Archive for the ‘Health’ Category

Fine-tuning an anti-cancer drug

Tuesday, August 18th, 2009

Salinosporamide ACancer remains a deadly threat despite the best efforts of science. New hopes were raised a few years ago with the discovery that the uncontrolled growth of cancer cells could be thwarted by blocking the action of proteasomes. Biochemists at the Technische Universitaet Muenchen (TUM) have illuminated a reaction pathway that does just that, in collaboration with researchers from Nereus Pharmaceuticals, based in San Diego, California. In the current issue of the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, they report insights that could potentially lead to the development of custom-tailored anti-cancer drugs.

What makes cancer cells so dangerous is that they proliferate much more rapidly than other cells. An important contribution to this capability is made by a particular group of proteins, the so-called kinases. And it’s against the kinases that many cancer drugs in development today take aim. Another promising approach came to light a few years ago with the discovery that the proliferation of cancer cells could also be arrested through proteasome inhibition. Yet the first drug to employ this strategy caused a number of severe side-effects. Despite that, the drug is expected to generate revenues of more than a billion U.S. dollars this year.

In the search for alternatives, San Diego-based Nereus Pharmaceuticals homed in on a species of marine bacteria known as Salinispora tropica. These bacteria produce a small molecule that kills affected cells by disabling proteasomes, which serve as their waste processing plants. “In the life cycle of a cell, proteins are always being built up that will need to be demolished after they have done their work,” explains TUM Professor Michael Groll, leader of the research team in Munich. “If this breakdown is blocked, the cells choke on their own waste.”

After promising preclinical trials, the bacteria-produced Salinosporamide A (NPI-0052; Sal-A) has advanced into human clinical trials. “Over millions of years, the bacteria developed this substance into a perfect weapon,” says Dr. Barbara Potts, vice president for chemical and oncological development at Nereus Pharmaceuticals. The ideal cancer drug would kill only cancer cells, while doing the least harm possible to healthy cells. The researchers took a closer look at the pathway for this reaction, in the hope that they might better understand the mechanism and the best approach to future generation analogues.

 The research team of Barbara Potts and Michael Groll managed to produce crystals of proteasomes blocked by Salinosporamide A and determined, through X-ray crystallography, the precise arrangement of the atoms. It became clear why the bacterial poison is so effective:  The molecule fits an opening in the proteasome like a key, and locks it up. A subsequent reaction transforms the molecule to a complex that can no longer be detached, in effect breaking off the key in the lock. Vital processes come to a halt.

Halogen-hydrocarbons are favored in industrial chemistry, because the halogen atom can be easily separated from other groups. It’s just this trick that the Salinispora tropica bacterium employs in the case of Salinosporamide A. It uses a chloride as its so-called “leaving group” to trigger an internal reaction forming a ring-like bond. If the ring is closed, the lock is jammed.

The researchers next produced variants of Salinosporamide A and once again succeeded in crystallizing them and using X-ray techniques for structural analysis. By replacing the chlorine atom with fluorine, they were able to observe the progress of the reaction. After the key had been stuck in the lock for one hour of reaction time, the biochemists were still able to pull it out again. A few hours later, the fluorine was split off, and the lock was blocked.

“After the millions of years that have gone into the evolutionary development of this method in bacteria, it’s unlikely that a better way to block the proteasome is even possible,” Groll says. “Now that we know how the best possible reaction proceeds, we can alter it in targeted ways with the aim of developing tailored proteasomal drugs that will have improved safety and efficacy.”

http://portal.mytum.de/pressestelle/pressemitteilungen/news_article.2009-08-18.7471475400

M2, A Protein In The Flu Virus, Damages A Protein Responsible For Clearing Fluid From The Lungs

Monday, July 20th, 2009

M2, A Protein In The Flu VirusA protein in influenza virus that helps it multiply also damages lung epithelial cells, causing fluid buildup in the lungs, according to new research from the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and Southern Research Institute. Publishing online the week of July 13 in the journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, the researchers say the findings give new insight into how flu attacks the lungs and provides targets for new treatments.

