Title

Tussle with Pertussis – Whooping cough

Pertussis or whooping cough is caused by the bacterium 

Bordetella pertussis. It’s called whooping cough because after a coughing fit, an infected person makes a whooping sound when they try to catch their breath. Babies less than a year old can die from pertussis.

http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/

In 2008, about 195,000 children died from pertussis. 

http://www.who.int/immunization/topics/pertussis/en/index.html

I want to focus on a ScienceNOW article about new vs. old whooping cough vaccine.

Uptick in Whooping Cough Linked to Subpar Vaccines

http://goo.gl/JAuQp

Whooping cough, or pertussis, has exploded in the United States in recent years. A new study confirms what scientists have suspected for some time: The return of the disease is caused by the introduction of new, safer vaccines 2 decades ago. Although they have far fewer side effects, the new shots don’t offer long-lived protection the way older vaccines do.

The disease seemed to have disappeared by the 1970s but has come back in the past decade or two. Evidence suggest that the reoccurrence is due to the switch from a vaccine based on the whole-cell bacterium to a new vaccine that has just parts of the bacterium. The newer virus has less side effects but apparently doesn’t offer long term protection. The newer vaccine was developed because the chemicals used to kill the pertussis for the vaccine where causing  side effects. 

During the 1980s, U.S. parents successfully sued manufacturers, alleging that the whole-cell vaccine also caused long-term brain damage. A 1991 Institute of Medicine report concluded that this was unproven, but by then many pertussis vaccine manufacturers had withdrawn from the market, leading Congress to create a federal vaccine injury compensation program for families who could show a strong case for vaccine damage.

Three studies have shown that the new acellular vaccination, i.e., one based on parts of the bacterium, no the whole cell, is less effective (long lasting) compared to the older vaccine.

Comparative Effectiveness of Acellular Versus Whole-Cell Pertussis Vaccines in Teenagers in Pediatrics:  http://goo.gl/SE6dZ  , Number and Order of Whole Cell Pertussis Vaccines in Infancy and Disease Protection in JAMA http://goo.gl/H02wy , Reduced Risk of Pertussis Among Persons Ever Vaccinated With Whole Cell Pertussis Vaccine Compared to Recipients of Acellular Pertussis Vaccines in a Large US Cohort http://goo.gl/TBa4H

So why does the whole-cell based vaccine work better and why switch? The whole-cell based vaccine likely works better because there is more of the cell that is presented to the immune system to generate anti-bodies. Also, as the pertussis bacteria mutate, the new vaccine is likely to have less overlap with the mutated version. The older, whole-cell based version is likely to have antigens that are still effective, i.e., still in the mutated version.

Why is this important? There has been an increase in whooping cough out breaks in the US and measles in the UK. http://goo.gl/8xRa7 via Philip Plait and http://goo.gl/fXzB1

It’s dangerous when misinformation and conspiracy theories affect policy and decision making. If more people are scared into not getting vaccinated, then herd immunity is compromised. 

Herd Immunity – One Minute Medical School

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

Using science, we understand that the increase in whooping cough infections is at least partially explained by the switch to the new vaccine, based on parts of the Bordetella pertussis and not the whole cell.  It is also partially explained by diminished herd immunity by unvaccinated people/children.

Finally, I’ll point you to as disturbing story about anti-vaxxers going after a family that lost their infant to whooping cough. http://goo.gl/saspV

Image Source: http://goo.gl/D31Fo

#ScienceSunday  

Intriguing discussion with Steven Weinberg

Intriguing discussion with Steven Weinberg

My father has a degree in comparative religion. I’ve always been fascinated by the intersection of metaphysics and science. Dr. Weinberg talks about wave theory, the big bang theory, quantum mechanics, and more. It’s a long discussion ~1 hour 14 min. Cliff Harvey does a great job giving some of his insight on the discussion.

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

#ScienceSunday  

Originally shared by Cliff Harvey

Weinberg, Dawkins, and the universe

This is a great discussion exploring all kinds of questions, especially touching on some points of contact between physics and the ‘grand’ religious or quasi-religious questions, including the issue of fine-tuning of physical constants, anthropic selection from a larger reality, what we know about the early universe from experiments, and what we think we know. Its clear from the thunder in the first few minutes that they’ve angered the Gods….

