylvania, the first of its kind in the country. This was a time before women had the right to vote. If they did attend college at all, it was at the risk of contracting “neuralgia, uterine disease, hysteria, and other derangements of the nervous system” (according to Harvard gynecologist Edward H. Clarke). 

An all-woman medical school was first proposed in 1846, supported by the Quakers and the feminist movement. Dr. Ellwood Harvey, one of the early teaching faculty, daringly smuggled out a slave, Ann Maria Weems, dressed as a male buggy driver, from right outside the White House. With his reward money, he bought his students a  papier maché dissection mannequin. Eventually, poverty forced him to quit teaching, but he still helped out with odd jobs. What a magnificent man!  

Fate and fortune were to buffet Ms. Joshi’s life. Married at age 9 to a man 11 years older, her husband turned out to be surprisingly progressive. After she lost her first child at age 14, she vowed to render to her “poor suffering country women the true medical aid they so sadly stand in need of and which they would rather die than accept at the hands of a male physician”. She was first offered a scholarship by a missionary on condition that she converted to Christianity. When she demurred, a wealthy socialite from New Jersey stepped in and financed her education. She is believed to be the first Hindu woman to set foot on American soil. I didn’t arrive until 1983 😉

Times were tough then. The fate of these three intrepid pioneers was a sad one. Joshi died of tuberculosis in India at the age of 21, without ever practicing. Fittingly, her husband sent her ashes back to America. Islambouli was not heard of again, likely because she was never allowed to practice in her home country. Although Okami rose to the position of head of gynecology at a Tokyo hospital, she resigned two years later when the Emperor of Japan refused to meet her because she was a woman. 

Times have changed. My own mother was married at the age of 13 to a man also 11 years her senior. My father recalls helping my mother with her geography homework in high school. She never did attend college, despite being a charismatic woman with quicksilver wit and efficiency. Little wonder then, when I was accepted into graduate school in the US, unmarried and 21 years young, my parents staunchly stood behind me against the dire predictions of friends and relatives (“She’ll come back with a yellow haired American!” “Haven’t you read Cosmopolitan magazine? They are all perverts there!”). Happily, I escaped perversion, earned my doctoral degree and even gained a supportive spouse of my own. In 2004, I became only the 103rd woman to be promoted to Professor in the 111-year history of the Johns Hopkins medical school, and the first in my department, the oldest Physiology department in the country. If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants

#STEMwomen   #ScienceEveryday  

More reading: http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-07-15/historical-photos-circulating-depict-women-medical-pioneers

How to science

How to science

via ScienceSunday 

Hopefully, this should clear up many misconceptions on the scientific method, along with our favorite post on the definition of a theory (no, it’s never going to “graduate” into a Law!) http://goo.gl/4xqQIf

Fareed Zakaria explains some ideas behind conspiracy theories.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/05/why-we-believe-conspiracy-theories/

#ScienceSunday

Originally shared by Ramin Honary

It amazes how many people don’t understand this.

        Science is a process guided by simple set of rules scientists follow to make sure that what they do actually works. We have learned over the past four centuries that these are the bare minimum common sense rules to follow. Anything less and you will make mistakes and mislead people into believing falsehoods. Cold hard experience has taught us this over the generations.

        Too many people believe science is like some kind of religion, where people just hypothesize and decide that their hypotheses are true, and believe in these hypotheses dogmatically. Evolution and climate change have been specifically targeted by politicians who want people to believe this about science, and all of science suffers as a result of this misinformation. All of science suffers when more and more people misunderstand what it is.

Quote:

1. Make an Observation — “What is happening?”

        An Observation is when you notice something in the world around you and decide you want to find out more about it.

2. Define the Question — “Why is this happening?”

        Defining the question creates an idea that can be tested using a series of Experiments.

3. Form a Hypothesis — “I think this happens because…”

        A Hypothesis is a statement that uses a few Observations, without any experimental evidence, to define why something happens.