In severe cases of flu, fluid accumulates in the lungs, making it difficult to breathe and preventing oxygen from reaching the blood stream. The researchers report that M2, a protein in the flu virus, damages a protein responsible for clearing fluid from the lungs by increasing the amount of oxidants, or free radicals, within the cells. Oxidants are necessary for proper cell function, but can become toxic if uncontrolled.

“Under normal conditions, oxidants play an important role, as they destroy pathogens in cells. But our findings suggest that lowering the number of oxidants, or preventing their increase, would prevent damage to the lungs resulting from the M2 protein,” said Sadis Matalon, Ph.D., vice chairman for research and professor of anesthesiology at UAB and principal investigator of the study.

The researchers say the recent outbreak of H1N1 influenza and the rapid spread of this strain across the world highlight both the need to better understand how the virus damages the lungs and the urgency to find new treatments. Influenza is a contagious disease leading to about 36,000 human deaths and 200,000 hospitalizations every year in the United States alone.

Matalon, along with co-investigators Ahmed Lazrak, Ph.D., and Karen E. Iles, Ph.D., from the Department of Anesthesiology at UAB, and James W. Noah, Ph.D., and Diana L. Noah, Ph.D., of Southern Research, injected frog eggs with M2 protein and the lung protein involved with fluid removal. Using molecular biology techniques, they removed part of the flu protein until they could isolate the segment responsible for the lung injury.

“We found that when the flu protein was shortened in length, it did not damage the lung protein responsible for removing fluid from the lungs,” said Diana Noah. “This is important information as it will enable us to design drugs that will hopefully prevent this M2 flu protein from functioning properly, making it possible for those infected with the flu to recover faster.”

Another set of experiments involved injecting intact flu proteins and their target lung proteins into frog eggs along with agents that remove oxidants.  The findings of the study show that following this procedure the lung proteins were no longer damaged by the flu viruses.

The team then repeated the experiments in cells from human lungs and found the same results. “We were able to understand the basic mechanisms by which the flu damages key components of the lungs in a simple system, such as the frog eggs, and then confirm these findings in human lung cells,” said Matalon.

The researchers are hesitant to say that these results indicate a simple antioxidant, such as vitamin C, can prevent or minimize flu. “The issue is too complex and we simply can’t answer that yet,” said James Noah. “Vaccination is our leading defense against flu and we have anti-viral drugs that are effective in some cases, but flu viruses show a remarkable ability to mutate, rendering vaccines and drugs less effective. Having a new target for potential interventions opens up an entirely new approach to combating influenza.”

Funding came from the National Heart, Blood and Lung Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, parts of the National Institutes of Health, and the UAB Department of Anesthesiology.

Source: University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Which Facial Features Our Brain Examines To Identify Faces?

Monday, July 20th, 2009

Facial FeaturesA study by the University of Barcelona (UB) has analysed which facial features our brain examines to identify faces. Our brain adapts in order to obtain the maximum amount of information possible from each face and according to the study the key data for identification come from, in the first place, the eyes and then the shape of the mouth and nose.

The objective of this study, undertaken by researcher Matthias S. Keil from the Basic Psychology Department of the UB and published in the prestigious US journal PLOS Computational Biology, was to ascertain which specific features the brain focuses on to identify a face. It has been known for years that the brain primarily uses low spatial frequencies to recognise faces. “Spatial frequencies” are, in a manner of speaking, the elements that make up any given image.

As Keil confirmed to SINC, “low frequencies pertain to low resolution, that is, small changes of intensity in an image. In contrast, high frequencies represent the details in an image. If we move away from an image, we perceive increasingly less details, that is, the high spatial frequency components, while low frequencies remain visible and are the last to disappear.”