In case you weren’t aware, Steven Weinberg is one of the main co-fathers of the Standard Model, a Nobel laureate, and wrote the book (all 3 volumes) on quantum field theory, so as someone very familiar with the currently most fundamental frameworks he’s among the most trustworthy and well-prepared to discuss these matters.

One of the physical issues they tackle early on is ‘dark energy’ or the vacuum energy. Here Weinberg does a good job clarifying some of the usual confusions often found in the press. We cannot, strictly speaking, calculate the value of the vacuum energy, but what we can do is calculate contributions to it, from fluctuations in various known fields down to whatever distance scales we decide to trust our current model, with the Planck scale being the absolute limit. When this is done we get an answer something around ~10^120 times too high (or possibly more like ~10^60 if there are some low-scale SUSY partners).  But strictly speaking this is not a “conflict with experiment” because there is still the freedom to add a simple constant to the whole thing. The assumption that this “constant part” is zero leads to a meaningful constraint on the particle content and ultimate high-energy laws of the universe, but so far we unfortunately don’t know how to do away with that extra freedom. I agree with Weinberg that it still seems natural to expect that (at least most of) this discrepancy will be addressed by contributions from new laws which must take over by the Planck scale at the latest, and also probably from more ordinary particles which haven’t yet been discovered. Still, absent some new and currently unknown principle, this remains a primary candidate for anthropic selection.

They spend some time on the “nightmare scenario” of not finding anything new at the LHC. I don’t plan on getting very worried about this until we see a fair amount of 14 TeV data analyzed, but more importantly, its not a scientist’s place to complain about the laws of nature. I agree that it might not be as enjoyable a time to be a theorist if we don’t find something else, but there is still so much good work to be done in understanding the current frameworks more deeply. Also, its important to recognize that negative results are important too, they constrain future attempts at model building in important ways. But in my opinion there is no avoiding the obvious fact that physics is objectively and dramatically closer to its defined goal of describing the fundamental laws of the universe, and at some point it just becomes unrealistic and unscientific to expect that this period of science has to be directly analogous to the one that existed 150 years ago. They’re qualitatively quite different. The process of science is all about trying to find new ways to test our current best understanding, and in some ways even to try and break it, but that doesn’t mean we’re entitled to a rewriting of all the laws every few years, as a startling number of people seem to believe. That is exactly the kind of unhealthy attachment to an idea (or feeling) that the skepticism that defines science is supposed to dissuade you from. The very assumption that there are laws of the universe implies that this scientific process will inevitably become more stable over time, particularly on the most fundamental end.

Around 54:00 they also venture into the question of interpreting quantum mechanics, and here its extremely clear that there inevitably should be a conflict between your scientific understanding of the fundamental laws and your intuitive understanding of newtonian physics that you use to walk down the street. Something would have to be wrong otherwise. Essentially, because any of the hypotheses that would prevent the “unsettling” implications of QM at human scales require some kind of dramatic revision of its content, even though no evidence supports such a revision. Here Weinberg himself confesses that he thinks the “best” outcome would be to find out that there is some mechanism that breaks QM as we know it when small systems interact with large systems, though he is at least straightforward about the lack of any support from evidence. He himself mentions the many entanglement experiments have proven that quantum mechanics does still operate at distances as far as meters or even kilometers, and should work to any arbitrary distance. I don’t think its rational to “hope” for a way to circumscribe quantum mechanics in this way.This is a big topic I’ve worked on, posted on, and will post again on…

Anyway those are just a few responses to a very far-reaching conversation.

#scienceeveryday  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ40_LxDDt4

You’ve been slimed

You’ve been slimed

Here’s an interesting NPR piece on hagfish slime (http://www.theworld.org/2013/03/hagfish-clothes/). Scientists have been looking for strong yet lightweight fibers, preferably from a renewable source. For example see my post about spider silk.

Open the Spigot for Science

http://goo.gl/SGMDI

Happy #ScienceSunday

Too busy for a longer post today. Don’t forget to circle ScienceSunday if you haven’t already. Mention the curators, Rajini Rao Allison Sekuler Buddhini Samarasinghe Robby Bowles and me, so that your #ScienceSunday  post doesn’t get lost in never-never-land.