4. Perform Experiments — “Let’s test my Hypothesis…”

        An Experiment is a series of tests to see if your Hypothesis is correct or incorrect. For each test, record the data you discover.

5. Analyze the Data — “Was my Hypothesis right?”

        Analyzing data takes what you found in your Experiments and compares it to your Hypothesis. If needed, perform another Experiment to gather better data.

6. Conclusion — “Experiments show my Hypothesis was…”

        Forming a Conclusion presents the Experimental Data and explains how it supports or rejects the Hypothesis. Often, Scientists will take this Conclusion and perform other Experiments on it to discover new things.

(end quote)

7. Request Peer Review — “Did you get the same answer as me?”

        Ask other scientists to perform the same Experiments you did to check your work and make sure you didn’t make mistakes, see if they come to the same Conclusion as you did. The more people who get the same answers as you, the more confidence everyone has that you are right.

(thanks to Earl Matthews for sharing this to my stream)

#Science   #ScientificMethod   #Farnsworth   #Futurama  

It’s about herd immunity

It’s about herd immunity

I agree with Yonatan Zunger 100%.

If you have a minute, really just 60 seconds, and you want to learn what herd immunity is Herd Immunity – One Minute Medical School

More on herd immunity:

http://www.health.harvard.edu/video/herd-immunity/

#ScienceSunday  

Originally shared by Yonatan Zunger

With recent outbreaks of measles, pertussis, and even polio across the United States, I think it’s time to revisit our laws about vaccination.

Refusing to vaccinate your children doesn’t simply put them at risk: it puts at risk everyone who, for medical reasons — extreme youth, old age, health, allergy — can’t be vaccinated, as well as everyone whose vaccinations have lost potency over time. Personal objections to vaccination, whether it be because of (unsubstantiated) fears of side effects or religious reasons, put everyone around you at risk of death or serious injury. This is a classic case where your right to swing your fists around ends at my nose: the individual liberty interest in allowing people to decide which medical procedures to undertake is outweighed by the safety and survival interest of those around you.

I believe that it is time to end all non-medical exemptions from critical vaccination requirements such as MMR, DTaP, and polio —  for epidemic diseases which kill and maim by the thousands when our immunity, as a population, is compromised. 

My preference would be to treat this as a criminal matter: to fail to do this amounts to reckless endangerment. (Public endangerment, that is, not simply endangerment of a minor) More important, however, is the prevention of harm from people who do this: in particular, individuals unvaccinated without medical reason should be barred from all public accommodations where their presence could put other lives at risk, including schools, parks, pools, and transit.

Such a barring would, of course, have a nearly-catastrophic effect on the life of anyone not living in a remote, rural area; it essentially would reduce a person to second-class citizenship. However, I believe that this is a reasonable accommodation of the public safety interest, as by definition it is something which the person can circumvent by simply not putting the general public in danger by their mere presence.

There are times when I’m willing to be fairly forgiving. When the rightness of a course of action is unclear, I’m generally in favor of letting said action be a matter of individual conscience. However, when an individual’s actions put those around them at risk, this is exactly what we have laws for. You have no more personal right to expose others to deadly diseases than you do to fire a gun blindly into the street.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/measles-outbreak-in-orange-county-california-worst-in-decades

Dangerous Vehicle

Dangerous Vehicle

Like many of the science hype articles in the media, the picture below is misleading. In Buddhini Samarasinghe’s post about cutting through the hype about “exploding” cancer cells: “Exploding Cancer Cells” Explained (http://goo.gl/kZMpVM), we talked about the vehicle control, dimethyl sulfoxide or DMSO. The vehicles below are dangerous but we aren’t talking about that kind of vehicle.

What is a vehicle?