As a result of the psychophysical research carried out prior to the publication of this study, it was known that the human brain was not interested in very high frequencies when identifying faces, despite such frequencies playing a significant role in, for example, determining a person’s age. “In order to identify a face in an image, the brain always processes information with the same low resolution, of about 30 by 30 pixels from ear to ear, ignoring distance and the original resolution of the image,” Keil says. “Until now, nobody had been able to explain this peculiar phenomenon and that was my starting point”.

What Matthias S. Keil did was to analyse a large number of faces, namely those belonging to 868 women and 868 men. “The idea was to find common statistical regularities in the images.” Keil used a model of the brain’s visual system, that is, “I looked at the images to certain extent like the brain does, but with one difference: I had no preferred resolution, but considered all spatial frequencies as equal. As a result of this analysis, I obtained a resolution that is optimum in terms of encoding, as well as the signal-to-noise ratio, and was also the same resolution observed in the psychophysical experiments”.

This result therefore suggests that faces are themselves responsible for our resolution preference. This led Keil to one of the brain’s properties: “The brain has adapted optimally to draw the most useful information from faces in order to identify them. My model also predicts this resolution if we take into account the eyes alone – ignoring the nose and the mouth – but also by considering the mouth or nose separately, albeit less reliable.”

Therefore, the brain extracts key information for facial identification primarily from the eyes, while the mouth and the nose are secondary, according to the study. According to Keil, if we take a photo of a friend as an example, one might think that every feature of the face is important to identify the person. However, numerous experiments have demonstrated that the brain prefers a coarse resolution, regardless of the distance between the face and the beholder. Until now, the reason for this was unclear. The analysis of the pictures of 868 men and 868 women in this study could help to explain this.

The results obtained by Kiel indicate that the most useful information is drawn from the images if they are around 30 by 30 pixels in size. “Furthermore, the pictures of the eyes provide the least ‘noisiest’ result, which means that they transmit more reliable information to the brain than the pictures of the mouth and the nose,” the researcher said. This suggests that the brain’s facial identification mechanisms are specialised in eyes.

This research complements a previous study published by Keil in PLoS ONE, which already advanced that artificial face identification systems obtain better results when they process small pictures of faces, which means that they could behave in this sense like humans.

Source: Plataforma SINC

Dishonesty involves activity in control-related brain networks

Wednesday, July 15th, 2009
brainA new study of the cognitive processes involved with honesty suggests that truthfulness depends more on absence of temptation than active resistance to temptation.

Using neuroimaging, psychologists looked at the brain activity of people given the chance to gain money dishonestly by lying and found that honest people showed no additional neural activity when telling the truth, implying that extra cognitive processes were not necessary to choose honesty. However, those individuals who behaved dishonestly, even when telling the truth, showed additional activity in brain regions that involve control and attention.

The study is published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and was led by Joshua D. Greene, assistant professor of psychology in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University, along with Joe Paxton, a graduate student in psychology.

“Being honest is not so much a matter of exercising willpower as it is being dis-posed to behave honestly in a more effortless kind of way,” says Greene. “This may not be true for all situations, but it seems to be true for at least this situation.”

The research was designed to test two theories about the nature of honesty – the “will” theory, in which honesty results from the active resistance of temptation, and the “grace” theory, in which honesty is a product of lack of temptation. The results of this study suggest that the “grace” theory is true, because the honest participants did not show any additional neural activity when telling the truth.

To prompt participants to lie, the researchers created a cover story about the focus of their study. The research was presented as a study of paranormal ability to predict the future. Participants were asked to predict the outcomes of a series of coin tosses, and were told that the researchers believed predicting the future was more likely when given a monetary incentive and when the prediction wasn’t shared in advance of the outcome. This gave the participants the opportunity to lie to win the money by saying that they had correctly predicted the coin toss.

The researchers assessed the honesty of the individuals based on whether their number of correct responses was statistically feasible. Individuals who reported improbably high levels of accuracy were classified as dishonest, and participants reporting statistically feasible levels of accuracy were classified as honest.  The researchers emphasize that the labels “honest” and “dishonest” describe only these individuals’ behavior in the experiment and need not characterize their behavior more generally.

