Page 37 of 111

salt linked to autoimmune disease

salt shaker

Salt has been linked to the production of TH17 cells by the immune system.

Yesterday, Nature published three research papers announcing that researchers have found a link to salt intake and autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis and lupus. In two of the papers, researchers were studying how TH17 cells in the immune system get switched on. These cells are a type of helper T cell that produces an inflammatory protein called interleukin-17 as part of the immune response. While looking for different triggers, the researchers discovered that TH17 activation was linked to the production of a protein called serum glucocorticoid kinase 1, or SGK1, that helps maintain salt levels in other cells. The researchers then saw that mice on a high salt diet had higher levels of SGK1 and more TH17 cells. From Scientific American:

The researchers found that mouse cells cultured in high-salt conditions had higher SGK1 expression and produced more TH17 cells than those grown in normal conditions.

“If you incrementally increase salt, you get generation after generation of these TH17 cells,” says study co-author Vijay Kuchroo, an immunologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.

The research was then confirmed using a mouse model for multiple scelerosis and in vitro human cell culture. Again from Scientific American:

In the third study, researchers confirmed Kuchroo’s findings, in mouse and human cells. It was “an easy experiment — you just add salt”, says David Hafler, a neurologist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, who led the research.

But could salt change the course of autoimmune disease? Both Kuchroo and Hafler found that in a mouse model of multiple sclerosis, a high-salt diet accelerated the disease’s progression.

All this evidence, Kuchroo says, “is building a very interesting hypothesis [that] salt may be one of the environmental triggers of autoimmunity”.

Whether this holds true in vivo for humans remains to be seen. It’s hard to generalize from in vitro cell culture as the immune system is highly regulated and that regulation can’t be simulated in a culture dish. And as I mentioned earlier this week, in many cases mouse models aren’t always good predictors for human systems.

breath test for stomach cancer

Cancer breathalyzer

A breath test for cancer.

Researchers are reporting a new test for gastric cancer in the British Journal of Cancer (Abstract is free, subscription required for full article). In the study the researchers looked at 130 patients with different gastric conditions. Of the patients 37 had gastric cancer, 32 had ulcers and 61 had less serious complaints. As it turns out, the cancer causes an identify chemical identifier.  Patients diagnosed with cancer produced elevated levels of the following volatile organic compounds: 2-propenenitrile, 2-butoxy-ethanol, furfural, 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one and isoprene. These levels can be detected by gas chromatography, but the researchers developed a special nanoparticle sensor that could detect these compounds at the parts per billion level. This study seems to bolster previous research where dogs were able to identify cancer patients with ~71% accuracy based on breath samples. It is also supported by a study where lung cancer was detected using a breathalyzer type test. But, since this was a small study these results will have to be confirmed using a larger sample.

mice are not good models for human inflammation

lab mouse

Lab mice might not be good models for humans in pharmacological studies

Mice are often used in biology to study pharmacological phenomena before studying a drug’s effects in humans. A paper recently published in PNAS suggests that mice might not be good models for human systems – at least when it comes to inflammation pathways.

In the paper, The Inflammation and Host Response to Injury, Large Scale Collaborative Research Program analyzed data sets from several studies. In these studies, researchers looked at gene expression after events that lead to inflammation like blunt trauma or burns. They compared the genes expressed in humans after such events to the gene expression of their analogues in mice. They found that there was very little correlation in the genes that a mouse expressed during inflammation and when compared to a human.

Also, when they compared the expression rates, they saw that both mice and humans saw the change in expression responded within the first 6 hours. But the time it took for expression to returned to normal lasted up to a year in humans, but only up to a week in mice.

The authors point out that many of the clinical trials based on mice studies fail. And none of the 150 treatments in clinical trials for inflammatory ailments has been successful.

For more information check out the original research by Junhee Seok et al. at PNAS.

//reerastalomauz.net/4/4535925