So in biomedical research, what is a vehicle? The American Heritage Medical Dictionary defines vehicle as a substance of no therapeutic value that is used to convey an active medicine for administration. So a drug in a liquid form may use saline (salt water) or a liquid buffer as a vehicle, i.e., the drug is dissolved or mixed with the vehicle. This maybe necessary to get the dose right, i.e., dilute the drug/compound. It maybe necessary to use a vehicle because the compound needs assistance to be transported depending on the route of administration. So for skin creams (transdermal drug delivery) a lotion-like vehicle might be used.

Vehicle Control

No I’m not talking about Automatic Brake Systems or sway-bars. Vehicle controls in biomedical research means a group of test subjects that are given the vehicle alone. It’s like a placebo group but is more specific than that. You’ve probably heard of sugar pills being used for the placebo effect. A vehicle control tests to confirm that the vehicle has no effect on its own. Imagine if you are testing a new drug without a vehicle control group and all of the subjects get sick. You don’t know if it is due to the drug or the vehicle. Similarly, what if all of the subjects show improvement but there is no vehicle group to test to demonstrate that it was the drug alone. In the study that Buddhini Samarasinghe discusses, DMSO was the vehicle.

Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO)

DMSO is often used as a vehicle because a lot of drugs are not water soluble and but are soluble in DMSO. If you want to get a drug into the blood stream, it’s best if it is water soluble. However, some drugs are hydrophobic (they don’t like water but they like oil). If a drug is promising enough, you don’t let hydrophobicity stop you. The LD50 of DMSO is 13.4–15.5 g/kg (12.2–14.1 ml/kg). What does that mean? The LD50 is the dose at which half of the subjects die. LD stands for Lethal Dose. Unfortunately the authors don’t say what dose they used for the vehicle. We don’t know if the vehicle could have had an effect alone.  We do know that DMSO can have effects even at low doses.

For example Julien et al found that DMSO had an effect on some enzymes they were interested in for Alzheimer’s disease. They state: These data should caution researchers working with DMSO as it can induce artifactual results both in vivo and in vitro. Galvao et al reported that even low doses of DMSO had toxicity. Finally, Hanslick et al discuss DMSO producing apoptosis in the central nervous system. If you have been paying attention to Buddhini’s Hallmark of Cancer series, you’ll know that apoptosis is programmed cell death.

A couple more comments about the “exploding” cancer cell paper. In one part they show that tumor volume is reduced with treatment and not with DMSO. Tumor volume alone, can be misleading. There are drugs that kill the tumor but the tumor does not shrink, at least not right away. So if the tumor stays the same size, the drug did not necessarily fail. You need functional imaging to show that the tumor is still viable (regardless of size) or the tumor is dying. Also some drugs can make the tumor swell with fluid but the tumor is nevertheless dying. That is another example where tumor volume alone, is misleading. The second comment about the paper is that the live cell imaging experiments were done with an Operetta system. I recommend you check out the video Watch Operetta Product Overview Video (http://goo.gl/FUyKLu) It’s on the right side.

A couple of my favorite quotes are applicable here:

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

References:

LD50 of 13.4–15.5 g/kg (12.2–14.1 ml/kg) 

Caujolle F, Caujolle D, H B, Calvet MM (1964) [Toxicity and pharmacological aptitudes of dimethylsulfoxide]. C R Hebd Seances Acad Sci 258: 2224–2226.

Farrant J (1964) Pharmacological actions and toxicity of dimethyl sulphoxide and other compounds which protect smooth muscle during freezing and thawing. J Pharm Pharmacol 16: 472–483.

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/53/24/5877.short

Dimethyl Sulfoxide Induces Both Direct and Indirect Tau Hyperphosphorylation

Carl Julien, François Marcouiller, Alexis Bretteville, Noura B. El Khoury, Joanie Baillargeon, Sébastien S. Hébert, Emmanuel Planel

PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e40020. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040020. Epub 2012 Jun 29.

http://goo.gl/8IyqcW

Unexpected low-dose toxicity of the universal solvent DMSO.