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), Greene found that the honest individuals displayed little to no additional brain activity when reporting their prediction of the coin toss. However, the dishonest participants’ brains were most active in control-related brain regions when they chose not to lie. These control-related brain regions include the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex, and previous research has shown that these regions are active when an individual is asked to lie.

While previous research has examined the brain activity of subjects who are told to lie for the purpose of a study, this is the first study to examine brain activity of people tell-ing actual lies.
This study is also the first to examine instances of truth-telling among individuals who were otherwise dishonest, and the neural activity present when they chose whether or not to lie. Greene notes that there was an important distinction between the brain activity when the honest participants told the truth, and when the dishonest participants told the truth.

“When the honest people leave money on the table, you don’t see anything special or extra going on in their brains at all,” says Greene. “Whereas, when the dishonest people leave money on the table, that’s when you saw the most robust control network activation.”

If neuroscience is able to identify lies by peering into the brain of the liar, it will be important to distinguish between activity in the brain when lying and activity caused by the temptation to lie. Greene says that eventually it may be possible to detect lies by looking at someone’s brain activity, although a lot more work must be done before this is possible.

The research was funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the National Science Foundation, and the Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging.

Amy Lavoie
Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Harvard College

Schizophrenia linked to chromosome region

Saturday, July 11th, 2009

Scientists at Stanford University School of Medicine have played a major role in an international effort that has shown, for the first time, that modern genetic technologies can solve the riddle of how gene variations lead to schizophrenia.

schizophrenia

Researchers at Stanford and 14 other institutions carried out a study of common DNA variations throughout the genome, and then combined forces with two independent studies to complete a pooled analysis of 27,000 individuals. The largest genetic differences between the study participants with and without schizophrenia were found on a stretch of chromosome 6 containing numerous genes associated with immune response (and some with other roles). This raises the possibility that immune function plays a role in schizophrenia.

Stanford’s Jianxin Shi, PhD, and Douglas Levinson, MD, are first and second authors of one of three linked papers published online together in Nature on July 1. Their paper reports on the Molecular Genetics of Schizophrenia Project. This undertaking implicated a region of the human genome not previously suspected as a risk factor for schizophrenia. That finding was bolstered by another of the simultaneously published papers, which showed an even stronger association when the number of subjects was increased to almost 48,000, and identified significant association in two additional genes. The third paper shows that there are likely to be many common gene variations, perhaps hundreds or more, that have small effects in the risk of schizophrenia.

Taken together, “the papers present the first highly significant findings of gene regions associated with schizophrenia risk,” said Levinson, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, director of that department’s Program on the Genetics of Brain Function, and the Walter E. Nichols, MD, Professor in the School of Medicine.

It is already known that schizophrenia — which strikes close to one in every 100 people — has a very strong genetic component, probably accounting for at least 80 percent of risk for this disease. However, unlike sickle-cell anemia or Huntington’s disease, in which a defect at a single genetic location is responsible, most cases of schizophrenia are believed to involve interactions among a multitude of genes, with a variant of any single gene contributing only a tiny bit to a person’s risk.

“That makes it hard to tease out, in a statistically significant way, any of these schizophrenia-associated genes,” said Levinson. But it is feasible with very large numbers of subjects, he said. Finding genes involved in a multigenic trait can, at least in theory, be accomplished by means of so-called genome-wide association studies, in which DNA variations are measured in two large groups of people, one with a common pathology and the other without it.

To achieve the needed sample size, data from three independent studies were pooled and analyzed in a special way that corrected for differences in how those disparate studies were designed and run. Such a methodology is called a meta-analysis. Shi, a research scientist in Levinson’s laboratory, designed and performed the meta-analysis on the resulting pooled-subject group, some 8,000 individuals with schizophrenia and 19,000 normal controls of European ancestry. (Restricting the study population to people of similar ancestry excludes numerous non-disease-related genetic differences that would otherwise be observed, Shi said.)