Image Source: http://goo.gl/x4CCB

Alfa females: hyena hormones at work

Alfa females: hyena hormones at work

Erin Kane’s post Convergent Evolution: how cool is that? (http://goo.gl/47I1C) reminded me that hyena females are dominant, e.g., alfa females. Erin’s post also reminded me of our collaboration on work similar to the video.

Evolutionary forces – Working Together

http://goo.gl/xvXxS

BTW, if you’re thinking about trolling with anti-evolution rhetoric, check this out first, from QualiSoup

Evolution

OK, back to hyenas and hormones. Spotted hyena females release androgen to their offspring, which makes them more aggressive (think about what you’ve read about athletes using anabolic steroids).  This added aggression is important to improve their chance of getting a meal, and therefore survive. It also makes the males more sexually active, early on. This is important as they need practice, to deal with the complicated copulation of hyenas. Female hyenas, especially the spotted hyena, have a pseudo-phallus due to the androgen that they received from their mother, i.e., the clitoris is enlarged. You can read more here: http://goo.gl/g6DA6

Source: The Painful Realities of Hyena Sex

http://goo.gl/SIAXZ via LiveScience 

Also check out:

How Aggressive Hyena Moms Give Their Kids a Boost

http://goo.gl/xytFY via Bora Zivkovic

Brains: Another interesting fact about the spotted hyena is that they have a larger brain volume when compared to the striped hyena, brown hyena, and aardwolves. The spotted hyena also possesses a larger anterior cerebrum volume relative to total brain volume than is found in the other hyena species; this region is composed primarily of frontal cortex. These data are consistent with the idea that expansion of the frontal cortex is driven by the demands of processing cognitive information associated with complex social lives, but other factors may drive the evolution of large brains in hyaenids.

Brain size and social complexity: a computed tomography study in Hyaenidae.

Sakai ST, Arsznov BM, Lundrigan BL, Holekamp KE.

Brain Behav Evol. 2011;77(2):91-104. doi: 10.1159/000323849. Epub 2011 Feb 17.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21335942

Symbiotic relations: One more science tidbit, bacteria have a symbiotic relationship with hyenas. The diversity in the bacteria can aid hyenas in identifying members of the same social group based on how the structure of the bacteria affects the odor of the hyena’s scent gland.

Evidence for a bacterial mechanism for group-specific social odors among hyenas.

Theis KR, Schmidt TM, Holekamp KE.

Sci Rep. 2012;2:615. doi: 10.1038/srep00615. Epub 2012 Aug 30.

http://goo.gl/3wx3c

Hyena art:

The Hyena & Other Men

http://goo.gl/wYUqS via Luis Roca 

Elephant love is fierce → This elephant fights off a hyena to save her baby!

http://goo.gl/qv7z0 via Liza Sperling 

Image source: http://goo.gl/2xhfe

#ScienceSunday  

Eyes without a face

Eyes without a face

It’s interesting how words can make you think of certain songs. Michael O’Reilly’s post made me think of Eyes without a face from Billy Idol.

Billy Idol – Eyes Without A Face

Michael mentioned that he can recognize people by their voices; noting accent, cadence, word choice, etc.

Thanks again for sharing Michael O’Reilly 

#fMRIblob #ScienceSunday  

Originally shared by ScienceSunday

Prosopagnosia Awareness

Prosopagnosia (Greek: “prosopon” = “face”, “agnosia” = “not knowing”) is a a condition commonly called Face Blindness. From the Wiki

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

Michael O’Reilly shares a personal side of prosopagnosia here.

http://goo.gl/X6zM9

He also shared this piece of news for #ScienceSunday . For our friends in the UK, consider checking out the petition.

Prosopagnosia In The News

http://goo.gl/qSGLm

Prosopagnosia, or Face Blindness, is a largely unrecognized disorder. (Yes, yes, I know…) Various estimates hold that between 2% and 10% of the population exhibit some degree of this inability to recognize familiar faces, yet few people have even heard of it, and as a result many sufferers are hesitant to even mention they have difficulty for fear of embarrassment or discrimination. 

