What you eat affects your genes

[Aught3]

This team of researchers at Nanjing University had been studying the miRNAs that circulate in human blood and were surprised to find that some of the miRNAs weren't homegrown but instead came from plants. One of the most common plant miRNAs was from rice, a staple of their Chinese subjects' diets. Intrigued, they confirmed with a variety of tests in mice that the miRNA, which, in its native environs, usually regulates plant development, was definitely coming from food.
When they put the rice miRNA in cells, they found that levels of a receptor that filters out LDL, aka "bad" cholesterol, in the liver went down. As it turned out, the miRNA was binding the receptor's messenger RNA and preventing it from being expressed, sending receptors levels down and bad cholesterol levels up. They saw the same effect when they tried it mice.
Going further, when they fed rice to mice but also gave them a molecule that would turn off the miRNA, the liver receptor bounced back and bad cholesterol levels went down.

Full story on Discover Magazine.

This is so awesome. If you could turn off a specific human gene which one would you pick? How about one that actually has a positive affect on cholesterol rather than this negative one :lol: I can definitely imagine this idea being used in functionalised foods. Unfortunately I can also see the anti-GM crowd spinning this discovery to their advantage.

Science here.

 

[televator]

So it doesn't change your DNA so much as it interacts with it then?

 

[Aught3]

So it doesn't change your DNA so much as it interacts with it then?

Kind of. Micro RNAs (miRNA) interact with messenger RNAs (mRNA) preventing them from producing their encoded protein. The mRNA is like a messenger between DNA and the protein production factory (ribosome) so the micro RNA is basically shooting the messenger and stopping the gene from producing protein.

 

[Case]

I can't really process shitty sentences right now, was the rice miRNA they found a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[Aught3]

I can't really process shitty sentences right now, was the rice miRNA they found a good thing or a bad thing?

rice miRNA caused an increase in circulating LDL, so a bad thing.

 

[jomen112]

What is new is not that a living beings genes is affected by what it eats but what that chemical soup we call nutrients actually contains and how it affect use. However this is not a static property. Life is dynamic and there has always exists an arms race between being eaten and resist being eaten (aka evolution).

 

[jomen112]

rice miRNA caused an increase in circulating LDL, so a bad thing.

Not eating rise cause some people to die. Therefore, not eating rise is a bad thing.

Second point to make here: That rice has that effect is a pure speculation from you based on that a certain molecule interact in a certain way with certain cells under certain condition, i.e. under controlled lab conditions. This does not imply that rice has this effect when one eat rise under normal conditions.

 

[Dean]

Aught3 -- of GMOs, etc:

[. . .] I can also see the anti-GM crowd spinning this discovery to their advantage. [. . .]

It would fail to surprise me. -- see here. In this episode of BBC Horizon's "Science Under Attack", Paul Nurse attempts to tackle the almost flagrant pseudoscientific doctrines that have arisen in the public sphere surrounding contentious subjects of scientific and academic relevance, and in the segment above linked, Anti-GM Activists. It appears that there is a strange and erratic disconnect between The Sciences and the general-public on such matters, as I have payed close attention to in the last few years. Makes me wonder if it is perhaps a byproduct of some sort of surreal cultural indoctrination. Really. It is like a religion. :shock:

I have my contentions about Genetically Modified Organisms myself. Nonetheless, there seems to be a significant - not to be elitist - educational gap in the public on such matters, as this documentary beautifully illustrates. For instance: according to Paul Nurse; one of the most common objections put to him in regards to the concept of genetic engineering and bio-technology was that they were against eating substances with genes in them - whatever that means - even though all multicellular life has genes, and hence genes are in all of the foods that we habitually consume. It seems utterly bewildering that these activists could have missed such a glaringly obvious point, as they were some of the people interviewed, apparently., especially given their nearly monomaniacal fetish with the subject, one would expect them to have a significant understanding of the subject they so ardently criticize. It doesn't seem so, though, based on this information.

Oh, and on a related note -- in the program, Nurse also deals with the pseudo-science and paranoia propagated by James Delingpole (a world-known "Global Warming Skeptic"), AIDS Denialists, and others. Not directly relevant, but I just considered that it may have been appropriate in discussion of issues that could potentially spark controversy in such crowds as those you describe. And most certainly worth a look. I have little doubt that political debates could arise on a far grander scale in the upcoming decades, as these discoveries begin to progress as a science. It promises to be a highly interesting and inspiring discourse, in the not too distant future. :!:

 

[jomen112]

one of the most common objections put .... was that they were against eating substances with genes in them

They would be better of to live their life as bacterias then. :-D


Seriously did they really say genes or did they mean modified genes?

 

[Dean]

[. . .]Seriously did they really say genes[?] [. . .]

Yes, they did. As if to imply that genes are not a biological phenomena, as we know them to be.

I was also surprised to find that this outlandish misassumption seems to be rather prevalent, even among people who I know well. Upon telling a close friend about this, he responded in telling me something along the lines of "Sure. That's right, isn't it?" And I must say, my jaw simply dropped. It wasn't until I asked him where he thought his food came from (cows, pigs, cattle, vegetables, fruits, etc.) And then stated the rather abundantly obvious point that these organisms have genes, and the food that comes from them has genes as well.

These misconceptions seem to be gaining currency...

 

[jomen112]

[. . .]Seriously did they really say genes[?] [. . .]

Yes, they did. As if to imply that genes are not a biological phenomena, as we know them to be.

Odd... one may had thought people would know better. But illiteracy does not amazes me any more. I once asked a guy how much genetic alike he would estimated man and chimpanzee respectively man and pig would be. For chimpanzee he guestimated 50% and pig even less. I think he said 30% or so. He judged genetic differences on morphological difference and then extrapolated this to genetic differences. He is not unique in this, most that are ignorant about genetics thinks like this.