In 1999, when Levinson and Shi’s study began, genomic technologies were nowhere near as advanced as they are today. But the recent hybridization of Silicon Valley-style microelectronics with biotechnology-bred DNA assay techniques has resulted in powerful new microarrays capable of scanning entire genomes for tiny variations called “single base-pair polymorphisms,” or SNPs.

A DNA base pair is effectively the genome’s smallest possible accounting unit — the penny, as it were, of genetic variation. As a simplified analogy, think of your genetic inheritance as a stack of 3 billion pennies, with each coin bearing one of four mint marks. If you set two such stacks (representing two individuals’ genomes) side by side and compare two adjacent pennies’ mint marks at any given height, they’ll usually be the same. We’re all descendants of a common ancestor, so the similarities in our genomic sequences shouldn’t surprise anyone.

But evolution happens. Every few hundred “pennies” or so, you will observe a divergence, or SNP — one chemical “mint mark” on this genome, another on that one. With the human genome being so huge, this comes to something like 10 million SNPs, of which about a million occur with frequencies of at least 5 percent.

Using commercially available “SNP chips” designed to detect those more-common variants, the investigators looked for differences between the DNA of people with schizophrenia versus the DNA of those without the disease. The scientists required that such differences achieve “genome-wide statistical significance.” Here’s why: If you flip a million coins, one at a time, you’re going to see all kinds of seemingly miraculous events — say, 15 heads in a row — that may seem significant but are typical when you toss even a perfectly balanced coin so many times.

Shi’s job was to devise analytical techniques to determine whether the “finding” of a SNP’s greater likelihood among schizophrenics was real or spurious. The genomic region on chromosome 6 survived this rigorous statistical test.

“These findings show that our genetic methods are working, and that the genetic underpinnings of schizophrenia can be understood,” said Levinson. “Similar methods have produced critical new discoveries in many other common diseases, once very large numbers of people could be studied. Now we see that the same approach works for psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia.”

Pablo Gejman, MD, of Northwestern University was the senior author of the paper. Stanford co-author Alice Whittemore, PhD, professor of health research and policy, consulted on the study’s meta-analytic methodology. The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and by the National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression.

By Bruce Goldman

3rd Mediterranean Conference on Neuroscience

Monday, May 4th, 2009

Event date: 13-16 December 2009
Location: Alexandria, Egypt
Organizer: Alexandria University Faculty of Science
Topic: Neuroscience

 

 

Call for Symposia for the 3rd Mediterranean Conference of Neuroscience organized by the Zoology Department, Faculty of Science, Alexandria University, EGYPT. It will be held on the 13-16 of December 2009 and welcomed by Bibliotheca Alexandrina.

 

 

 More information about the event

What Is HDL Cholesterol?

Thursday, April 16th, 2009

HDL CholesterolHDL is the protein package that carries 20% to 30% of the cholesterol in most people’s blood. Unlike LDL packages, which are loaded with cholesterol, HDL packages contain mostly protein. HDL is known as good cholesterol because it acts as your body’s garbage collector for cholesterol. Here’s how.

* HDL removes excess cholesterol from your blood and returns it to your liver.
* Your liver converts the excess into bile acids.
* Bile acids remove more cholesterol from your body by helping cholesterol dissolve in bile.
* When bile acids and bile pass out of your body as part of your digestion of food, the cholesterol passes out, too.

You may be able to remember the HDL is the good cholesterol by thinking of it as highly desirable, which begins with the letters HD. Another way to recall that you want a lot of HDL is to remember that the H stands for “higher” – as in, “the higher the better.”

