The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
MIT researchers demonstrate protective role of microRNA
web.mit.edu — Snippets of genetic material that have been linked to cancer also play a critical role in normal embryonic development in mice, according to a new paper from MIT cancer biologists.
maheshee11- 413 diggs
- digg it
- robocop1, on 03/08/2008, -17/+1This is great news ! it makes me shake my booty!
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k207/buttboy111/ ...- webmeister87, on 03/08/2008, -2/+2Not exactly what i wanted to see right before going to bed...
- idiopathogen, on 03/08/2008, -13/+1More proof that veterinarians trump MD's in useful medical research, and generally are a bit smarter than their human counterparts although paid a bit less.
- johndi, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1Veterinarians aren't human? That's the scoop of the Millennium! I'm going to hurry up and submit that story.
- idiopathogen, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1Their research subjects are not human. Veterinarians are probably not entirely human either, at least not the ones I know.
- Syphon8, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1Not human doctors.
- scotticus, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Well... today. Digg always manages to find new levels of idiots. - ithildin, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1What are you on about? So you assumed the researchers mentioned in the article are veterinarians because they work with mice?
It's very likely that most (if not all) of them are biologists. - tech42er, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Uh...what? This research is very important. How dare you say veterinarians do more important work than these molecular biologists?
- johndi, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1Veterinarians aren't human? That's the scoop of the Millennium! I'm going to hurry up and submit that story.
- idiopathogen, on 03/08/2008, -6/+1I guess those are all PhD's but veterinarians were involved on the IACUC committee, so ignore the previous comment.
- Higgles, on 03/08/2008, -4/+2Go vets! ^^
- Accolade1, on 03/08/2008, -4/+2This is just another way of saying that microRNA can be used for rat abortions. Those little buggers are too promiscuous anyway.
- DarkTranquility, on 03/08/2008, -1/+8anyone here a genetics major? I think microRNA is very promising but the final frontier is understanding and utilizing RNA interference (RNAi). If the body has an innate immune response to dsRNA, then "forcing" the mechanism to start when other RNA viruses (HIV) enter could really fight it off.
Also an interesting caveat about microRNA is that although it can inhibit gene expression, it has the ability to express gene function as well.- weasler7, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3Yeah, I think people have considered that. However, the problem IMHO is in getting your specific tissues to express the miRNA. Maybe we can get miRNAs to block the HIV virus coat or something. That would be cool.
- jpreall, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3Actually, I'm a PhD student in this field. I'm having a hard time understanding the big deal about this paper, though, except that fact that it's being pushed out by two powerhouse labs, including one nobel laureate. Extremely similar stories, with similar implications, have squeaked by with much less fanfare. This paper is illustrating a new case of a microRNA playing an important role in a few developmental processes. Many other examples of this exist. I think the novelty comes from this being the first targeted deletion of a microRNA gene in a mouse.
- ithildin, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2I agree with you. I wasn't sure what the fuss was about until I read about the miRNA cluster deletion. I'm still not particularly impressed since most of the main points of this story are not really new. I can recognize the difficulty in making the deletion and the value it has but the conclusions made are still not a not a big deal compared with the rest of the literature on the subject. That's my biggest gripe with this field: often finding papers in high impact journals with too much hype over novel content or elegant research.
- Gabberwok, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2Take any papers you read in a "hot" field like microRNA with a big grain of salt. People are focusing on publishing fast and things that turn out to be false upon further investigation are rarely retracted.
- lemonloser, on 03/08/2008, -2/+2yeah dsRNA is not easily allowed into the human body. but it could work
- idiopathogen, on 03/08/2008, -0/+4All forms of gene therapy are promising, it's just nearly impossible to deliver the enzymes or microRNA etc in a stable form to each and every cancer cell in the body. Maybe nano-tech will help make it happen.