Galvao J1, Davis B, Tilley M, Normando E, Duchen MR, Cordeiro MF.

FASEB J. 2014 Mar;28(3):1317-30. doi: 10.1096/fj.13-235440. Epub 2013 Dec 10.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24327606

Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) produces widespread apoptosis in the developing central nervous system

Hanslick JL, Lau K, Noguchi KK, Olney JW, Zorumski CF, Mennerick S, Farber NB

Neurobiol Dis. 2009 Apr;34(1):1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2008.11.006. Epub 2008 Dec 3.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2682536/

If you like the cars, I recommend you watch the video in the link for the image source.

Image source:

http://goo.gl/SOTSpH

#ScienceSunday  

Can dragonflies smell?

Can dragonflies smell?

I dig dragonflies. They have gorgeous colors and they just look awesome. Did you know that their 30,000 lens eyes can also detect ultraviolet light? Because dragonflies and their cousins damselflies don’t have glomeruli, it was thought that they can’t smell. Glomeruli are a cluster of nerve endings near the surface of the olfactory bulb (which is responsible for olfaction, aka smelling) in the brain. I’ve got a cool MRI of a rabbit brain that shows how big the olfactory bulbs are in a rabbit. I should dig that up. Back to the dragonfly, it was recently discovered that they have tiny bulbs in pits on their antennae that may be related to smell. As if dragonflies smelling from their antennae isn’t cool enough, these pits were found using an electron microscope. To test their theory, they used a wind tunnel and dragonfly bait, aka fruit flies. You can read more here:

Dragonflies Lack ‘Smell Center,’ but Can Still Smell

http://goo.gl/Vm4XVb

Sorry the article is behind a paywall.

First evidence of the use of olfaction in Odonata behaviour.

Piersanti S, Frati F, Conti E, Gaino E, Rebora M, Salerno G.

J Insect Physiol. 2014 Mar;62:26-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2014.01.006. Epub 2014 Jan 28.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24486162

Read more about human smell here:

Smell some science

http://goo.gl/fCRD6c

Cool stuff:

Dragonflies ✔

Wind tunnel ✔

Electron microscope ✔

Science ✔

A big h/t to mary Zeman for the wonderful photos.

#ScienceSunday  

Originally shared by mary Zeman

Find the scat

Find the scat

This is another example of how man’s best friend can work with humans to help other animals. I’m imagining Peter Lindelauf and Luna going through the woods and finding bear scat. I wonder if these dogs could help Erin Kane in her search for monkey scat. 

Happy #FidoFriday  and remember it’s #ScienceEveryday  

Originally shared by KQED SCIENCE

Dog Detectives: A Nose for Conservation

“Around the world canines are being enlisted to track rare wildlife, sleuth out invasive species, and detect otherwise imperceptible changes that could harm wilderness areas and watersheds. But are these canines really providing significant support to conservation efforts, or is it just another excuse to bring your dog to work?”

http://science.kqed.org/quest/2014/03/20/dog-detectives-a-nose-for-conservation/

Ramanujan and Pi

Ramanujan and Pi

Happy Pi Day courtesy of Richard Green. I wonder what Ramanujan would have accomplished, had he lived longer than 32 years.

Originally shared by Richard Green

Happy Pi Day!

The number pi or π (approximately 3.14159265) is well known as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Although π is an irrational number, meaning that it cannot be expressed exactly as a fraction, it is possible to express the number as an infinite series. 

One of the simplest such series is π = 4 – (4/3) + (4/5) – (4/7) + (4/9) – (4/11)… The standard techniques of calculus can be used to prove that this series converges to π. Unfortunately, the convergence is very slow, meaning that one needs to write down a large number of terms to approximate π with any degree of accuracy.

The Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan (1887-1920) found some approximations to π that are much better than the above series. The formula for the infinite series at the bottom of the picture is due to Ramanujan. It converges so quickly that each successive term in the series computes a further eight decimal places of π. To give you some idea of how accurate the formula is, the approximation given by just one term is 9801/(sqrt(8)x1103), which works out as about 3.14159273001. This is accurate to eight significant figures, and has the first six decimal places correct!

This is a very impressive approximation from a mathematician who worked before the era of computers. Perhaps not surprisingly, Ramanujan’s contemporaries were curious about where he got his ideas. The answer is quite interesting: while dreaming, he received visions of scrolls of complex mathematical content from his family goddess, Mahalakshmi of Namakkal.

Although he died at the age of 32, Ramanujan left behind a large number of mathematical results, and some of the best modern methods for computing π are based on his work. Ramanujan did not write up proofs for many of his results, although most of them turned out to be both correct and original. However, he left behind four famous notebooks of rough ideas, one of which was lost until 1976. These notebooks have inspired many papers by later mathematicians attempting to prove Ramanujan’s results.

Relevant links

The Wikipedia page on approximations to π: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approximations_of_%CF%80

The Wikipedia page on Srinivasa Ramanujan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

A popular post by Malthus John from Halloween 2013, showing the first infinite series I mentioned, carved into a pumpkin: https://plus.google.com/102744407669548081722/posts/frJVPykwpWV

A popular post by me from August 2013 about π, featuring the digital art of Cristian Ilies Vasile: https://plus.google.com/101584889282878921052/posts/8AFefDCfV4h

(Disclaimer: I am from the UK, where March 14th is 14.3, not 3.14. Call me irrational, but I don’t think that pi day is a real thing.)

#mathematics #scienceeveryday

Minimal volume with minimal information

Minimal volume with minimal information

The WIRED interview with Elizabeth Holmes, founder and CEO of Theranos, has been making the rounds. In Di Cleverly’s post

https://plus.google.com/+DiCleverly/posts/XTn2SDnE9LB

I mentioned that in addition to the minimal amount of blood used, there is a minimal amount of details. Searching elsewhere, even the Theranos website, there aren’t many details. In Di Cleverly’s post, the only decent info was from patents. If you’ve ever read a patent, then you know that it’s often difficult to sort out what’s really going on. So, with Di Cleverly’s help, we have a better picture of what’s going on. A lot of this post are my guesses about some of the details, partly because I’m busy, partly because I’m lazy, and partly because there isn’t a lot out there without really digging. Did I mention I’m lazy, I mean busy?

What was mentioned: small volume and centralized facility

For those that haven’t seen the WIRED or Medscape articles, Elizabeth Holmes dropped out of college at Stanford at the age of 19 and eventually started Theranos with her college funds. The interview talks about how the small volume of blood, from a pin prick, can make the experience, and therefore patient compliance, better. Ms. Holmes talks about reduced and transparent pricing. Essentially none of the technology is discussed. A centralized facility is mentioned. So is that an essential part, i.e., how much can be done off site (e.g. at Walgreens)? Before any young readers decide to drop out like Ms. Holmes or Bill Gates, I think Dave Thomas, founder of Wendy’s makes a good example.

Thomas, realizing that his success as a high school dropout might convince other teenagers to quit school (something he later claimed was a mistake), became a student at Coconut Creek High School. He earned a GED in 1993.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Thomas_(businessman

Detective Work: ESR and microfluidics

On Di Cleverly’s post some detective work was done and a few things came to light, mostly via the patents. The small “nanotainer” is used in a novel centrifuge to get information about the blood sample. Red blood cells (RBC) are called erythrocytes and are just one component of blood. If you put whole blood in a glass tube, eventually the RBCs will sink to the bottom and the plasma will stay at the top. You can speed up this process by using a centrifuge (a device that spins the tubes at many times the force of gravity). The rate that the RBCs go to the bottom is called the erythrocyte sedimentation rate or ESR. ESR alone can tell you something about your health.