Dr. Sarah Bate of the Centre for Face Processing Disorders at Bournemouth University is leading a campaign to raise greater awareness of Prosopagnosia in the U.K. House of Commons. She has an online petition available through www.prosopagnosiaresearch.org which I highly encourage U.K. readers to go sign. The attached article has further information.

For U.S. readers who wish to know more about prosopagnosia, the Prosopagnosia Research Centers at Dartmouth College, Harvard University, and University College London have excellent information at www.faceblind.org including their biannual Face to Face newsletter.

As a prosopagnosic myself, I am always interested in the current state of research and I hope to enlighten others about this condition. So many people don’t even know this disorder exists, even those suffering from it in many cases. Greater awareness can help out both by increasing research and reducing any perceived stigma in admitting to having prosopagnosia.

The first figure below is from:

The anatomic basis of the right face-selective N170 IN acquired prosopagnosia: A combined ERP/fMRI study

K. A. Dalrymple et al

Neuropsychologia. 2011 Jul;49(9):2553-63. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.05.003.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21601585

fMRI and ERP were used to gain insight into a region of the brain associated with the acquired form of prosopagnosia. Event-related potentials (ERP) are measured with electroencephalography (EEG). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event-related_potential

ScienceSunday co-curator Chad Haney has posted about fMRI frequently, and most recently here: http://goo.gl/xhc6T

An interesting point of the first figure is that the location of the lesion isn’t necessarily where the investigators are looking in terms of the functional image and as mention by Chad before, the figure demonstrates the variability in BOLD MRI (fMRI).

The remaining three figures are from

Congenital prosopagnosia: multistage anatomical and functional deficits in face processing circuitry.

V Dinkelacker et al

J Neurol. 2011 May;258(5):770-82. doi: 10.1007/s00415-010-5828-5. Epub 2010 Dec 1.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21120515

The interesting finding there is that facial recognition is not as impaired when it comes to negative faces. The images also show that unlike the first study linked here, the congenital prosopagnosia patients lack any lesion. They hypothesize that congenital prosopagnosia is due to a network dysfunction and that the lingual gyrus plays a substantial role. The lingual gyrus has to do with visual processing, especially letters. The name is due to its physical apperance as it looks like a tongue. It is not associated with speech.

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

So thanks Michael O’Reilly for sharing your story and making us aware of prosopagnosia.

#ScienceSunday #SciSunCH

Wow, just #awesomesauce .

Wow, just #awesomesauce .

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.

from (Brain Pickings and Maria Popova) http://goo.gl/3Oa1l 

QualiaSoup has a great video on the burden of proof and other great videos on logic.

The burden of proof

#HappyBirthdayMrMRI

#ScienceEveryday  when it isn’t #ScienceSunday  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Beer goggles? Hold on; let me pour another pint

Beer goggles? Hold on; let me pour another pint

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.

http://goo.gl/QNYwv

More from Dr. Ellison here: 

Speech localiser – Amanda Ellison: Getting Your Head Around the Brain

h/t mary Zeman and Darryl Mouzone 

Image source: I don’t know, I’ve had this since 1862.

#ScienceSunday  

Chemophobia: irrational plague?

Chemophobia: irrational plague?

An article from Slate, Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine http://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.

Rhubarb poisoning not from a rube

http://goo.gl/Y5546

I was going to use a belladonna plant for the main picture as belladonna can be poisonous. Atropa belladonna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belladonna_(plant)

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.

Our Chemophobia Conundrum

http://goo.gl/ZUc15

The picture is from a NY Times article that was discussed here.

Who can resist?: #Chemophobia in the NYT

http://goo.gl/c5Bj0

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+.

America’s Real Criminal Element: Lead

http://goo.gl/7RTdZ

#ScienceEveryday  when it isn’t #ScienceSunday  

I leave you with.

Culture Club – Church Of The Poison Mind

Foxo TRAIL

Foxo TRAIL

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

http://goo.gl/rcQW8

Full article in Science Translational Medicine behind paywall.

http://goo.gl/heE1Y

Fox image from Dan Dinu: http://goo.gl/adqSb

#ScienceEveryday  when it isn’t #ScienceSunday  

Ground up myth

Ground up myth

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.

Image source: http://goo.gl/mbstf

#ScienceEveryday  when it isn’t #ScienceSunday