- Accolade1, on 03/08/2008, -1/+1"In September 1999, a patient died from a reaction to a gene therapy treatment at the University of Pennsylvania's Institute of Human Gene Therapy in Philadelphia. Jesse Gelsinger, an exuberant 18-year-old from Tucson, Arizona, suffered from a broken gene that causes one of those puzzling metabolic diseases of genetic medicine. An optimistic, altruistic Gelsinger went to Philadelphia to help advance the science that might eventually cure his type of illness. Instead, the experiment killed him."
I have to disagree with you on this one. While gene therapy appears promising, success hasn't been accomplished yet.
http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/2000/500_gene.htm ...- idiopathogen, on 03/08/2008, -0/+4We don't disagree. I'm saying it has not been found how to successfully target the cancer cells specifically with the gene therapy, and for the substance to get into every cell in sufficient quantity to do the job. It may take nano-tech to make that happen. Poor Jesse. I'm sure the researchers learned something anyway.
- Accolade1, on 03/08/2008, -0/+2Thanks for clarifying!
- Terr01, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2I wonder what progress has been made in... oh... eight years since then in a fast moving field?
- Accolade1, on 03/09/2008, -2/+1Show me an instance where gene therapy worked for a human and you have a point. Until then, drink your juice.
- Terr01, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1"Drink your juice?" You're being pretty snooty for someone who is presenting a false dilemma in lieu of sound argument.
Sure, we don't have, say, a national solar grid. However, that doesn't mean the technology hasn't improved in the last eight years.
- Accolade1, on 03/08/2008, -1/+1"In September 1999, a patient died from a reaction to a gene therapy treatment at the University of Pennsylvania's Institute of Human Gene Therapy in Philadelphia. Jesse Gelsinger, an exuberant 18-year-old from Tucson, Arizona, suffered from a broken gene that causes one of those puzzling metabolic diseases of genetic medicine. An optimistic, altruistic Gelsinger went to Philadelphia to help advance the science that might eventually cure his type of illness. Instead, the experiment killed him."
- ithildin, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2There's a way around that. 2'-O-methylated RNA oligos are a good alternative. They are resistant to degradation, can enter the RNAi pathway and since they are not double-stranded, they don't ellicit PKR and the interferon response.
The biggest problem these approaches still face before having a definite therapeutic application is finding a highly efficient and cell-type specific delivery method.
- idiopathogen, on 03/08/2008, -0/+4All forms of gene therapy are promising, it's just nearly impossible to deliver the enzymes or microRNA etc in a stable form to each and every cancer cell in the body. Maybe nano-tech will help make it happen.
- Higgles, on 03/08/2008, -8/+4STOP DIGGING EVERYONE DOWN!
- cmdrtacyo, on 03/09/2008, -5/+2Dugg since the title should be changed to "MIT researchers inspired by Obama demonstrate protective role of microRNA"
- weasler7, on 03/09/2008, -1/+3It's already well known the miRNA's can affect gene expression. This article is interesting because it basically says that we use it as well. Science is cool!
- ithildin, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Pretty much all higher eukaryotes seem to use miRNAs for gene regulation during development. So yeah, that means us too.
- jpreall, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Congratulations, Amanda! I went to undergrad with a co-author on this paper, and we're now in the same field at different schools. I wish my paper had been picked up by digg.
- ithildin, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Why?
- tech42er, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1You'd think it would be nice if a paper was picked up by a site that actually matters to the field. Digg is nice, but a scientific paper could easily start a stupid evolution flamewar.
- mhmdkhamis, on 06/01/2008, -0/+0Dugg since the title should be changed to "MIT researchers inspired by Obama demonstrate protective role of microRNA"
http://vb.paramegsoft.com/
http://ladies.paramegsoft.com/
http://game.paramegsoft.com/ - donna1234, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Snippets of genetic material that have been linked to cancer also play a critical role in normal embryonic development in mice
http://www.e-uuu.com/
http://www.t7000.info/
http://www.t60.info/
http://www.t15.info/
http://www.highpr.net/
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is 