An increased ESR rate may be due to:

Anemia

Cancers such as lymphoma or multiple myeloma

Kidney disease

Pregnancy

Thyroid disease

Common autoimmune disorders include:

Lupus

Rheumatoid arthritis in adults or children

Very high ESR levels occur with less common autoimmune disorders, including:

Allergic vasculitis

Giant cell arteritis

Hyperfibrinogenemia (increased fibrinogen levels in the blood)

Macroglobulinemia – primary

Necrotizing vasculitis

Polymyalgia rheumatica

An increased ESR rate may be due to some infections, including:

Body-wide (systemic) infection

Bone infections

Infection of the heart or heart valves

Rheumatic fever

Severe skin infections, such as erysipelas

Tuberculosis

Lower-than-normal levels occur with:

Congestive heart failure

Hyperviscosity

Hypofibrinogenemia (decreased fibrinogen levels)

Low plasma protein (due to liver or kidney disease)

Polycythemia

Sickle cell anemia

Source: http://goo.gl/zKstuW 

The patent mentions a novel centrifuge device with either video or still images of the sample. There are two greyscale figures from the patent in the album below. With image analysis the ESR can be measured without human intervention which minimizes errors.

Microfluidics

Another patent talks about microfluidic devices. I’m assuming those are lab-on-a-chip (LOC) devices. LOCs use microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) to do analysis on very small volumes of fluid. Here’s an example from Harvard that captures trace amounts of tumor cells.

http://goo.gl/jPGZlr

Although genechips or DNA microarray’s aren’t LOCs, it is possible they are being used by Theranos. An image of an Affymetrix Genechip is included in the album below. http://goo.gl/GpMyjx Note the small Eppendorf tubes in the foreground. Those are larger than the Theranos “nanotainer” but they do make Eppendorf tubes the same size as the “nanotainer”. Both the “nanotainer” and Eppendorf tubes have conical bottoms to facilitate removal of all of the liquid. The genechips have target DNA probes attached to the device. If a target gene is expressed, it will bind with the probe on the chip. The readout is typically some type of light whether chemiluminescence, fluorescence, or some combination. The amount of information from these genechips has caused an explosion in bioinformatics and computer processing dedicated to speeding up the analysis of these microarrays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_microarray

Because the samples are going to a centralized facility, it’s possible that real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is also being used. RT-PCR is a technique that is used to amplify DNA samples.

Therapeutics and Diagnostics =  Theranostics

I didn’t find any information to suggest that the name Theranos has anything to do with the term theranostics, i.e, therapeutics and diagnostics.

Pharmacogenomics aims to identify the genetic basis of variability in drug efficacy and safety, and ultimately develop diagnostics that can individualize pharmacotherapy. Theragnostics, a term denoting the fusion of therapeutics and diagnostics, is receiving increasing attention as pharmacogenomics moves to applications at point of patient care.

Shifting emphasis from pharmacogenomics to theragnostics

http://goo.gl/6nrkmp

Rapid molecular theranostics in infectious diseases.

Picard FJ1, Bergeron MG.

Drug Discov Today. 2002 Nov 1;7(21):1092-101.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12546841

An example of theranostics from my boss and colleagues is a platform that combines doxorubicin (cancer therapy), herceptin (targeting for diagnosis), and DOTA-Gd(III) (for MRI detection, i.e, diagnosis). So the herceptin targets the product to cancer cells. Gadolinium, chelated to the construct (DOTA-Gd(III)) allows you to see it with MRI (enhances the contrast from background tissue) and the doxorubicin provides therapy at the target (tumor).

pH-Responsive Theranostic Polymer-Caged Nanobins: Enhanced Cytotoxicity and T1 MRI Contrast by Her2 Targeting

http://goo.gl/4PHkLo

So that’s what I could sort out with the help of Di Cleverly’s post and my own digging through a couple patents. If you have ideas or comments, feel free to ask.

#ScienceSunday