The higher your HDL cholesterol level, the lower your risk for developing heart disease. If your HDL level is low, your doctor may consider your cholesterol profile unhealthy. This can be true if your total cholesterol and LDL levels are in the healthy range. Typically, experts consider an HDL level of 40 mg/dL or more to be desirable. Having an HDL of 60 mg/dl or higher is considered to help protect you from heart disease. Before menopause, women’s estrogen levels help them maintain higher HDL levels than men usually maintain. So some doctors suggest that an HDL of 45 or more is desirable for women who have not yet gone through menopause.

Some heart experts believe HDL removes cholesterol from plaque that has already formed in your arteries. This means that a high level of HDL could help slow the growth of plaque. If your HDL is low, you can work with your healthcare team to raise it.

Defibrillators may have little benefit for older, sicker patients

Sunday, March 15th, 2009

Defibrillators are commonly recommended to patients with heart failure to prevent sudden cardiac death, but beyond having heart failure, there is a lack of criteria to identify the appropriate patients for this therapy.

Researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) found that older people with comorbidities and those with multiple hospital admissions related to heart failure are unlikely to receive a meaningful survival benefit from implanted defibrillators. These findings appear in the March 17 issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

Even if all out-of-hospital cardiac deaths were prevented by implanted defibrillators, the researchers found that survival was significantly lower in patients who were repeatedly hospitalized for heart failure. Similarly, survival was poor for older patients with comorbidities, such as cancer, dementia, and kidney disease. However, patients under 65 years of age and older patients without kidney disease, cancer, or dementia would be most likely to benefit from defibrillators to prevent sudden death. 

Defibrillators

Defibrillators

“Previous trials show significant benefits of defibrillators in patients with heart failure, but the study populations typically exclude elderly patients and those with comorbidities,” said Soko Setoguchi, of the department of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH).

However, information from the U.S. National Cardiovascular Data Registry from 2006 through 2007 indicates that defibrillators are frequently implanted in patients with comorbidities, and 61 percent of implanted defibrillators go to people aged 65 or older.

The study looked at more than 14,000 patients admitted to a hospital for heart failure from an administrative database. The average age of the group was 77 years, and patients had a high prevalence of comorbidities such as other cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic pulmonary disease, and kidney disease. Researchers tracked the patients, recording the number of hospital admissions due to heart failure, the development of comorbidities, and the cause of death, when appropriate. 

“Patients at extremely high risk of death, including patients with prior heart failure hospitalizations and chronic disease, have such a high risk of all-cause death that even if the potentially treatable sudden cardiac deaths were prevented, the overall risk of death would remain prohibitively high,” notes Setoguchi. 

Source: Harvard College

10 Ways to Avoid the Flu

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009
the FluFlu prevention is an important thing to consider when you’re trying to stay healthy – especially during flu season. Common sense tells us that flu prevention should be easy as 1-2-3. So how can you prevent the flu? Read on for 10 great flu prevention tips.

1. Get a flu shot, particularly if you are 50 or over or have a chronic illness.
In addition, consider a flu shot if you are in regular contact with many people, especially if you live in a dormitory or work in an open-plan office, where hundreds of people are coughing and sneezing in a common area.

2. Discuss with your pediatrician whether to immunize your youngsters in daycare. One recent study found that families whose children in daycare were immunized had 42% fewer infections with fever than those whose children weren’t immunized.

3. Wash your hands frequently and thoroughly. A quick rinse won’t do the trick. To kill germs, communicative disease experts recommend washing with soap for 15 to 30 seconds-about as long as it takes to hum a rollicking verse of “Yankee Doodle Dandy.”

4. Keep your hands away from your face to reduce the chance of delivering viruses directly to your eyes or nose. One study found that people typically touched their face fifteen times in an hour.

5. Make certain you’re getting your RDA for vitamin E and other antioxidants including A, C and B-complex vitamins and minerals. These have properties that enhance immune response. Studies on older mice have shown that those with reduced levels of vitamin E were more susceptible to flu infection.

6. Don’t smoke. Smoke paralyzes the cilia, the hairlike cells lining the nose and airways that sweep incoming viruses away before they can infect.

