I recently gave two talks to my lab regarding the topics of my research. In related news, I like to experiment with Wordpress plugins. Enjoy.
(I’m not entirely sure why there’s a huge black rectangle in the lower right corner in place of my typical University of Chicago shield, but I suspect SlideShare automatically edits these images out for legal reasons. My apologies, but feel free to use your imagination in its stead.)
I just finished reading a paper in the penultimate issue of Cell regarding the structure of the complex formed by the interaction of the Listeria surface protein InIB and Met, the human receptor tyrosine kinase often implicated in cancers, especially lung cancer. While I neither care all that much about nor understand too many of the details of the structure of this complex, it raised an interesting question:
Could a mutant InIB be used probiotically as a lung cancer therapeutic? Because Listeria is dependent on this interaction for entry into cells (Listeria is an obligate intracellular bacterium and travels from cell to cell by rocketing itself through the cell membranes of the former and future host cells), and because InIB interaction with Met results in Met activation, Listeria expressing a functionally-mutated form of InIB would theoretically have limited virulence and would block Met from binding its ligand, HGF, and prevent its activation, which is often the case in cancer. Alternatively, purified mutant InIB could be isolated from modified Listeria and used as a Met inhibitor in the complete absence of potential for virulence. Furthermore, theoretically, this mutant bacterium could be used probiotically in large quantities to overcome active Listeria infections, or to at least limit the entry of those Listeria that have somehow escaped from cells, by reducing the relative local concentration of the wild-type, virulent form of InIB.
Please excuse the entire previous paragraph. I’m clearly thinking out loud, but they nonetheless remain interesting research questions. Does anyone know of studies that explore any of these questions? A quick search of PubMed reveals nothing for me—not even whether Listeria infections can increase the risk of cancer or whether probiotic strategis have ever been investigated as viable cancer therapeutics. This is, however, the only oncogene I know of that is also a target of a microbe, although I am almost certain other double targets exist.
I read an interesting article over the weekend in Science regarding the nature and classification of scientific discovery. Specifically, it outlines three main classes:
‘Charge’ discoveries solve problems that are quite obvious–cure heart disease, understand the movement of stars in the sky–but in which the way to solve the problem is not so clear. In these, the scientist is called on, as Nobel laureate Albert Szent-Györgyi put it, ‘to see what everyone else has seen and think what no one else has thought before.’ Thus, the movement of stars in the sky and the fall of an apple from a tree were apparent to everyone, but Isaac Newton came up with the concept of gravity to explain it all in one great theory.
The Szent-Györgyi is especially powerful. As I read it over and over, it makes all of what I’m doing so substantial, even if, on the face of it, it’s nowhere close.
‘Challenge’ discoveries are a response to an accumulation of facts or concepts that are unexplained by or incongruous with scientific theories of the time. The discoverer perceives that a new concept or a new theory is required to pull all the phenomena into one coherent whole. Sometimes the discoverer sees the anomalies and also provides the solution. Sometimes many people perceive the anomalies, but they wait for the discoverer to provide a new concept. Those individuals, whom we might call ‘uncoverers,’ contribute greatly to science, but it is the individual who proposes the idea explaining all of the anomalies who deserves to be called a discoverer.
‘Chance’ discoveries are those that are often called serendipitous and which Louis Pasteur felt favored ‘the prepared mind.’ In this category are the instances of a chance event that the ready mind recognizes as important and then explains to other scientists. This category not only would include Pasteur’s discovery of optical activity (D and L isomers), but also W. C. Roentgen’s x-rays and Roy Plunkett’s Teflon. These scientists saw what no one else had seen or reported and were able to realize its importance.
It struck me on a run yesterday that these groups are rather similar, and thus could be applied, to the field of photography as well. After all, photography has a component of experimentation in which one shoots and shoots and sees what comes of it; only the most experienced photographer can predict what a picture would look like without actually snapping it. For the rest of us, it is necessary to take a first shot and make adjustments as needed. Sometimes, something brilliant will immediately come about from unintended settings; sometimes, something brilliant will finally come about only after a long series of tweaks. This ability has never been truer than it is today during a time in which digital cameras are the standard and one can shoot as often or as little as he pleases without concern for data limitations.
Take, for instance, these pictures I’ve taken in the past:
This could only be described as the result of “charge.” When my mom (far right) has a family picture in the agenda, she doesn’t mess around. And when my family does everything they possibly can to obstruct the taking of the family picture, they don’t mess around either.
This is a good example of something innovative that arose from basic familiarity with perspective and relative size. A challenge, if you will.
This is a shot I took in Spain in March, the first of a few from the same angle. On first glance, it doesn’t look too good, but in comparison to the others where the sun is more obscured, it’s the best of the bunch by far. In other words, it happened completely by chance.
Unfortunately, however, I would add to both fields, science and photography, a fourth category: charlatanry. As much effort as is expended to prevent it from happening, it happens. Frauds, quacks, and plagiarizers all come with the territory that is science, and undoubtedly photography has its fair share of cheats as well. Just as science has its Hwangs, Schöns, and other miscreants that come along every so often, photography likely has its fair share of content ownership disputes and plagiarism.
After all, why buy when you can take the shot yourself?
(from
photographersdirect.com)
The post I wrote
yesterday encouraging stubborn smokers to take up smokeless tobacco as an equally self-harmful habit seems to be gaining supporters, at least scientifically. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention (to which I have free access…hooray!) is reporting in their August issue both that a primary byproduct of nicotine known to cause lung and liver cancer,
NNK, can be formed from secondhand smoke and that
smokeless tobacoo contains more NNK and nicotine than regular cigarettes.
The former paper is especially alarming, as it reports experimental data compiled by Philip Morris as long as 25 years ago, in some cases, of which most was never reported or published. While the group that published this article had previously shown that
secondhand smoke is fourfold more toxic than mainstream smoke (that is, the smoke to which a smoker is exposed), the primary findings of the present paper indicate that NNK formation increases rapidly in the local surroundings over a period of several hours after a cigarette is put out. That is, secondhand smoke clearly is harmful, and it becomes worse, and potentially more carcinogenic, even after that which is generating it is eliminated. This suggests that the dangers of smoking extend far beyond the localized duration of a single lit cigarette and the time it takes to smoke it—specifically, up to 11 hours’ worth of danger, according to Philip Morris themselves, over 20 years ago:
(more…)
I’ve seen a couple of videos like these pop up recently. Neither of these are altered in any way beyond simple editing. Maybe it’s just me, but it’s one of the grossest things I’ve ever seen. If you smoke, how can you possibly light up again after seeing this? If you don’t, how could you possibly start?
One line says it all: “So where does the brown go?”
Stephen Hawking wants you to quit smoking! Do it for the kids! Videos like these make me incredibly thankful that I can (soon) visit Chicago establishments without having to inhale that crap.
Luckily, for the absolutely recalcitrant smokers and denialists among you, who either feel an incredible urge to maintain the field of lung oncology, an intractable desire to poison yourselves, or both, for those of you who will go to every extreme to Defend Your Right To Smoke, there is good news! Recent scientific literature suggests that you can continue killing yourself, and enjoy it, all without smoking cigarettes. There you have it— cardiovascular mortality, hypertension, other circulatory issues, impaired cell death, breast cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, and diabetes—all in one convenient, easy-to-use package that doesn’t force those around you to smoke whatever you’re smoking. Enjoy!
I added a new FeedBurner button way at the bottom in the right column, as well as Google Reader and My Yahoo buttons that make it easy to subscribe to this weblog. Chickity-check it.
If you don’t use Google Reader, you are making a grave error in judgment.
Also, below each post, there are buttons for Digg, del.icio.us, co.mments, and Technorati. Use them.