7. Use tissues, not cloth handkerchiefs, to reduce spread of infection.

8. Reduce stress. Research has shown that immune responses are compromised by stress.

9. Get seven to nine hours of sleep a night. Chronic sleep deprivation can reduce your immune response.

10. Reduce alcohol consumption. Chronic heavy drinkers suffer from more colds and flu-and their complications-than others do, and even regular moderate use of alcohol can compromise immune response.

New prenatal test for Down syndrome less risky than amniocentesis

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

Down syndromePregnant women worried about their babies’ genetic health face a tough decision: get prenatal gene testing and risk miscarriage, or skip the tests and miss the chance to learn of genetic defects before birth.

But a new prenatal test could make this dilemma obsolete. The new method, developed by scientists at Stanford University, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, requires only a maternal blood sample to spot chromosomal disorders such as Down syndrome.

“Right now, people are risking their pregnancies to get this information,” said Yair Blumenfeld, MD, a postdoctoral medical fellow in obstetrics and gynecology and co-author of a paper describing the technique. Current prenatal gene tests, such as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling, require inserting a needle in the uterus and carry a miscarriage risk of around half a percent.

“Non-invasive testing will be much safer than current approaches,” said Stephen Quake, PhD, professor of bioengineering and the study’s senior author. The new technique, which takes advantage of fragments of fetal DNA in the woman’s blood, published online the week of Oct. 6 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Safety may not be the only gain.

Quake hopes the test will spot genetic problems much earlier in gestation than the other methods.

The new method scans for fetal aneuploidy, an abnormality in the number of fetal chromosomes. Humans typically inherit 46 chromosomes, half from each parent. Errors in chromosome number cause serious problems in physical and mental development. Down syndrome, for example, arises from an extra copy of chromosome 21.

The Stanford/Packard team developed a way to count chromosomes using bits of fetal DNA in a pregnant woman’s blood. Other scientists had struggled to tease these tiny genetic clues apart from a mom’s DNA, said Quake, who is also an HHMI investigator. His team made an ingenious simplification: their new method has no need to distinguish between maternal and fetal DNA.

First, using samples from 12 women with aneuploid pregnancies and six with normal pregnancies, the researchers separated maternal blood into cells and plasma. They discarded the blood cells, focusing on the liquid plasma’s DNA fragments, which come from both the mom and the fetus. They counted the number of DNA fragments and used DNA sequencing to read each one.

“You randomly sequence whatever is there,” explained Christina Fan, a doctoral student in bioengineering who was the study’s lead author. The DNA fragments are 25-30 base pairs long, she said, long enough to match each fragment to a specific chromosome. The researchers tallied how many gene fragments originated from each chromosome. Women with Down syndrome pregnancies had more chromosome-21 fragments in their blood than women with normal pregnancies. Other forms of aneuploidy could be detected, too.

Because fetal DNA shows up in maternal blood quite early in pregnancy, the team says their technique could provide a much earlier diagnosis for fetal aneuploidy than is now available.

“The earlier you know you’ve got a fetus with Down syndrome, the better able you are to prepare,” Quake said, noting that the benefit holds both for women who keep and those who terminate such pregnancies.

The next step, the scientists say, is to repeat their study in a larger number of women. If their technique holds up in further research, they expect that it would be simple and inexpensive to use in clinical settings, especially as other forms of genetic testing also become popular. Quake expects it will take the new test two to three years to reach the clinic, assuming that the larger trial is successful.

“This technique is on the leading edge of a flood of different ways that rapid DNA sequencing will be used in medicine,” Quake said.

Stanford is filing a patent application for the new technique, and Quake consults for two potential licensees. In addition to Fan and Blumenfeld, Quake’s team included Usha Chitkara, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford and Packard Children’s, and Louanne Hudgins, MD, director of perinatal genetics at Packard Children’s and professor of pediatrics. The study was funded by the Wallace H. Coulter Foundation and the NIH Director’s Pioneer Award.

By Erin Digitale