I had my first patient last night. It was an actual patient whom I cared for, not someone on the floor that I was supposed to interview for the sake of an oral presentation; not someone I coerced for a physical examination during their lunch; not someone who acts well and gets paid by the medical school to pretend they don’t want to give up smoking. This was an actual patient.
Bee sting, I thought. Huge, raised purulent blister on the right leg with well-defined margins, probably a centimeter off the skin. Roughly 1×3 centimeters in size. Not sure how I came to the conclusion of bee sting, but it struck me as being some sort of bug bite, or a highly localized cutaneous infection from some other break in the skin, but it was both painful and itchy from what I could gather from the patient’s behavior. I consulted with the nurse—bee sting, she, too, thought. I located a syringe to drain the puss and asked for some bacitracin. I was taking care of the patient and making unilateral treatment decisions, and it felt so, so good after having had so much doubt.
Oh yeah, the patient was a dog(?), and it was a dream. Crap. I’ll let you know when I’m taking care of humans in real, actual life.
I’m a little busy today, so munch on this. Originally posted 14 Oct 2004. For the record, I still feel similarly about pathology, but if you’re reading this in 2011ish and you happen to be the residency director of the pathology program to which I happen to be applying, I’m totally lying right now. Also, I miss medical school.
But now it’s over, and this other thing is beginning, and it’s wonderful. Our cadaver is a 90-year-old gentleman who died of end-stage renal failure. He must have fought hard: He had cathodes and stents and tubes coming out of him everywhere. I am extremely grateful for his decision to donate his body to science for my educational benefit. Anyone who does that contributes in some way to the progress of medical knowledge, and that’s definitely something to be respected and applauded. I hope that I in return can make the most of what he has given me and show him the same degree of respect.
Good day, and toodles. Now I’m going to attempt to avoid dying at the hands of the ill-fated biochem all-nighter, not to even mention the actual exam.
Word on the street is that those opinionated among you are having trouble registering to posit comments on this thing. I offer my belated apologies for repressing your speaking abilities. I’ve turned off the need to register to comment, so you now can comment to your collective hearts’ content, and I encourage you to do so. It’ll make it more interesting for me and probably for you as well. If you’d still enter at least your name, I’d appreciate it, but if you feel an absolute need to do your bitching in an anonymous fashion, that’s fine too. Also, if you’re a spammer, you are a dummyhead and a poopy pants, and I wish you were unemployed, so poo on you.
Comment away.
UPDATE: Okay, it wasn’t working, but I think it is now. You should be able to comment without having to register, but I believe you will need to enter a name and email address. Sorry, anonymous bitchers.
If you haven’t bought the recent Sara Bareilles album, Little Voice, yet, why? Honestly, she is fantastic. Fantastic voice, fantastic range, fantastic music, fantastic lyrics. Shook up the a cappella world in college. Toured with Maroon 5…in college. Buy it now. Don’t even bother previewing the songs; just buy it. You will not regret it. She has some full-length song previews from Little Voice on her website as well.
I have similar feelings about Sara Gazarek, who is perhaps more accomplished at this point in her career but much less well-known. I’m hesitant to offer such confident purchasing recommendations for her not because she’s in any way inferior musically to Sara B—she’s probably better, actually—but because she’s does jazz, and she does it well, but I realize it tends to be more of a niche interest, especially among the people who are likely reading this. Still, she is no less than phenomenal, and if you are a fan of jazz—any jazz—the former recommendations wholeheartedly apply: Buy her stuff now. I prefer her first album, Yours, but that’s probably because I’m more used to it by now. I recently bought her second (studio) album, Return to You, and while there’s some immediate goodness, I’m still exploring. It’s safe to say at this point that she’s Michael Bublé’s female counterpart, leaving Jane Monheit so far in the dust, she’ll probably have to be seen for sarcoidosis pretty soon. (Sorry…had to.) She, too, has full-length song previews from her most recent release on her website.
Incidentally, there are some interesting similarities between the two. Each went to college in LA. Each had great, early success in their respective genres there. Each is 25 (I think). Each…is named Sara?
